Jonny

You fellas are right of course. I figured it would have something to do with performance. No sense monkeying with the motor position, the rider's position and the track if a sled handled worse. Maybe they just get the look wrong (in my taste) in some models, just like the car companies can produce some UGLEEEE cars and trucks. Now that's still a seriously good-looking machine by any standards. It doesn't fit the pug-ugly category. It would be nice to see some of your own pics of it some time in operation when you get it out fishing. I'm still motoring along on my old Pantera. Always liked it and still do. For the running I do - simply 4 to 6 miles out on the ice, and then the same back home - I don't think I could talk my wife into a new one. If I did, it wouldn't be one of the real pug-nosed jobs.

What about the other half? Have you been browsing that site that posts pictures of some of the losers that shop at Walmart? We're not all like that.

Yeah, in a kind of "stealth fighter" way. And not quite as pug-nosed as some.

One of my fishing buddies used to have an 80's model Yamaha Phazer --- you couldn't bog that thing down in anything. But it was a sleek looking machine.

Used to be that Canadian Tire was a "Walmart" of its day, back say in the 60's and 70's. Now they're more like SEARS, you only get a decent buy (price-wise) when things are on sale. The CTC in North Bay out-does the Walmart in selection, but not in price, I've found.

Why have they started building such god-awful UGLY sleds? Some of them look like they hit a wall before they even got out of the showroom. I see them running by my place on the lake and they look ridiculous.

Us? Who's "us"? Inquiring minds want to know.

Can't you run a check on the VISA number? Once they authorize, you've got a guarantee of your money, don't you? You can't save sales tax by ordering from another province now, can you? I thought the HST scotched that.

Magic Fish Scaler (hand tool) - $10.99 Tumble Drumm Fish Scaler - $199.99 Only $189.00 more. Looks like another nifty solution though.

Thanks, Dan. They don't exactly give them away, do they. Maybe I can pull a "Red Green" with my Dremel tool with flex shaft, and a few odds and ends from the bottom of the junk pile in the tool shed. And some duct tape of course. The video of the end result in action would probably be worth watching!

The Feds say they're going to review this decision. Let's hope they loosen the grip of the big players like they did for cell phone service.

Where did you pick this up, Dan? Looks like a miniature version of a machine they used to use for plucking pheasants up at the Cochrane Hunt and Game Farm. That had rubber "teeth" that wouldn't hurt your hand either, but it sure did zip the feathers off.

So you can find it in the summer?

Oh yeah. When I'm cleaning a mess of them I have two freshly-sharpened filet knives handy, then trade off when the first one gets dull. I find a knife stays sharper if I don't saw straight down through the scales behind the gill cover, but rather, with the fish on its side, poke the blade tip (with knife upside down) in behind the head, down to the belly and cut outwards (upwards). I always use Governator's #1 method. I've tried the whole fish skinned method but I don't like frying them with the bones. 1st pic - whole fish skinned method beside some done with method #1 2nd pic - method #1 - ribs and skins still to come off 3rd pic - method #1 - ready for the pan

Thanks for the information, Doc. I will watch with great interest to see where this goes. This could be a "flagship" process now that it has been re-tooled.

I bought an Eskimo Quickfish 3 from Costco last year. Well-made, and I can't imagine anything that would be easier to set up and take down. And it fits back in the carry bag! Plenty of room for two people and lots of gear, room for three if you only put two holes inside and the rest outside. The bowed-out sides make it seem much roomier than you would think. See here... http://www.ofncommun...=1entry425142 I'd have a good hard look to see if you can find one.

You could be fined for building a duck blind, building a tree stand for big game hunting, a few other things too, I guess, that guys regularly do. "I'd like to hunt that tree stand." "Well sorry, you can't. I built it and I'm using it." Out comes the badge. Ever get the feeling that no matter what you're doing and how legal you think you are, they'll always find something they can nail you with if they want to?

If I wasn't calm, I wouldn't have replied. I think you missed the bolded qualifier. You say it's not so. Fine. We'll go with that for now. But aside from that, I'll stick to the caution I suggested to you. Air Ivanhoe (based in Foleyet) offers this information - "In 1954 our family picked the best remote lakes in the area. Outfitters that came later ended up with the smaller lakes, and we operate on the choice locations in the area." 1954 - more than half a century ago. It's no surprise that the lakes have become considerably less "remote" with the passage of time. At that time there was no Hwy 101 from Timmins to Foleyet and Hwy. 17 ended somewhere just north of Sault Ste. Marie. Something I posted some time ago in another thread...

You DARE me? What I wrote to you was maybe not to your liking, but it was polite, and you DARE me. Nice. On the strength of that I should just ignore you. In another thread in this forum, I wrote this well over a year ago... That was the information that was conveyed to us at one time when I was a member of the Timmins Golden Nugget Conservation Club. I can't remember the exact source but it was conveyed in no uncertain terms, either from a C.O. or an MNR representative. Even if that were not the case (and I did qualify what I said, if you'll check), you might still be out of luck with your portaging. If you have to use a road to reach a spot where you can put into a creek or river that will eventually give you access to a remote tourism lake, all they have to do is designate a larger area and move the road closure sign further away from the lake. They seem to be doing just that sort of thing in the Dubreuilville area. I think you may be making a mistake by thinking that because you do not rely on motorized access as much as others, that you are immune from any effects. The avowed goal of NOTO for years has been to deny ALL public access to all remote lakes where their members operate. They've already achieved quite a chunk of that.

Here's one of the key problems: Public pressure for access is increasing (more people, more equipment, more recreational hours), and yet at the same time the MNR is taking large blocks of public land out of circulation, as well as destroying relatively new roads and bridges in many non-"tourism" areas. The public is getting hit with a double-whammy, and it's deliberate because the MNR doesn't want to be bothered with enforcement and management of fish and wildlife beyond a certain minimum. Now forestry is a different issue; they're all over that like flies on roadkill. But that's got to do with companies, not the public. Solopaddler, you may eventually find that your canoe/portage access is illegal as well. As a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, there are already Remote Tourism areas where you are not allowed to fish the lakes, rivers or even creeks, no matter what your method of access; they are reserved for outfitters alone. The domino effect may one day have you sharing your "remote" experience with a gaggle of other disgruntled canoeists who have been squeezed out of tourism-designated Crown Land areas. The "As long as its them and not me" attitude could come back to bite you.

I wasn't aware that this OFAH issue had been discussed before. For my part I think it's done anyway.

OK, Chessy, I read (with difficulty) the article you posted, and I also looked into Simcoe County Forest and Northumberland County Forest. I can see why you're upset. This is not really a fishing issue but it IS an access issue, as well as a privatization of public land issue. Morgan and Males certainly did seem to get a steal @ $100 an acre. Their extensive knowledge through experience with the OFAH would certainly have been a factor but it looks like they got Simcoe County to agree to their plans as private individuals rather than through the auspices of the OFAH. It's disingenuous, however, of the OFAH to say that it's not their concern. There had to be some co-operation there, since Simcoe Forest, and presumably"Buckhorn", can only be hunted now with proof of an OFAH membership. That part of it, to me, smells. I have no idea whether the county got ironclad guarantees that the Buckhorn land will be accessible to the public in perpetuity. If they didn't, the land could be worth a lot if parcelled up and sold to private owners. Seems like a complex issue. I do not agree that hunters should have to pay a user fee (in the form of an OFAH membership) to hunt on what should be publicly accessible forest for all legal uses. I could find nothing about the history of intentions for the Northumberland Forest, and it seems that it's open to the public without extra fees. But the Simcoe/Buckhorn thing, I think, is an unfortunate situation for the OFAH to be associated with. http://www.ofah.org/...ounty/intro.cfm http://www.northumbe....asp?_mid_=4764

My wife and I are no strangers to this kind of pain and worry. We wish your family and your daughter all the best, Wayne. And the next time we see someone fundraising for Crohn's, you know what we'll do.

Sweet! I just showed it to my wife; she loved it too! Smart little fella!

I'm a retired teacher (which I suppose might inspire cat-calls from some, but I'm pretty sure I was a damn good one!) and I know for an absolute certainty that without a teachers' federation (glorified name for a union), I would have had neither the pay I did during my 35 yr career nor the decent retirement income I have now. So I sympathize fully with DanC's view. Unions are NOT an unalloyed blessing (I'm quite aware of the drawbacks), but in employer/worker relations they can make a difference.