Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral


About smally21

  • Rank
  • Birthday 05/15/1972

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    sport fishing bass and pike, drifting and jigging walleyes. finding local spots with 100km of hamilton. exploring fishing opportunites...
  1. Im for galvanized trailers..a hot dipped galvanized steel trailer frame is lifetime, generally a large weight difference between equivalent trailers is indicative of a trailer made too light..aluminun is lighter of course but to get the same strength out of it as its steel counterpart you should be using considerably larger aluminum..as such the weight difference shouldn't be quite so significant. I would get our galvanized trailers back on trade years after they were built when a customer upgraded and they would look the same as the day they left..no scratches, no rust..(on the galvanized parts of course). There are hot dipped trailers and there are plated trailers..I would be shopping for hot dipped. Aluminum certainly look great..and there are some nice I-beam styes out there...if conditions arent that demanding its a significant weight advantage as mentioned..provided its up to the task.
  2. Ironmaker, the existence of the deer and the majic bullet has been widely reported..and was part of the defence. In this very thread, starting at post #21 the defence position of the deer was discussed, as well as a link to the relevant news articles. I didn't say there was a deer found..I simply stated my opinion on the matter of the mystery deer in my first post..that had the bullet passed through a deer there would be physical evidence of that. The discussion leading from that was the relevance that deer would have to the case. The deer doesn't have to be 'found' to be entered as a defence, and certainly not to be discussed. In a discussion forum one discusses the facts of the case, and the what-ifs surrounding it. Like say there was a deer..as was on-topic and relevant to the thread..how would that effect the outcome? I also pointed out the deer sighting wasn't widely reported until very recently..which would be unusual considering the profound effect it would have had on public perception and the legal decision. As such, I don't think there was a deer either.. I'll forgive the politician comment lol. I'm not a lawyer but I play one on TV..
  3. "the onus of where a bullet ends up is 100% on the shooter. If you can't identify the target, or the final location of the bullet, then you haven't met the standard that one would expect of a responsible shooter or hunter." Did you quoters that like to cherry pick small parts of larger dialogue miss the part where I said this in the beginning..a fact we are totally in agreement on..that you are repeating back to me almost verbatim...as if I see it otherwise? I would respectfully suggest you aren't following the meaning of the posts in their entirety..nor displaying them as I intend them because we are clearly in agreement on the subject of safe shooting and the court's decision. I was simply responding to the suggestion of a person being beyond your target..that it is near impossible to ascertain at the ranges we are discussing the presence of a camo wearing person intentionally concealing themselves in the woods..and that regardless of due care its possible someone could be unaware of that person..being that their sole reason to conceal themselves in camo was to avoid detection. I am uncertain how you guys ensure this isn't the case when you are hunting.. As I stated before..Jonathan didn't satisfy either requirement...and reread post #70 if you think I am in anyway defending his actions...hunting experience and teaching experience aside..its the court case and the way the law interprets actions that I am speaking about...and no amount of hunting experience can prepare you for the way a prosecutor and judge would view words like careless and reasonable..unless you can compare it to similar cases..where something we would see as careless a non hunter (likely the entire occupancy of the courtroom lol) would see as reasonable and accidental.
  4. It is entirely material. The presence of the deer validates the shot..the fact that someone was beyond the deer in no man's land could and likely would be deemed accidental..as there would not be knowledge nor expectation for someone to be there...unless of course in plain sight. In a court case that was evaluating Jonathon's questionable selection of a target..presenting the actual target (in this case a legally harvested deer) would most certainly be evidentiary material. I can't see seeing it otherwise? Building or roadways are very different, and now where near a legitimate comparisonas they are clearly evident..it could well be deemed reasonable that a person in a field intentionally concealing themselves with camoflauge is a situation beyond a hunter's control..imagine every deer hunter, when stalking bush, had to satisfy themselves prior to shooting an identified target, that no one was hiding in the bushes behind the deer. It would be the end of hunting. A dead deer at the scene would have drastically changed this scenario..the whole basis of the careless discharge was that Jonathon hadn't properly identified the target..not that he hadn't identified the background. Had he established this is the deer I took the shot at..everything about the case would be different..to the extreme that its possible no charges would be laid. You make your comment as if the shooter in your example knew there to be a person..which would satisfy both dangerous and careless use, and also doesn't match the agreed upon facts, that both the crown and the defense stated Jonathon had no knowledge that he was firing at a person..nor a belief that there was someone there....that my comment is related to. The entire case was based on his mistaken identification of the target and his poor judgement in taking the shot..a dead deer at his feet confirms the target..and goes along way towards justifying the shot.
  5. A very thoughtful post DH..and if I may cherry pick a detail "otherwise wreckless".. The crown agreed Jonathan did not know he was shooting at a person..which removes the mens rea, i.e. the intent, which removes the criminality of it being murder. However, it does not remove, and if effect confirms, the carelessness or wrecklessness of his actions. "Dangerous" or "Careless" use of a firearm or discharge of a firearm exist as secondary charges for someone that exhibits negligence without intent to harm..similar to gross disregard..its still a criminal offence and this case is textbook for its use. As a 30 year competitive shooter and gun advocate the idea of not knowing where a bullet ends up is abhorrent to me..that you would discharge a centre-fire rifle without clear identification of target and area behind the target just baffles me.,.perhaps too much time in the classroom with CFSC courses and CRFSC courses and RSO time has me too much in that direction. I don't know if you have to be one to understand the 'community' aspect of looking out for the group as a whole through responsible and safe use? Im not much of a hunter but surrounded by them and immersed in their culture..the idea that you took a shot at something that you could barely identify as an animal, at a range that is clearly outside of most recreational hunter's limits (read who regularly has the facilities and time to practice 3-400 yd shots..almost no one)..most ethical hunters wouldn't think of taking a shot so out of their established limits...and would never take a shot that wouldn't have had in their scope image the POI on the target that would produce a bang-flop quickly dead, non-suffering animal. Add on all the hunting regs violations (hunting from vehicle, shooting across roadway, shooting within 10m of roadway, center-fire in shotgun season..(and yes I understand there are different requirements for aboriginals - it doesn't remove the 'common sense' of these regs) and you have a gross disregard for the consequences of pulling the trigger. It doesn't matter what the victim was wearing..and why he was there. The onus of where a bullet ends up is 100% on the shooter. If you can't identify the target, or the final location of the bullet..then you haven't met the standard that one would expect from a responsible shooter or hunter. To me..as the teacher or the student the first part of putting a gun in your hands..for the first time or the millionth..is the consequence and the responsibility behind its use. IMO this guy made a decision that reflects poorly on shooters and hunters from both sides of the reserve...and most certainly met the standard for conviction. The bullet passing through the deer first would be provable..not to mention would have exonerated Jonathan both legally and publicly and would have been brought up immediately..not years later.
  6. Sorry to see this sort of thing go on..650 would be more reasonable if there was shrink wrapping and 4 months of storage thrown in. The job should be around 250$..maybe a little more, nothing comes cheap in marineland. My other concern about work like this is it is very hard to prove any of it was done..I mean, a tech checks the lower unit oil and its perfect..so why change it? Same with prop removal..short of finding 1000' of mono around the shaft who is to say the work was done? Im only bringing that into the equation because a guy that charges 3X the going rate for 45 minutes worth of work is the same guy that might just say ahh skip it..there is no "evidence" a motor has been fogged. It would take longer to fill out that invoice than it would to winterize the boat. Don't forget this takes Joe boatowner a few hours..these guys have every tool and trick sitting out ready on their workbench..and should be twice as fast.
  7. I used strictly 4WD for years when I had the trailer shop and marine transport show..and would have insisted everyone do the same, I bought a 2WD truck a few years ago and have launched and recovered my boat at maybe 40-50 different ramps without a problem. There are definitely ramps I wouldn't mess with, and boat size plays a huge factor, if your boat is too heavy to pull up a ramp then you should be in a bigger vehicle anyway, and that vehicle is likely a truck, and trucks are readily available in 4WD.. Front mounted hitches are great, most of my use was in lots where it is much easier to shuffle boats around. Wouldn't be too effective on a shallow ramp where you needed the tires really wet.. As to using the boat to push the truck out..hey if you are stuck you are stuck. However, power loading the boat on a trailer isn't the best thing for the ramp, and running the motor all the way to the shoreline would be even worse. I can imagine local "ramp Nazis" waving their Tim Horton's cups in anger when you do this. No harm on a nice paved ramp but digs trenches in gravel or soft ramps. Eventually digs a hole that 90% of guys would never notice but when you launch a big boat off the ramp it suddenly drops into said hole, ad causes grief. Obviously this takes some time to develop.
  8. My Johnson motor has a fogging valve..running at idle with earmuffs and flush hoses attached..hook the oil to the valve and fog all cylinders at once. I clean the terminals then use maintenance chargers on all batteries all winter, clean the boat as best I can in late season, fill with stablilized fuel, run some freeze through all pumps, blow out speedo line, check lower unit oil, build 2x4 frame, cover with travel top, then second tarp. Jack and block trailer to mildly relieve tires. Oh and I prop open all compartments..toss in all kinds of dryer sheets..don't know if it keeps animals out but it sure smells nice in springtime.
  9. im with slowpoke, all the way here. brands, sizes, mig vs. stick. like anything, if you buy a 99$ unit from PA you will have a bad experience. i've had a small hobart and a small lincoln both worked great if you didnt ask too much of them. i can build almost anything with a small 120v as i could with my Miller 250, i just wouldn't. but there is nothing handier than having a little machine in the garage
  10. Ya know where i see this stockpiling brought up alot are perch discussions. Particularly on sites that talk a little more perch than OFC. " freezers gettin low " is the mantra guys talk about 300 fish limits day after day, grabbing 19 lbs of fillets 4-5 times a week its inconceivable they arent exceedin their possession limits How can you fish for 40 years and ask a question like does 2+5 fish = 5 fish? The only math problem here is yours...
  11. No information was provided so how was it inaccurate?
  12. Yes jc it is the excursion a 2006 bought in 2008 in detroit...
  13. There used to be a theory and a calculation on screen size vs viewing distance. The new theory is you buy the biggest tv your wallet will allow. If your credit card clears you havent bought a big enough tv
  • Create New...