Jonny

She must be quite the ride, but I think she fools around on you! I got a picture of her when I tried your link...

I know of people who went out boating at the Nipissing South Shore on Christmas Day 2006, just to say they'd done it. Too bad all winters don't start that way!

Check the shallower lakes at this time of year - the ice will be thicker. But you probably already know that.

There are little scams and there are big scams. This is a big scam. Only thing I can do about it now is NOT vote Liberal in the next election. You can rest assured that I will vote for any party that has a chance to unseat them. It's better to change the gang of crooks than to leave the same gang of crooks in charge for too long. *** BEST LETTER OF THE YEAR Dear Grim Reaper, So far this year you have taken away my favourite dancer Michael Jackson, my favourite actor Patrick Swayze and my favourite singer Stephen Gately and my favourite actress Farah Fawcett. Just so you know, my favourite politician is Dalton McGuinty. Regards ...

Nipissing was frozen solid as far as the eye can see yesterday (Friday). Up until Thursday there was still some open water visible. Freeze up for the last two years came about 2 weeks earlier. In 2006, the lake was still not frozen on Christmas Day.

"Blue Pike"... now there's a name that can confuse people way more than "pickerel".

Where you go is as important as what you catch. For several reasons, I think my first choice would be Arctic char in Nunavut.

No problem. Lots of times something mentioned on this board gets me to look into things for myself and then I figure I might as well share in case someone else is interested. I caught a few Nipissing 'blue pickerel', a long time ago. Haven't seen one in many, many years. As for the spelling, I've always considered the "A" spelling a spelling mistake, a fairly common one though.

The only other fish that could be confused with the walleye is the sauger. The body appearance is identical to the walleye except that it is gray-coloured and has half-moon shaped dark spots on the membrane between the dorsal fins. It also lacks the white spot on the lower lobe of the tail fin. I used to catch a number of these on Nighthawk lake near Timmins. People who didn't pay close attention thought they were catching small walleye. BTW, walleye catch and possession limits INCLUDE saugers.

Continuation... read 2 then 1...

I hope these jpg's come through OK (see next post too). They're taken from "Freshwater Fishes of Canada" (Scott and Crossman). If there's a better reference for the subject, I have yet to come across it. If you click on the jpg's in order they should be readable... *** EDIT - read in order 2, 1, 3 *** (Uploading mixes up the order)...

Well the proper name for one of our common birds is a "Canada jay" but we call it a "whisky jack".

"Pickerel" is a heritage name in Ontario, particularly Northern Ontario. Not that Northern Ontario fishermen don't use the term "walleye" but when they say "pickerel" everybody knows what they're talking about.

Having made a couple of much simpler game boards for a "PIG" game, I can appreciate the tremendous amount of patience you must have had to lay out and drill all the holes so precisely! Nice job, Jacques! 29's to you!

Sorry, double post

The most "primitive" thing I've flown in is a Stearman, so if I go for a little flight on the Eskimo, it'll be a ground-breaking experience. I don't know if my GPS can show speed and altitude at the same time, but if it can I'll post some figures for you, Irish. Good idea, JM, thanks.

The anchors that come with the hut are supposed to be really good to use from what I've read. Will have to wait for some ice to test them out. The hut would be easier to raise - especially when you're alone - with the corners pegged down first. In a wind, the loops that you pull to pop out the sides can be used as extra anchor points on the upwind side. That's the theory anyway.

Good stuff! Besides the obvious feel-good value, it's always interesting to see what details kids pick up on. I have a few drawings like that from when my boys were small, and I treasure them.

I got an Eskimo Quickfish III last week at Costco for $179 ($204 tax in.) I've set it up and packed it up a couple of times, and I'm impressed. Floor area is 6x6 but it feels roomier because of the outward bulges at elbow height. Roof height in the center is about 7 ft. LOTS of room for 2 people, probably comfortable enough for 3, could fit 4 in a pinch (not all the holes inside, of course). Fabric is red on the outside, dark gray on the inside, fairly thick and durable-looking, almost a canvas texture. Four plastic windows with velcro flaps 2 ventilation ports with velcro flaps "D" style door with double zippers - looks strong enough, and is well-positioned at a corner. Spring-poles and hubs give the impression of strength. Best of all, the claim of "one minute setup" isn't far wrong. It's actually fun to set up and take down. Even better, once it's folded up (it almost folds by itself) it fits back into the carrying bag! The bag has a couple of padded shoulder straps for back-packing, but you wouldn't want to go too far. It's heavier than you might think, more suitable for pulling on a sleigh. I think this is a winner!

I was standing in a dry swamp at dusk one late October watching for moose. I would look one way for a minute, then turn my head to look the other way. One time when I turned my head an owl was about 10 - 15 feet away from me with claws extended, ready to land on my head as if I was just another dead tree trunk! Scared me and startled the owl. It flew up in a tree beside me but I could only see the silhouette and couldn't tell what kind it was. A gray owl was my guess.

Mbosh, I have never been discriminated against either (or I was too thick-skinned to notice!). But I know people - some of them very close to me - who have. It's an insidious thing. Yes, I caught the significance of this comment. But a fishing forum can't be all about simply that. We're going to have to wait til the water hardens up. I'm anxious to try an Eskimo Quickfish 3 that I picked up at Costco last week. After the wind tumbling my large ice hut for the last two winters, I may just try the Quickfish for this season. Good luck on your next steeelhead outing. That's a kind of fishing I've only dabbled with.

Mbosh, it's too bad you didn't include the further detail you wrote out. Obviously we don't know each other but I can recognize a good argument when I hear one, and I can grant that there is a sound basis to another's argument even if I don't agree with it. I would be quite interested in hearing why you think a question on race is necessary in an amateur survey on fishing. Didn't you find it a little incongruous (if not downright silly) to include it? I don't assume there was necessarily negative intent behind it; it might have even been included to just give the survey a "professional" look, without a thought to a rationale. From the little you wrote (and courteously enough, thank you) I think you probably know in which sense I was using the word "profiling" --- the negative sense. For federal and provincial governments, which are legally tasked with keeping track of multicultural issues and providing education, programs and services, race or ethnicity is a valid concern on a census. They also explain why those questions are included. I recently completed a provincial questionnaire on the deer hunt, and race or ethnicity wasn't in the list of questions. Does it appear on an application for an Ontario Outdoors Card? Or on an application for a hunting license? I don't think it even appears, if memory serves me correctly, on an application for a federal Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) for firearms, though there it might for purposes of identification. Those who completed the survey seem to have done so simply as entertainment. After all, you can't take too seriously a survey that includes the cute little comments in brackets after some of the multiple choices. I took a different tack because of that one question. Call it an educational opportunity. I've been dealing with those for all of my professional life. Actually this survey would make an excellent springboard for a Guidance class or a Business/Marketing class.

"Age, income bracket, etc." fine, but can you suggest why a fishing survey would or should include race? And secondly, please point me to a survey that includes race as one of the questions. If you can find such a survey I would like to discover the rationale behind the inclusion of such a question. --- Edit - Look, in some ways this is a big deal and in some ways it's not. For the purposes of an amateur survey like this one, it doesn't amount to much. But it was important enough for me to point out that a question on race has no place in a fishing survey. You will find, if you look at surveys and questionnaires, that race or ethnicity is virtually never mentioned, not even in government materials. There's a reason for that, and it's called profiling. Somebody says "Yeah, look a this... the XXX minority spend practically nothing on fishing, fish local waters, would practically never want to share a fishing spot or knowledge about fishing. I just knew they were like that!" Actually, with an offensive question like this included, you would find very few people of one of the minorities who would complete and submit a voluntary survey. So inclusion of the question is not only unnecessary, it's self-defeating as it automatically limits the responses. Either the originator of the survey didn't think of that, or there was a reason for inclusion of the question. I think that reason would be hard to justify. If this doesn't make any sense to you, imagine including a question on religion, or sexual orientation, or whether you're French-Canadian, or whether you are an immigrant or are Canadian-born! My wife was wondering why I was pounding intensely on the keyboard just now. I told her what the survey was about and I read her the first few questions. When I read the one about "ethnicity" she said, "What the hell is that doing in there; it's got nothing to do with fishing." She reminded me that some surveys can be offensive if they even ask whether the respondent is male or female, if it has nothing to do with the matter being examined. Frankly I'm surprised that some people here don't seem to see this, but so be it. I've explained as well as I can. So there's my position, set out in more words than I thought would be necessary.

I think tying a CO's salary to fines handed out is a bad idea. And a bad idea is usually worse than just leaving something alone.

http://www.legal-criminal-justice-schools....nto-Police.html Add rank and the salary goes up from there. Source - Fleming College