huntervasili

Looks like you enjoy roughin it eh TJ... Beauty place its shaping up to be forsure.

Nice pics and that 2nd fish is one clean looking piece of chrome

If you have the option of fly fishing for them do it. Use anything that's hatching for dries and use some BHPT nymphs, Mickey finn's hare's ears etc. should pick up a bunch. Good luck

Awesome job fishing and great report. Some really nice fish and equally good pics, Thanks for sharing

Looking good Cliff, Bly, and Sinker. Enjoy the eye's and glad to hear the day turned out for ya after all

They have a a link with the image tags under the picture

MMMM Brains.

If anyone has room in their vehic and wants to share gas costs, or split on my car PM me... Also if anyone has an open seat on their boat, I am good for half the cost... I would be leaving Burlington early afternoon Friday and staying till sunday/monday

Well I finally made it out on the water and what began as a pike day ended in a few eater pumpkinseeds. Pike decided not to co-operate much but me and my buddy both had a few really good strikes and a few good fights that didn't end in success, but Ryan did get one little guy

So we figured heck we'll try and get some of the panfish and so we did. Ended up keeping 9, the largest being about 10", and released a few more. They're going to be some beauties on the BBQ tomorrow. Any recipe ideas?

Yes there are fish, and as Musky or specs mentioned its good to check the regs as the areas vary. Also, it is a poor idea to put an exact location and map to a fishing spot and against the board rules... Good luck to you there though

I couldn't find the source for this graph.

 

I find that very offensive. I thought we were having a civil discussion. Were you not the one just a little while ago mentioning not to turn this thread into a bash fest and instead add constructiveness? Please, there is no reason to close this but you sure as hell can't begin to make this go downhill just because you are overwhelmed, like the liberals were, with the uselessness of the Canadian Gun Registry. If that is the case.

Sounds similar to a country south of the border, minus the "elected" part and before the UN. Although that is, as you explain sarcastically "very likely" And as mentioned, Banning guns does NOT reduce gun crimes it increases them! I am getting slightly frustrated with this useless death, here and now thing... We need enforcement. Ask any Cop worth his salt, he will tell you this: The registry looks important and used because it is automatically pulled up on its own. It is "From its inception, I was advised not to depend on it to make decisions. It is outdated, inaccurate and completely unreliable. To make a decision at a call based on registry information would be foolish at best and deadly at worst." Talk about local... This is from Michael Mays a former police officer in Toronto. Or how about another officers views "Not once, however, during my career do I recall using the gun registry to solve a major crime. Simply put, the vast majority of criminals use firearms which don't come close to being included in this bureaucratic jumble of information. " Sgt Cottingham, Alberta. I have another 100 or so with the same opinion but don't need that many to get my point across. Ok Just one more "The reasons that the firearms registry is so highly ineffectual are, I believe obvious, but basically it affects the wrong people, law abiding citizens and not criminals." This is from a 23 year Veteran of the OPP Ben Beatty. I don't believe many people are mre educated in this matter than those who use, well, attempt to use the Registry. Rex murphy said it best I believe when he said that the registry was a "Billion dollar bag of perfect uselessness" mind you it is now 2 Bil... which could have gone to enforcement and actually saved some lives rather than this banning.

Sorry for the double post

A clarification here... if you like it or not, you have no constitutional right to own a gun. That holds true only in America. No one is taking your rights away because you never had them in the first place.

I am not referring to the 2nd amendment of the USA... I am referring to the some of the following arguments including the 28 distinctive Charter violations from Sections 1,2,7, 8, 9, 10( B ), 11, 26, 27 of the charter. Of particular interest are the violations of section 7, or at least so I believe and I don't want to spend hours writing an essay. Section 7 states that "Everyone has the right to life, Liberty and security of the person" (s. 7 CCRF, 1982). The Supreme Court of Canada has interpreted the right to liberty fairly broadly. The Honourable Justice Wilson stated in R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30: "the right to liberty contained in s. 7 guarantees to every individual a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting their private lives." Similarly, The Honourable Justice La Forest in the case of Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844, stated: "the right to liberty enshrined in s. 7 of the Charter protects within its ambit the right to an irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference" (Morton, 2002). By forcing gun owners to licence themselves and register their firearms, Bill C-68 clearly infringes on privacy rights guaranteed by the charter and ruled by the Supreme Court. Although legitimately regulating the sale of firearms, this bill criminalizes the mere act of possessing a legally acquired firearm in one's own home. The bill was further proven according to the courts to have no positive impact on firearm related crimes, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Conrad ruled, "No evidence was presented to this Court to show that the mere possession of an ordinary firearm without a license or registration certificate is a significant social problem, let alone one leading to an increase in firearm-related crime, suicide or accidents" (Morton, 2002). This ruling shows that C-68 does in fact violate personal autonomy protected by s. 7 and the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence on liberty. This violation undermines Canadian citizens, particularly hundreds of thousands of law abiding hunters, trappers, sport competitors and farmers, by taking away their individual control even though they have done no harm to society. The right to security of the person is also infringed upon in the Firearms act, although criminal law and police forces enforce the law, they cannot always be at the place of a crime and so citizens have a right to self defence against attacks on their person or possessions, and this can, on occasion, require the use of force and a firearm, and so by making the public fully dependant on the police for protection the Firearms Act infringes on the right to security of the person. Section 7 is also interpreted by the Supreme Court to protect not only a citizens physical security but also the right to be free from and emotional and psychological stress induced by the government. The Right Honourable Justice Dickson explained that "the case law leads me to the conclusion that state-imposed psychological stress constitutes a breach of security of the person. And in a later case, R. v. Oakes [1986] explained the effects criminal offences can have on a person. "An individual charged with a criminal offence faces grave social and personal consequences, including potential loss of physical liberty, subjection to social stigma and ostracism from the community, as well as other social, psychological and economic harms." This bill is the direct cause of a violation of security of the person as there is significant psychological stress on firearms owners. Otherwise law abiding sportsmen, farmers and collectors are pushed into contact with criminal law, where they can face incarceration. Other violations of section 7 include that, Section 105 of the firearms act forces any person in possession of a firearm to bring it forth for inspection by a government official. (Morton, 2002) If the firearms owner refuses to bring it in they can be criminally punished for not providing the police with what could be self incriminating evidence, which would be a violation of the principles of fundamental justice. By forcing one to give up information and answer questions about firearms brought in for inspection they are being denied the right to silence and the right not to be questioned without a lawyer present. A Right to Procedural Fairness is also infringed upon in the administration of Bill C-68 as any person with unregistered firearms can be charged prosecuted. Deadlines for registration cause enormous backlogs in the system as only 40 000 registrations can be processed per week, so long as there are no subsequent crashes as have frequented the CFC in the past. . (Morton, 2002) This backlog will allow those who have sent in registration applications before the deadline to be prosecuted as the applications will only be received and not processed or legally registered. This will cause a violation of the principles of procedural fairness, and right to liberty that the Supreme Court has established, and this argument is strengthened when justice Lamer wrote that "A law that has the potential to convict a person who has not really done anything wrong offends the principles of fundamental justice and, if imprisonment is available as a penalty, such a law then violates a person's right to liberty under section 7 of the Charter" (Morton, 2002). These violations of the charter clearly prove that the guaranteed rights and freedoms are being infringed upon by the Firearms Act. If you cannot see that for you're self, well I guess that is an opinion you are entitled to according to the CCRF, but remember when you allow the gov't to take away some rights they can go as far as they want as there is precedent. So if this poorly organized registration and "banning" continues don't be surprised when you loose you're freedom of opinion. Again there are over 20 more infractions and violations but I don't have a couple days to write and spell it out for you.

Bill

I am totally against any more gun regulations (and I don't own a gun) for the simple fact that it is the precursor to complete confiscation, and disarming of the public. This leaves the population with no self defense from either corrupt government or criminals.

 

This is the real issue at hand, not whether too many innocents are killed. Statistics can be skewed to match any desired outcome, and have been used for years to sway public opinions in favour of whatever agenda needs to be met.

 

Don't think everything is as it seems, and certainly don't get caught up in useless left-right arguments meant to distract your attention away from the real goals.

Very well said.

Scuro, you're numbers do not show the before/ after effects of the gun ban in Australia, England and Wales and the increases in firearm homicides in Canada with the registration's and de facto ban of handguns since the 30's... Yes they may have less crime than Canada, but that is in part because of enforcement. They have had lower crimes even before the ban. IF you were to show the before and after effects where over 2 years after the ban in england the rate increased by 40% people may be able to have a glimpse at the truth. Remember to that once our rights are infringed, which they are with the registration in many ways, they can start to take more and more of our rights.

Do you mind so much as adding you're source? As as what the graph shows... they clearly forgot a title. Thanks

I know there was no mocking on my behalf... If you interpreted it that way, so be it, it was unintended. I was only providing the counter arguments to what you believe to be true.

There is NO way I would have sat there and let someone put there hands around my neck first off.. and I have no issue in saying that once they were laying in their own blood I would have zero issue in smashing every single one of their teeth out with my size 13's.. down or not...

 

that is if they made it off the boat..

 

G

I wouldn't have a problem with it either, its the courts who do...

I can mention it really has changed my experience as a boater. The lack of respect by those guests in particular seems to have changed my attitude in general toward inviting any other people on the boat. I know now that if a person has been drinking or seems intoxicated in any way they are not getting on my boat, no way, no how.

You answered you're own question... don't let drunk strangers on you're boat and you won't have this problem

I love throwing topwater, namely spro frogs, for bass opener morning

Wow...messed up story. So many missing pieces to it tho.

Thats how it seems, unless this guy was on some sort of drugs or forgot to take them that morning

ohh and there's always the flaregun

Bill Spicer of the NFF, Dave Mercer, Bob Izumi.... I am with ya Terry I wont watch henry any either, or his accomplice for that matter... The Dimestore fisherman, now I dont know how that even got aired, almost as bad as shelley and courtney for screaming.

You can use whatever "reasonable means" necessary to keep you're self safe. If hes choking you you can push him off or sock him one or until the threat is gone. when hes crying on the ground is when you cant hit him anymore and call the cops to get him charged... If he attempts to charge you you can claim self defense but ensure you don't go overboard and kick the crap out of him

I can wait until your schooling is done. Then you can trounce all of my blindingly misleading citations.

 

Put simply guns are the most efficient way to kill people. The more accessible a gun is, the greater likelihood there is it will kill someone. I haven't checked the statistics but I would hazard to guess that the US teen suicide rate is significantly higher then the Canadian suicide rate. I think the same would hold true to the death rate in domestic violence. Sure you can kill someone with a knife or hang yourself with a rope but the odds are that victims of such crimes have a much better chance of living if they were not shot. Same goes for attempted hangings.

 

Everyone has focused on the criminal point of the argument and enforcement but have failed to tackle the heart of the issue. Do guns kill more people unnecessarily in society? If so we need less of them. For any of you who have unnecessarily lost a love one, one such extra death is too many.

Ok well first off how do you figure guns are the most efficient way of killing? It may make it fairly easy and separate you from a person but it is far from efficient. As for Hanging I was referring to Suicides... Knives and blunt instruments account for much more violent crime than the 1.4% firearms does in Canada. Ohh and If you are hung you will die, either from a severance of the spine from you're head or strangulation... And again, banning guns increases violent crimes significantly ie. Britain where "A new study suggests the use of handguns in crime rose by 40% in the two years after the weapons were banned." (BBC News, 2001) "The Centre for Defence Studies at Kings College in London, which carried out the research, said the number of crimes in which a handgun was reported increased from 2,648 in 1997/98 to 3,685 in 1999/2000. (BBC, 2001). Might want to study some numbers, they clearly show the results... ohh and as mentioned the same occured in other countries as well (Wales, Australia)