solopaddler

Dave, you're finally coming out of the closet! Congrat's buddy!

What's a cormonart?

That my friend is the rub. Exactly what is the literal definition of "not affecting" anyone, at least as far as the HTA is concerned? It seems to me that it's more than a little subjective. Nowhere in the HTA does it say "when the road is devoid of vehicles". Is it "no other vehicles within four car lengths back in both directions"? Is it "no other vehicles within half a km in both directions"? Nothing is spelled out clearly, it's completely ambiguous. The way the HTA reads, it seems as though it's up to the drivers discretion. A good lawyer would have a field day with one of those tickets the way the HTA is written now.

You're the king of side speak. I think you've been hanging around too many lawyers.

Why'd you edit your post? What if you're not affecting any other vehicles?

Hopefully not while behind the wheel making a left hand turn with no indicator on.

Exactly. I can't believe some of the responses here. I don't hover over my kids and mollycoddle them, neither does my wife. They get plenty of freedom. If one or both of them happened to wander onto dangerous ice like that, near flowing water no less, I can only hope someone like Manitou would be there to stop them. So I guess it's safe to say that those of you who didn't see anything wrong with the kids doing that, would have said and done nothing if in Manitou's place? Good for you Manitou, you might have saved a kids life.

Albert, Albert, Albert. Pot stirring? Is there another interpretation to what I highlighted that I'm not getting? I'd just like to know what the highway traffic is saying. To me it seems fairly straightforward. Then suddenly it doesn't when Dave chimes in and disputes it. (For what it's worth I always use my indicator. )

Hmmmm....really? That's not how this reads: 142.(1) The driver or operator of a vehicle upon a highway before turning to the left or right at any intersection or into a private road or driveway or from one lane for traffic to another lane for traffic or to leave the roadway shall first see that the movement can be made in safety, and if the operation of any other vehicle may be affected by the movement shall give a signal plainly visible to the driver or operator of the other vehicle of the intention to make the movement. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 142 (1).

Years back I almost rear ended an older lady who had come to a complete stop with her indicator light on at the end of an on ramp. Another time an old Scotish gent a few cars in front of me was rear ended by the car behind him 'cause he stopped at a red light. After the accident I heard him say "Well, I thought it was going to turn red, that's why I stopped". Nothing like a cautious old Scotsman. My real pet peeve that happens everyday is people in front of me on an on ramp who don't accelerate to merge safely with the traffic. Drives me nuts.

Compromise. Personally I like the idea of doing it all. Our honeymoon we spent a week in Cuba, were back home for 2 days, then we headed north for a 1 week fly in trip.

Nobody's saying what's right or wrong, just the legalities of the situation.

There you go, so you don't have to signal at all times.

If I'm not mistaken a long while back Dave (our resident cop ) mentioned that it's never "mandatory" to use signals unless other vehicles are in the vicinity. Something along those lines. Perhaps he'll chime in.

Well actually all of their other shows were swept to the wayside after their troubles with the law.

Nope. She was an employee of Canadian Sportfishing and her show was created and produced by Italo. As was there hunting show, Outdoor Sportsman with Dave Kraisosky.

Probably not Gerritt. But maybe a Portoguese Man? (Ice fishing is popular among the Portoguese. )

Beach, up north somewhere, whatever. I've always been of the opinion, if you're going to spend money, spend it on travel. Waaay better than spending it on toys. Too many people never get to experience anything, and not 'cause they can't afford it. They live in a bubble, Eat, work, sleep, and pretty soon they're dead and have done nothing.

If it's a choice between one or the other, then I'd go north too. Why can't you do both?

I'd love to be lying on a beach right about now.

Ironically all my German relatives are crazy about fishing and especially Canada. Nice to see someone of the female persuasion so passionate about the sport.

The $1000 price is an introductory special to get people interested in the new camp on Richter. The main camp on the Attawapiskat is regular price. The Attawapiskat camp is mostly booked but you might be surprised if you ask Eddie. If it's only a couple of guys going he'd probably be able to squeeze you in. Honestly Mike, and I mean this, bait is not necessary for the walleyes up there. If the bite slows down half a crawler on your jig will work wonders. A flat of worms packed in bedding in a styrofoam container is by far the best way to go if you feel the need for bait on a fly in trip. That said ON residents are welcome to bring their own minnow traps. They don't weigh anything and there's lots of places to trap them. On a side note, Mike check your pm's. Cheers

I can't watch any fishing show for longer than 5 minutes.

That's awesome dude. One of my favourite lakes (guess the secrets out now )

Sure. A few years back when I was in the market for property up north there was a huge waterfront parcel of land for sale on Dog. I hauled the boat up there to look at the property and camped and fished for a few days. On the plus side it's a large beautiful lake. On the downside the fishing was a bit tough. There is plenty of fish to catch, but they're not falling in your boat and you generally have to work for them. I did a huge amount of research on this lake back then. There's a surprisingly large amount of feedback on this lake on a variety of websites. The general concensus was exactly what I encountered: Nice lake, but tough fishing.