blarg

Funny how that goes, I share your beliefs and I voted for the evil empire.

What Bull, how much again did Chretien cut from health care in the 90's? how much did he spend on helicopters that he didn't buy? how many of the old ones fell out of the sky in the mean time? how much did he spend on the 2 million dollar registry? how much money was misplaced in the hrdc scandal? how many loans did he get for friends? how much money went missing during the sponsorship scandal? how many protesting kids were pepper sprayed at the APEC conference? "For me, pepper, I put it on my plate." Jean C. how much did he interfere with the tainted blood scandal? how much did he interfere with the investigation into the military's actions in Somalia? how about when he raided the ei fund to pay down the debt to the tune of 50 billion, that was ruled illegal btw. how about choking that protester, though I was with him on that one. The GST lie I'm sure there is more, you know his nickname was little dictator? amongst others. So look, all I am saying is that there is no point to this, Harper is not an angel, but he certainly has not reached the Chretien level of scandal yet, and he got 3 majorities, so lets take a breathe, accept that politicians are mostly cut from the same cloth with slight variations in their beliefs. The sky isn't falling, nor will it.

Just like it did for Chretien in the 90's when he won with 40 or just over 40 percent of the vote, you were all complaining then too right? Do some research, check into how many true popular vote majorities this country has had. But hey, a liberal majority/non majority is just a-ok no doubt, but now the conservatives win and we desperately need to change our broken system. Self serving?...Maybe. I promise the sky isn't falling.

Whatever, just let them do whatever they want, we have no say really, and i don't think there is much that can be done to stop them from netting the spawning grounds legally, the band might be following certain practices but i don't think they can legally compel individuals from fishing a certain times, their treaty rights aren't that specific and those treaties trump everything else. Just let them do, not our business.

Un-huh, because the government hasn't passed laws in the past that have banned thousands of firearms, you obviously wouldn't care about that, but it's a fact. If you are in anyway representative of the average liberal voter I am proud to say im not one of you. You don't care about the registry, you care that it might mean people don't vote for your precious liberals, some of us, who you know actually do some research, know something about the statistics, actually care about the principle. There are a lot of people who voted NDP because they thought their mp was going to vote to scrap it, were they affected by the NDP mothership? You know it's no wonder that it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about this, you talk about conservative extremism, and yet are completely blind to how ridiculous you look when you write something like the above, part of the disdain i have for the liberals stems from having to accept drivel as the above as someones valid opinion when frankly it's simple idiocy. The real fear mongers in this election are the liberals, the same people who stand on the graves of victims and talk about the registries importance while knowing full well the only real effectiveness it has is convincing simple minded people that they really care, when all they really care about is your vote. So know I your dogmatic beliefs can't be changed, but maybe you should read the quote below before you embarrass yourself even further. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada Yea, no evidence of ever increasing restrictions there.

And that folks is precisely why we have a registry, the country is full of people with an opinion and no knowledge. The registry was touted as a crime prevention tool after the poly technique shooting, of course it didn't prevent the Dawson college shooting that was committed with a registered rifle, but hey, who's counting. All of the other comments about storage and safety are taken care by a completely separate law, i say again, COMPLETELY SEPARATE. A law which no one, or very few, have a problem with, because that law actually does some good. Also, the safe storage law would cover the rifle in a blanket issue, and also could have lead to people turning in firearms they didn't want to store safely. Instead of depending upon the state to protect your children from their ignorance you could just teach them. We have had a handgun registry since the 30's, hand guns are still used much more often than long guns in crimes, Despite hand guns being much much less common than long guns, yep, that's what the country needs, more useless liberal laws that pander to people who are more than happy to have an opinion without an education.

So because some people vote for parties that support the registry those parties won't ever ban handguns or semi autos's, or anything with a scope..they call those 'sniper guns', they have already proposed doing just that, both the liberals and the ndp. The rcmp have already used the registry to confiscate guns that they deemed prohibited after they had been available for sale under the current rules. But whatever believe what you like, some people are principled enough to want it gone, it still costs 20 something million a year to run (yes 20+, the 4million number is a fallacy, the rcmp have said so) and it doesn't prevent crime. Do I like the fact that the conservatives are the only option, not really, but then should I vote for the NDP many of whom used the promise of voting to get rid of the registry to get elected and then flip flopped? So is it a big deal right now, not at all, I'm all registered, but this is an issue of principle, it is a bad law, cost a lot, and targets the wrong people, we shouldn't just accept that. Btw the elitist attitude on this board really shows up quick when something like this comes up, just remember, a lot of recreational fisherman are also hunters. It's also funny how the "liberals" will bash conservatives and the conservative party every chance they get, with the usual, o they want the death penalty, they will ban abortion, they hate women, etc etc etc, meanwhile show one bill they passed that give any indications that the 'hidden agenda' really exists? At the same time the liberals have passed bad laws like the registry, cut health care more than anyone, stole or lost billions, raided the ei fund for 50 billion, illegally, and it goes on and on. Vote what you feel is best for you but honestly there is no need to bash someone elses choice, they all have blood on their hands.

So any fish species is fair game no matter the impact the fish caught,sold or not, have on the fish population and overall balance of the lake. You like to be portrayed as keepers of the lake but you can't have it both ways, you simply don't know, nor does your biologist know, what the long term impact of commercial fishing on the lake will be. No doubt the cod fisherman cared about their fishery too, but that didn't stop their greed from killing it. I genuinely hope that doesn't happen here, but if it does im sure those of us who can't set gill nets will get blamed first. I love the, 'they are eating more smelt' argument for why anglers are finding them harder to catch, but that argument never gets extended to why? And is the commercial netting of the lake changing the balance so that maybe more smelt are available to fewer walleye. Who knows, it's complicated, but that is the point really, being native gill nets does not make them more environmentally sensible, the best of intentions aside. But, this is a dead horse, we have rules to follow and you get to make your own rules, i just hope you know what you're doing.

Is this really the best you have to offer? You know I hear that pollution is a problem in the Mississippi, I would like to talk about all those carp, but I don't want to overwhelm anyone.. Oh, i am sorry, I forgot that due to the strangeness of the reality that some of you live in there can only be one problem affecting the fish population of a lake. You want to talk about reducing poaching? C&R? reducing limits?, all good ideas, and I have said so multiple times here. But then I'm also not obtuse enough to think that removing thousands of pounds more fish, both of the targeted species and in unwanted by catch, isn't going to negatively affect fish stocks all other things being equal. Why is it that these alleged scientists never consider the effect that gill netting is having on the lake when they talk about changes in fish behavior. Maybe they do, but not publicly, nope, publicly gill netting is just fine, joe angler is the problem now. Yes, and about those cormorants, why is controlling the bird population not okay, but commercial gill netting an inland lake without a real plan, when the lakes' walleye was already considered pressured, killing tons of other fish as by catch (literally), just fine and dandy? No doubt this makes sense to some of you.

Im sure increasing the catch by tens of thousands of pounds through netting has no impact on the fishery, joe fisherman's fault, joe fisherman's are usually white guys anyway, who needs em.

Yep, unfortunately the way the laws are written and depending upon the details he will likely be found guilty. It would only be legal if he was in immediate danger at the moment he fired. If he had time to shoot he likely had time to run away etc etc, its sickening.

Im sorry but calling humans an invasive species is P3TA speak, weather you like it or not, you don't seem to understand what the term means. Btw, do you honestly think that other species haven't moved from one habitat to others via natural means in the past? It's only humans that do that? We are doing exactly what we have naturally evolved to do, that doesn't mean the end results are always good, but it doesn't make it unatural or invasive. We are a natural byproduct of this planets biological evolution just like every other living thing. We are intelligent enough to have technologies that can have large adverse impacts on the world, but we can also use that big brain to be rational and make decisions that improve our lives while not destroying the world around us. If cormorants are a real problem we can react in a sensible way, jumping to the 'humans are bad' level of discussion in no way rational.

Bird eats fish, more birds eat more fish, we care more about fish than bird, bird not endangered by any measurement, reducing bird population eases pressure on fish, bird still thriving. Your post is meaningless, we aren't going to cull ourselves (you first?..didn't think so), like all other animals our own desires trump those of others, the wolf doesn't ask himself if the Caribou population is solid before he makes a kill, your attitude smacks of P3TA, with attitudes like that reasonable debate is impossible. It's a darn good thing the spring bear hunt was canceled, after all those bears were nearly extinct.. There is nothing extreme about this debate, or at least there shouldn't be, you know there are people who think plants have just as much right to life as we do, should we stop cutting down trees? I mean who is to say they aren't right, lets get real people, it's a bird. Anyone eat a chicken lately?

This argument always ends up in the same place. What i want to know, is how far those on the "left" side of this issue are willing to go in their own lives in order to maintain the natural order of things. The reality is that we, through our actions have irrevocably changed the environment, we are as much a part of that environemnt as any lesser creature on this planet. Other creatures also change the environment sometimes to the detriment of others, of course humans have a much greater impact than any other living thing, that is until the next pandemic, but then viruses are just innocent creatures, we shouldn't interfere with their work.. So where does reality come into play, are we going to cull our own species so there is more room for the birds? Do we stop drilling for oil and no doubt plunge the world into chaos? The reality is that we aren't going anywhee and we are as much a part of this world as the birds and the viruses. The difference is that we can recognize our mistakes and hopefully improve things, but that doesn't mean that when a treasured resource is being dmaged that we can't act, the fact of the matter is that cormorants are not endangered, if they are damaging a resource there is no reason, except for maybe some pie in the sky leave nature alone philosophy, that we shouldn't act. I am an environmentalist, i have degrees to prove it, but i am also a realist, in the real world our actions have consequences. sometimes we make choices to improve our life at the detriment of the rest of our world, sometimes we take action to rebalance that world the best we can. This progressive idea that every animal is sacred and nature will fix things is so ridiculous, when distilled down to its essence that philoshphy would have us all living in grass huts, its nonsense. This quote was in the National post today, in an atricle by lorne gunter, it is refering to green power in Ontario but it sums up many similar arguments that progressives like to make, such as this thread, or the gun registry etc "This mentality is rooted in anti-market, pro-government indoctrination. It is based on economic ignorance and fed by a feeling that one’s self-identified moral superiority makes one’s every idea possible merely because one has thought it, along with millions of other progressive-minded individuals. It is both smug and fanciful." http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/14/lorne-gunter-the-growing-nightmare-of-mcguintys-green-energy-dream/#ixzz1Dwt74vuC We are as much a part of the environment as any cormorant, if we decide to reduce their numbers by a sensible amount it doesn`t make us immoral, in fact given that we are a natural part of the environment our actions are also natural.

If boats at anchor are required to have a light on you would think that reflectors on an ice hut wouldn't be too much to ask. It's not as though there are prescribed ice hut zones on lakes, and if you can put one almost anywhere certainly the snowmobiler can't be expected to know where it will be. No doubt people need to slow down, but then at some point if we all slowed down we wouldn't need brake lights or signal lights either, reflectors are cheap and sensible. Ever have someone cross the street in front of you on a rainy night wearing nothing but dark clothing? Your headlights don't help a lot, now put a reflective vest on that person, or put them on a bike with reflectors..i would imagine a stationary object in low visibility would be no easier to see. How slow is slow enough as well, and in some places even if you manage to swerve around the first shack your probabaly going to hit one of the other 30 behind it. If it was my shack id want reflectors, for my own sake.

Thought i recognized it, i have caught lots of walleye off of that point.

Kam lake?

What i find funny is people like you are so quick to blame people but unwilling to consider the solutions that people come up with. True, we have a greater impact on the environment that just about anything else but that doesn't mean we bury our heads in the sand and ignore the problems, even those we might have created. Btw, the seals didn't decimate the cod stocks, but they could be making it recover more slowly or perhaps not at all, if we hadn't over fished the cod it wouldn't matter, but pretending that those cute cuddly seals don't eat a ton of fish won't make the problem go away.

You are missing the point, the organization is afraid to let the team be terrible (more so) for a few years, a terrible team will likely get a number of high draft picks which could in time become members of a good team. Instead they continually attempt and fail to rebuild without draft picks in an effort to give fans something to hold on to thus keeping the building full in hopes that this year will be better than last. If you just allow yourselves to stay in the basement while not giving away assets for ex. Kessel, then in 5 years you might have something, but the investors are concerned that a prolonged period of no hope, no chance to make the playoffs would hurt margins so they don't allow it to happen knowing full well that leaf fans are so dedicated they will keep coming as long as there is any chance. Maybe that doesn't make any sense, maybe it isn't true, but what other possible explanation could there be for the wealthiest team in the NHL to have not won or hardly done anything in the playoffs for more than 40 years? Look at how this team has been put together in recent history, notice how it is the same pattern, the same type of rebuilding under every gm?

Generally tests only have one pass/fail line, this is ridiculous policy. So the restaurant can be shut down when it almost fails the test? Bull

Anything less than making .05 (or whatever number, 0 for all I care) the only legal limit is just garbage. Personally I think the only reason we don't have an actual hard limit lower than .08 is for the betterment of businesses that sell alcohol, if saving lives was really that important the concerns of a restaurant of bar owner wouldn't be considered all that highly. Making excuses for this intermediate limit is hard for me to swallow. If we now have to track anyone from .05-.08 and now have to have that available to our insurers and suspend our licenses for 3 days when we are "caught", then please tell us why the law isn't simply .05, period. It is either dangerous, or it isn't, the way the law is currently written should be unconstitutional, I should not be subject to punishment for something that is almost illegal.

I wonder how much we've given up, and how much society has changed since women have gained power (which they should) because of the "But hey, I do want to sleep in the same bed as my wife so I call the police." factor. When I see how feminized and soft our society has become I tend to think we willingly give in to much and too often because we like sex so much. Maybe more kids would be more disciplined if we weren't always trying to be nice in order to not raise the ire of our wives while disciplining their "babies"..There is no doubt it happens.

The most obvious and easiest of solutions was not to voluntarily allow the sale of the fish when a food fishery was already in place, clearly selling the fish (legally, it was already being done to a lesser extent illegally) was going to increase the netting and the pressure on the fish. Perhaps they would have won that right in court, I don't know, but the current government didn't have to give it away. Aside from that there are many things that could be done on our side, reduced limits, higher license fees and better enforcement come to mind. Those are more global than local issues though.

Surely using gill nets on the lake is an appropriate management scheme and the hired biologist has no conflict of interest what so ever... Yes, we all could do better, but gill netting the lake will never be a good idea, never, what is it that people don't understand about that. You really believe the natives on the lake care more about the fish and less about the money than you or I would? How foolish of you, that very idea is paternalistic romantic garbage, it is an insult to them. They are no better or worse than us and it isn't about us making up for the wrongs our ancestors committed, this is about sensible management of the fishery and gill netting a lake is never a good thing. You could argue that catch limits need to be reduced, the number of ice fishing huts need to be reduced, etc etc etc, i would agree, but how many others would when gill nets are catching anything and everything that swims? Where is the incentive for anyone to reduce their catch under those circumstances? I know for a fact that more people are keeping more fish as a direct result of the increased netting on the lake, the prevailing attitude is if they don't have a slot size why should I, it is an honest and reasonable question.

You're right of course, everyone who wants some common sense involved in our governance, such as maybe not applying centuries old treaties to today's vastly different conditions, is a right wing extremist. How reasonable of you.