Woodsman

If your not in a big rush your local UAP/NAPA store can order in most parts at a reasonable price.

Ask to see the marine cataloge.

Delivery can be 3 days to 3 weeks.

Sounds like a memorable day.

As for using equipment you made I agree it's a joy.

I have not made rods but a lot of my homemade gear is for icefishing. When you made it, it just adds an other dimension to the experience.

Best Wishes: Rick

No problem being proud of your son & keeping pic's like this. Actually almost expected.

The difference between the two is one is a newspaper article and the other a direct advertizement.

Just hoping he didn't get taken advantage of. If he has not signed a waiver he could be due a good settlement.

Did he get paid for his image or just shafted by someone out to make a buck or many thousands?

So prior to and following the owners termination of the agreement, did they sit around doing nothing, or did they offer a new agreement which the players refused?

Owners can not offer an agreement. By definition an agreement is agreed upon by both sides.

Owners can forward a proposal for agreement or as in this case an ultimatum.

Bargaining in good faith is one thing. It's my way or the highway is completely something else.

As for us agreeing, I agree with you on that.

Knowing Bettman, and I loathe that little creature, there was no clause providing an extension past expiration for negotiating.... Just doesn't seem his style, you know?

And you'd be wrong.

Just looked up the contract on the net.

Players had the option to opt out on 15 Sep 2009 with proper notice. This they did not do.

Contract ended 15 Sep 2011 with the players having the option to extend it until 15 Sep 2012. This they did.

Contact remains in effect year to year thereafter unless either party delivers a written notice of termination with the proper notice. This the owners did.

It should be obvious who stopped the season.

See Article 3 - 2005 NHL/NHLPA Collective Agreement

Regarding the semantics of a strike versus a "lockout".

 

If you make a decision to refuse an offer, which you knowingly understand to precipitate a subsequent refusal of employment, did you not refuse employment?

Not at all.

Although I have not seen the actual contract the was in use before the lock out I have seen many in the past.

Every contract I've ever seen included a clause to the effect of "after the expiration date of this contract it will remain in effect unless either party notifies the other of their intention to cancel the existing contract".

This is what the NHL owners have done.

The players were abiding by their existing contract so in no why did they refuse to work.

The owners chose to stop the work (season).

Our national debt is a fact which costs us big interest. This I agree with.

The EI fund is not part of our national debt though and it's surpluses have been siphoned off in the past to service the national debt.

The state of things right now, you aren't banking money to be paid back to you.... Just like your pension. You're paying for people who need benefits NOW.... Actually, youre paying the interest on the debt of the money being given to those who need EI now.

 

Don't believe for a second there a bank account with your name on it containing you EI and pension payments, ready and waiting.

Actually there is a separate EI fund which is in access of what is being paid out on EI claims. It is not a fund in individuals names but like any insurance a large fund of the whole which pays out the claims.

The government has been known in the past to raid this fund for other reasons when the surplus gets larger.

There is no interest being charged on the the money due to lack of funds.

The players made the decision to halt the season.

You must be wearing one heck of a set of blinders to have such a narrow view of the situation.

seriously though, i don't think anyone has really thought about the rest of the people involved with the game that will be effected by the strike. anyone have some numbers on how many people in the "other" category are going to be jobless due to the strike?

Again not letting the facts confuse your point.

Why call it a strike when it is a lockout?

A big difference due to who made the decision to halt the season.

The taxpayers Roy....same people who will be paying for EI for the zamboni driver, arena ushers, concessions stand workers....

Gee I was under the impression that EI was paid out of the EI fund which is paid into by both the workers & employers.

If the taxpayers are paying the benefits I'll have to find out why I'm paying almost $15 a week (plus my employers contribution goes there also) to a fund that's not used.

But just to use the current pay scales....

6 months as a corporal in the reservers, 2 weekends plus a half day for fridays, 4 half days per month at 129 per day comes out to... 903 per month, for 6 months... is

$5418.00

 

Now add 4622 per month a for 6 months at reg force pay... thats 27.7k plus the 5418 thats 33,150 for the year, plus danger and seperation pay. I believe in afghanistan a corp was getting about 1,900 in danger pay per month. Added to that it used to be about 11 dollar per day for seperation pay.. thats 1980 for 6 months.. so thats an additional $13,380 dollars in danger and separatation for a 6 month tour.

However we both know they won't be away for 6 months, maybe 5 months of that, but use the full 6 months anyway...

 

So 33.1k plus 13.4 is about 46k per year, for a reservist corporal, that has a 6 month tour in an actual danger zone. Far from 60k per year as you suggest. Yes you are granted an extra 6k or so in tax free income, but at that tax bracket it doesn't amount to a whole lot.

I guess letting the facts not confuse your point is not a strong point for you.

Your first big mistake is the work up training is 9 - 12 months full time at full time pay plus the 6-10 month tour. No reservist leaves their reserve unit to proceed directly overseas without the possible extremely rare exception & this would never be a reserve Corporal. Maybe a medical Doctor but this would also be rare without some pre-deployment work up.

You also forgot to add FOA (field operations allowance for the training periods out of posted location) plus separation allowance if the reservist has a spouse or dependent for the total time of the contract. I was actually underestimating the monetary compensation for a reserve Corporal for one year including the tour time. Total time required for tour would be a minimum of 15 months up to 20 months. Also you could add on free room & board for the total time as it is an attached posting.

If the single reservist has furniture & effects & a vehicle these would also be packed and stored at no cost to the member.

Back to my previous statement "Obviously you also have no clue on current pay rates and policies."

I really hate to get into this fight here but a few ponts.

 

3)The salary as mentioned of the soldier is actually valid in Canada. I was in the reserves and could have deployed to a warzone but the timing wasn't there for me to do so as I was in school at the time, and I tell you this, I was making less that 20k at the time. You get paid roughly 44 dollars per day, of course rank and what not has an effect on the actual pay rate. Now for Reg force full time non officers, they start at about 33k per year for a private, and go up to 100k for a Chief Warrant Officer.

Obviously you also have no clue on current pay rates and policies.

1. The lowest current pay rate for a reservist is $88.51 per day.

2. By the time anyone is trained to the standards to be able to deploy they will no longer be at the lowest rate. Basic training plus trades training plus work up training for the tour would take close to 1.5 years if everything happened bang, bang, bang.

3. All Reservist's deploying to Afghanistan are put on Class C service which uses Regular Forces pay scales.

4. As the photo that started this it said "redeploys" inferring a second deployment at least. With enforced time between deployments we are now talking a minimum of Corporal basic and even that is unlikely.

5. Corporal basic is minimum $4622 per month. To this add danger pay, separation pay ect. and you are well over $60,000 a year. Taking into account a great portion of the pay will overseas will not be taxed it will have a far higher value.

If someone is going to use figures to argue their point at least use the correct numbers.

Do not take this as a complaint about our troops being overpaid because I believe they fully deserve and earn their pay.

BTW: I spent 13 years in the Canadian Forces and did one overseas peacekeeping tour for just over 6 months in length.

Pro Patria: Rick

i believe you're fully aware of what i'm saying, but you're avoiding the truth at all costs.

 

hockey players are crying because they feel they're entitled to more money for playing a game while people that are serving our countries get paid peanuts to put their lives on the line and live in hell for months on end.

ch312 do you actually believe any Canadian soldier has redeployed to Afghanistan & only earns 20 grand a year.

Your so far off it makes your point completely useless.

Almost as useless as saying the players are on strike. The owners stopped the season instead of continuing negotiating to push their agenda.

A strike happens when the players stop the season instead of continuing negotiating to push their agenda which in this case did not happen.

I'm hoping it's a little more, as with the 60 on the back, it's hard to get the nose up out of the water unless you have 2-3 people sitting at the back. It gets up on plane, but even trimmed way up it tends to plow the waves.

That may also be a improperly sized prop instead of lack of hp.

With a deck boat you may have too high of a pitched prop not allowing the motor to reach full rpm's.

Do you have a tach to confirm you are getting at least close the maximum rated rpm of your motor?

I think that sunny is a rock bass

Correct.

I just seen what I put & was going to correct it but you guys beat me to it.

Here's the sunny.

Actually about half the size that appears on my computer screen.

How about this sunny?

After trying an ICE 67C with the Ice traducer last winter I was sold. My skimmer would see lots of fish in deep water but you never know how close. With the ICE transducer If I saw them on the screen I know the fish is closer.

I also prefer the ice-ducer as it packs up better & is a little easier to set-up but I have in the past rigged up a skimmer transducer that picked up fish just as good. Both transducers have the same degrees of coverage.

Here's how I did it.

The foam was from a surplus store for $1.( a piece of pool noodle works also) Cut length wise to the centre and run transducer cable though it securing with electrical ties so that the foam can be slide up or down to adjust depth.

The green bracket attached to the transducer with a bolt is a bracket used to attach a chain link fence to the pole. Adjust so that the transducer hangs level using electrical ties to secure the cable to the bracket.

Hope this helps: Rick

I would like to have hockey on tv to help get me though the winter.

Ice fishing will do it for me.

As long as the ice isn't locked out.

(Last year sucked down here in southern Ontario).

Not sure "myth" is the right word as this is a common misconception that some CO's will play off. Also some police will also play off this as they are also considered the same as CO's if they are investigating a F&W violation.

For those into downrigging sliders can be wrapped around the cork & secured with thumb tacks.

This is the thing I don't understand.

 

Why isn't it a conservation possession limit for non-licensed individuals?

 

Why should someone who paid for a conservation license be not allowed to receive as many "gift" fish as someone who did not pay!?!?

You got me there as I also can't figure out the rational.

Someone who actually contributes to the system is allowed less of a limit than someone who has not contributed.

A conservation possession limit on non license holders makes sense.

My guess is that by buying the cheaper license you are agreeing to a smaller catch & possession limit to save a few dollars. If you want to retain the larger possession limit by the sports fishing license.

manitobass2 it is a common misconception & I'm actually amazed it took so long before it was mentioned.

BTW: I've also been wrong before & was glad I was corrected with a proper link to confirm my mistake.

Best Wishes: Rick

Also not mentioned is every resident in the house also has a possession limit.

A valid license is not required as it is quite legal to gift fish to those without a license.

Those with out a license have a possession limit equal to a sport fishing license but do not have a daily catch privileged.

Those under 18 or over 64 are considered holders of a sport fishing license.

Only one's not allowed a sport fishing license possession limit is those who hold a Conservation License.