Silver Minnow Bait Shop. 270 Mitchell Rd and NEW LOCATION: 418 Piccadilly Ave. Call 807-683-3778
Click here for our website.

All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Went out may long and it was slow haven't been out since.
  3. Anybody out walleye fishing anymore?I was at lac fishing was slow but caught good eaters.Seem like nobody wants to talk about walleye fishing anymore!
  4. Yesterday
  5. That would be incredible, thanks!
  6. Last night picked up two. Dipsys seemed to be main choice pulling purple nk spoons.
  7. Lol. The anti fishing troll came back!! - no one cares what you summarize and think. You just try to egg on members into an argument. "even your best buddy Arvey" - the last time I met arvey was in 1969 when his fist landed on my chin. Go away troll. Go bother another forum.
  8. Bobber, I see you are capable of using the copy and paste functionality on your computer. That's great for an old guy! Let that be a lesson to all you other old guys: don't let anyone tell you that you can't stop learning new things as you age, even bobber is capable of it! Since as I mentioned earlier that I like to debate in good faith, let me see if I can summarize what I think your argument is on this topic. (1) Everyone who expresses any kind of agreement with, or even suggest they understand the reasoning behind, the currently proposed very slight and probably reasonable curbing of the use of live bait in Ontario is a greenpeace/PETA eco crazy who also wants to ban all fishing and hunting and take away all your guns. Not only that, they are also an internet troll who's voices need to be suppressed and silenced. This is a pretty big leap of logic here, and even your best buddy Arvey doesn't like it when someone tries to shut down people with different opinion, he even said so himself, see below: Come on Arvey, show again how you have the balls to say anything to anybody at anytime and tell Bobber to stop from infringing on my freedom of speech just because I disagree with him! (2) The same people who express even a very small agreement with this very small curbing of live bait use are part of a vast eco-facist (or is it eco-communist, I'm not sure anymore) conspiracy to fake all the science about acid rain, climate change, habitat destruction, etc., etc., for the purposes of enriching themselves and destroying all of western civilization. Am I understanding your argument correctly?
  9. Here is another interesting article involving WCS A pair of prominent environmental groups have quietly left the International Conservation Caucus Foundation, a polluter-funded nonprofit with ties to more than a quarter of US lawmakers. Conservation International and the World Wildlife Fund withdrew from the ICCF after a March 2013 Mother Jones story raised questions about the group’s lavish spending on “educational” trips for members of Congress with abysmal environmental voting records. [You can read the full story—”The Congressman, the Safari King, and the Woman Who Tried to Look Like a Cat”—here.] Founded in 2006 by David Barron, a former lobbyist for West African dictators, the ICCF brought together polluting corporations, including ExxonMobil, Dow Chemical, and Pacific Gas & Electric, with four giant environmental groups—the Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, Conservation International, and the World Wildlife Fund. Together, the polluters and green groups paid millions of dollars in dues over the years—much of which the ICCF spent wining and dining the 117 representatives and 23 senators in the International Conservation Caucus, an affiliated congressional group. Legislation passed in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal was supposed to strictly limit the ability of special interests to fund congressional travel. But in the years since, the congressional ethics committees tasked with enforcing those rules have decided the post-Abramoff restrictions do not extend to nonprofit groups—even those, like the ICCF, that get much of their funding from lobbyists and organizations that lobby. This loophole has helped congressional travel to return to levels not seen since Abramoff’s globe-trotting prime: Nearly $6 million was spent on 1,885 privately funded congressional trips in 2013, the most since 2005, according to disclosures compiled by LegiStorm. Former Alabama Rep. Jo Bonner, the top Republican on the House ethics committee from 2009 until 2012, was one man who could have reformed the system and blocked the ICCF and other lobbyist- and corporate-funded groups from paying for congressional travel. But Bonner benefited from the loophole: In August 2012, the ICCF spent $47,690 to take Bonner, two other GOP members of Congress, and assorted family members on an African trip that included a multiday stay at Ol Jogi, the 66,000-acre Kenyan ranch where the Oscar-winning film Out of Africa was filmed. The big-game reserve—then owned by a trust benefiting the Wildenstein family, a Franco-American aristocratic line accused of buying art looted by the Nazis, among other misdeeds—features a golf course, racetrack, dozens of man-made lakes, around 120 miles of road, more than 200 major buildings, and some 350 employees. Four months after returning from Ol Jogi, Bonner declined to issue new regulations blocking nonprofit-funded junkets for members of Congress. In March 2013, he explained the trip to an Alabama newspaper chain by claiming he went to Ol Jogi to research Al Qaeda’s connection to poaching. Two months later, he announced he would resign his congressional seat to take a job in the University of Alabama system. Another ICCF-arranged outing—a $30,700, 10-day tour of Botswana and South Africa that Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) and his wife took in August 2011—was the second most expensive on record for any single member of Congress. When Mother Jones first wrote about ICCF last year, the Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, Conservation International, and the World Wildlife Fund all defended their affiliation with the foundation. That was no surprise: The four environmental organizations helped launch the ICCF, which bragged that its “Advisory Council is comprised of four of the most influential international conservation NGOs.” On a page now missing from the foundation’s website, it said that the environmental nonprofits were “well-positioned with staff all over the world” and helped guide its operations by “contributing their scientific expertise, vast experience, and programmatic depth.” The Advisory Council, however, went unmentioned in the ICCF’s “2014 Partners in Conservation” report. That’s because the body was scrapped in the summer of 2013, after Conservation International—the first environmental group Barron approached about forming the ICCF—also became the first to sever ties. “CI’s grant to the ICCF concluded on June 30, 2012, at the end of our fiscal year, and therefore we are no longer a member,” spokesman Kevin Connor said when asked about the recent report. The World Wildlife Fund left ICCF because, as the congressional “caucus became better established, the need for the Advisory Council diminished,” according to spokesman Ian Morrison. “WWF no longer has a formal connection with the caucus or foundation,” he said, before adding that the group would still be open to working with lawmakers on “programs tied to our key issues.” But the World Wildlife Fund stayed on with ICCF at least long enough to enjoy its annual gala. The green group is listed as a partner in a program from the September 18, 2013, event. Although less star-studded than past galas, which featured luminaries ranging from Tony Blair to Harrison Ford, 2013’s festivities included a traditional West African dance performance after dinner. Also of note were the event’s two masters of ceremonies: former lawmakers Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat turned “senior advisor” at a lobbying firm whose largest client last year was a tar sands trade group, and Mark Green, a Wisconsin Republican who left office in 2008 with a career score of 24 (out of 100) from the League of Conservation Voters. Although it recently lost CI and WWF, it hasn’t been all bad news of late for the ICCF, which didn’t respond to questions about the recent defections. The other two members of the now-defunct Advisory Council—the Nature Conservancy and Wildlife Conservation Society—continue to work with ICCF, according to the foundation’s recent report. ICCF is also expanding its footprint abroad, forming affiliations with conservation caucuses in countries such as Colombia and Kenya. And Barron, who stepped down as the foundation’s president in 2009, has since returned to the fold as chairman of the new ICCF Group, an umbrella organization that claims to be piloting projects worldwide that could be done by a volunteer “conservation corps” of retirees, among other efforts. The ICCF has also scored contributions from a handful of new corporate members. First-time donors include Altria, the tobacco giant that used to go by the name Phillip Morris, and AngloGold Ashanti, a mining firm with an environmental record that earned it a 2011 award for the world’s worst companies. Also on the list of new donors: Ol Jogi, which is now accepting reservations. Folks who can’t get a foundation to foot the bill can book a one-week stay on the game reserve for up to 14 people for $210,000
  10. I just completed this quiz. My Score 40/100 My Time 203 seconds  
  11. Another reason the fishing and hunting community and the general public as well should be aware that conservation and environmental groups or organizations should not be trusted completely without data driven facts is this sham on CO2, Acid Rain and Global Warming. Pure scientific and political data and facts, right. Not so fast. It's a good read and will open many eye's on the subject. Remember the big “acid rain” scare during the 1970s and 1980s attributing damage to lakes and forests to emissions from Midwestern utilities? If so, did you ever hear the results of a more than half-billion-dollar, 10-year-long national Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study that was initiated in 1980 to research the matter? Probably not. As it turned out, those widespread fears proved to be largely unfounded, since only one species of tree at a high elevation suffered any notable effect, and acidity in lakes was traced to natural causes. The investigating scientists reported that they had Robert Bruck, a North Carolina State University plant pathologist who worked on the project, observed: “if you're environmentally oriented, you going to find things to be concerned about; if you're one who finds no reason to get excited, you'll find much to support that too.” Although the Reagan-Bush administration refused to sponsor any acid rain legislation before the results were in, the regulatory groundwork had already been established through the EPA to avoid letting a perfectly good crisis go to waste. Senator John Heinz (R–PA) and Timothy Wirth (D-CO) had previously cosponsored a “Project 88” to provide a pathway for converting environmental issues into business opportunities. That media-fueled alarm about acid rain provided a great basis for new “allowance trading” legislation to create markets for buying and selling excess sulfur dioxide (SO2) credits. Project 88 became the Clean Air Act of 1990. “ Carbon-Capping Cronies: Enron, Al Gore and Friends One of the big traders in the SO2 allowance market was Enron. Back at that time in the 1990s the company was diversifying its energy business, and already owned the largest natural gas pipeline that existed outside of Russia, a colossal interstate network. However natural was having difficulties competing with coal. The hype about global warming which had been ginned up by then-Senator Al Gore’s famous 1988 congressional hearings on the matter provided what Enron recognized as a dream opportunity. After all, since a cap-and-trade market had been established for SO2, why not do the same for CO2 which was already being blamed for a climate crisis? Natural gas was a lower CO2-emitter than coal. Besides, they knew exactly where to go in Washington to get some help. Enron’s CEO Ken Lay had met with President Clinton and Vice President Gore in the White House on August 4, 1997 to prepare a strategy for the upcoming Kyoto conference in December. Kyoto was the first step toward creating a carbon market that Enron desperately wanted Congress to support. But there was one very pesky problem. Unlike SO2 which really does produce unhealthy smog, CO2 wasn’t a pollutant…at least not yet…and therefore EPA had no authority to regulate it. So after Al Gore’s Senate pal Timothy Wirth was appointed to become undersecretary of state for global affairs in the Clinton-Gore administration, Enron’s boss Lay began working closely with him to lobby Congress to grant EPA necessary CO2 regulatory authority plus also gain public support for the U.N.’s Kyoto Protocol initiative. And lobby they did. Between 1994 and 1996 the Enron Foundation contributed nearly $1 million to the Nature Conservancy, and together with the Pew Center and the Heinz Foundation they engaged in an energetic and successful global warming fear campaign which included attacks on scientific dissenters. Incidentally, the Heinz Foundation, headed by Teresa Heinz Kerry, generously provided a $250,000 award to Al Gore's star congressional hearing witness, NASA’s James Hansen, who subsequently went on public record supporting her new husband John Kerry’s failed presidential bid. An internal Enron memorandum stated that Kyoto would “do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside the restructuring [of] the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States." The rest, as they say, is history. Al Gore and his partner David Blood, the former chief of Goldman Sachs Asset Management (GSAM) took big stakes in the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which was poised to make windfall profits selling CO2 offsets if and when cap-and-trade was passed in Congress. Speaking before a 2007 Joint House Hearing of the Energy Science Committee, Gore told members: “As soon as carbon has a price, you’re going to see a wave [of investment] in it…There will be unchained investment.” Thanks to a 2010 Republican mid-term House cleaning that didn’t occur. Windy Hurricane Sensationalism Poses Extreme Science Threat There’s nothing like terrible and destructive weather events to stir up climate scaremongering. A notable example occurred just prior to the release of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Summary for Policymaker’s Report following the devastating 2004 summer storm season which witnessed five landfall hurricanes in Florida which captured media attention throughout the world. Opportunities to link this unusual pattern to man-made global warming were not lost on some IPCC officials, particularly Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a scientist in the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in New Zealand. In October of that year he participated in a press conference that announced: “Experts found global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” But there was a serious challenge. The IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming–hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise. Dr. Christopher Landsea, an expert on the subject at the Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory, was astounded and perplexed when he was informed that the press conference was to take place. As a contributing author on both of the IPCC's previous reports and an invited author for the upcoming 2007 report, Landsea believed there must be some huge mistake. He had not done any work to substantiate the claim. Nobody had. There were no studies that revealed an upward trend of hurricane frequency or intensity...not in the Atlantic basin or in any other basin. Landsea wrote to top IPCC officials imploring, “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies being alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long–term trends of tropical cyclone activity?” Having received no replies, he then requested IPCC leadership assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[ Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community… Thus, I would like assurance that what will be included in the IPCC report will reflect the best available information consensus within the scientific community most expert on this specific topic.” After the assurance didn’t come, Landsea resigned from the 2007 IPCC report activities and issued an open letter presenting his reasons. And while the IPCC press conference proclaiming that global warming causes hurricanes received tumultuous responses in the international press, Mother Nature hasn’t paid much attention. In reality, there has been no increase in the strength or frequency of landfall hurricanes in the world’s five main hurricane basins during the past 50-70 years; there has been no increase in the strength or frequency in tropical Atlantic hurricane development during the past 370 years; and the U.S. is currently enjoying the longest period ever recorded without intense Category 3-5 hurricane landfall. By the way, while there also hasn’t been any increase in mean global temperatures during lifetimes of most of today’s high school students, Kevin Trenberth’s theories still get lots of attention. Searching for answers as to where the “missing heat” that greenhouse gas emissions should have trapped in the Earth’s climate system went, he speculates that the oceans ate them. Unfortunately, the science to support this most recent assertion is once again missing as well. The Big Himalayan Melting Glacier Snow Job Although the IPCC is broadly represented to the public as the top authority on climate matters, the organization doesn’t actually carry out any original climate research at all. Instead, it simply issues assessments based upon supposedly independent surveys of published peer-reviewed research. However, some of the most influential conclusions summarized in its reports have neither been based upon truly independent research, nor properly vetted through accepted peer- review processes. IPCC’“We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.” Well, they were successful and did get some action. This dire prediction prompted concern that rivers fed by the melting Himalayan glaciers would flood, then dry up once the glaciers retreated, endangering tens of millions of people in lowland Bangladesh. Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh, a former commander in India’s air force, then foresaw resulting mass migrations across national borders, with militaries (including ours) becoming involved. Purportedly influenced by this, Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) snuck some language into the National Defense Authorization Act which required the Department of Defense to consider the threat of climate change effects in its long-range strategic plans. One of those national security threats that DOD planners mentioned in 2009 was that global warming would melt the massive Himalayan ice mass. Political Science: The Winners and Losers s representation in its 2007 report that global warming would likely melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035 prompted great alarm across southern and eastern Asia where glaciers feed major rivers. As it turned out, that prediction was traced to a speculative magazine article authored by an Indian glaciologist, Syed Hasnain, which had absolutely no supporting science behind it. Hasnain worked for a research company headed by the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. IPCC’s report author, Marari Lai, later admitted to London’s Daily “We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policymakers and politicians and encourage them to take action.” Well, they were successful and did get some action. This dire prediction prompted concern that rivers fed by the melting Himalayan glaciers would flood, then dry up once the glaciers retreated, endangering tens of millions of people in lowland Bangladesh. Retired Air Marshal A.K. Singh, a former commander in India’s air force, then foresaw resulting mass migrations across national borders, with militaries (including ours) becoming involved. Purportedly influenced by this, Senate Armed Services Committee members Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and John Warner (R-VA) snuck some language into the National Defense Authorization Act which required the Department of Defense to consider the threat of climate change effects in its long-range strategic plans. One of those national security threats that DOD planners mentioned in 2009 was that global warming would melt the massive Himalayan ice mass. Political Science: The Winners and Losers So just how well did this sort of this political science pay off in supporting the various agendas? Well, in the case of Enron…obviously not so great. As for Al Gore, even though his carbon cash-in plans got capped he still harvested lots of the green he was peddling. His pals did okay too. Timothy Worth landed a position as Vice Chair of the United Nations Foundation and the Better World Fund. James Hansen who Al’s congressional hearings catapulted to fame is thankfully no longer at NASA, but is still scoring lucrative talking gigs in between routine arrests at Keystone XL Pipeline protest rallies. EPA’s employment growth and regulatory ambitions have obviously benefited from IPCC’s alarmist agendas. Its 2009 “endangerment finding” decreeing that atmospheric concentrations of six greenhouse gases (including CO2) “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations” was based entirely upon IPCC claims which were refuted at the time even by its in-house “Internal Study on Climate” report conclusions. That report, authored by my friend Alan Carlin who was then a senior research analyst at EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics stated: “…given the downward trend in temperatures since 1998 (which some think will continue until at least 2030), there is no particular reason to rush into decisions based upon a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.” Yet as IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer admitted in November 2010, “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…” And who are the real losers of such agenda-driven science? One of the biggest is climate science-related credibility. Fellow Forbes contributor Patrick Michaels recently posted an article quoting Dr. Garth Paltridge, a former chief research scientist with Australia’s prestigious Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Referring to a dilemma in the overselling of global warming, Partridge observes: “The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the U.K., the National Academy of Sciences in the U.S.A and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.” Partridge then predicts some potentially horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives. Noting that this day is approaching, he states: “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.” This, he concludes: “is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.” When this occurs, we all lose.
  12. Last week
  13. Bobber Down, I can definitely see where you are coming from. There is certainly some anti-fishing sentiment brewing, especially with PETA gaining more supporters. Germany and Switzerland already banned catch and release fishing on ethical grounds. But, I would counter by saying that the anti groups are not the only risk to our future fishing, and honestly the anti groups are probably not even the biggest threat (Looking at those Asian carp creeping up here, and Lyme disease seemingly multiplying). Habitat loss and invasive species do a lot of damage to fishing too. If we as anglers don't help protect the resource, it just gives people more reason to criticize us. Frankly, I just want to be able to take my kids fishing without having to complain about how the fishing was better "Back in the day". Not trying to say this new bill is perfect, but we need to be responsible in helping manage the resource. Call me an anti if you want, but I love fishing, to the point where it is more of an addiction than a hobby at this point.
  14. I have been into all of them many times, I will get back to you shortly on locations for campsites, reefs and shoals, water depths, etc.
  15. I'm planning to take my fiance on her first canoe trip this summer and was considering chambers/McGrath/Topaz lakes due to their smaller size. I've never been myself, nor do I know of anyone that is familiar. The main advice I am seeking is info on established campsites (locations, characteristics, etc), though any other advice for the area would be greatly appreciated. Cheers!
  16. You were right arvey. I am sure by now that members reading this thread know we have at least 3 anti's in some form and possibly an internet troll on this fishing and hunting forum. I would just advise the membership here to ignore the comments of anti's in whatever form they appear. Everyone's fishing and hunting heritage and rights are continuously being threatened by conservation/environmental groups and other individuals, not just mine. Just ask Dr. Google. Some say this bait issue should not concern us. It should. Some can speak/write like a flowing gown in a breeze. It does not change the fact that our sport is under attack and has been for some time. This attack many may remember came from anti hunting and anti fishing organizations. It was defeated. Incomplete and vague with a serious trojan horse. http://www.keepcanadafishing.com/animal-rights-bill-threatened-canadians-way-of-life/ This link is the latest threat we avoided in BC from an environmental group who will try to use their strategy template for all other regions in Canada including the Great Lakes. http://www.keepcanadafishing.com/statement-by-mp-zimmer-regarding-minister-leblancs-pncima-announcement/ It seems like once again hunters and anglers are being targeted and made the victims of radical anti-hunting and anti-fishing agenda supporters. If hunters and anglers do not stand up for their rights and privileges we could see the day that hunting and fishing may be outlawed in Canada. It will not happen at once but in little steps.http://www.merrittherald.com/could-hunting-be-outlawed-in-canada/ Do not underestimate the intentions and agendas of conservation, and environmental groups and their supporters in sheep's clothing. They are very good at hiding their true goals. As I have said before this is just the start of a complete live bait ban in Ontario. I wonder how many anglers not involved in fishing forums even know this is going on or being put forward as policy by outside groups. I have had the pleasure to have lived in Nanaimo and Abbotsford for many years and have enjoyed fishing the Fraser River and up the coast to the Queen Charlotte Islands and areas in between with my wife of 45 years. Walleye and Bass fishing is skinny and one must travel the whole province to find it. I'm sorry if I come off or sound angry as j. klister states. He/she/it/troll pops in here from time to time and got it right on the older part. Again, I consider any conservation/environmental group or individual to be anti if their agenda, intentions or actions contribute to the closure, cancellation or restriction of any part of the sport of fishing no matter which way they frame it or come at the issue. I would just advise the membership here to ignore the comments of anti's in whatever form they appear. www.keepcanadafishing.com
  17. I mostly try to keep my posts to sharing information, pointing people to resources, and clarifying misinformation. I do my best to keep my opinions out of my posts (not always successful, but, hey...I'm human).
  18. I just completed this quiz. My Score 10/100 My Time 61 seconds  
  19. It's a little bit ironic, maybe bordering on hypocritical, to now complain about your character being attacked when almost 100% of the argument on "your side" of this topic consists of character attacks. Since I like to debate in good faith, let me summarize "your side" as I see it, with character attacks indicated. (1) The government agency in charge of this decision once a long time ago made a politically motivated decision (spring bear hunt cancellation) and did so under the influence of the "anti lobby" therefore every decision made by this government agency is politically motivated and influence by the "anti lobby"(character attack number 1). My only note here is that oddly enough this occurred under a right-wing government led by a Northern Ontario premier, who typically would have been thought to be pro-fishing, pro-hunting. (2) At a public meeting, a person representing this government agency made a statement that you thought was a lie (the tanks of black market bait thing), even though you have no evidence it was a lie, and the person who made it characterized it as rumour, and you provided no further context about the context, e.g. the question that motivated this answer, and whether or not other points were made in response as well. Therefore, many if not most people working for this organization are also liars (character attack #2) (3) I disagree with you, therefore I am an arrogant clown (character attack #3), or I am an "anti" (character attack #4). I called you angry old Thunder Bay guy, so guilty as charged, I did attack your character on that point, and I did this on purpose and knowingly, unlike your character attacks which I think arise out of your implicit personal biases so that you can't even see them. (4) Provinces can make their own laws. Look at Quebec, they make people speak French (character attack #5). On this, I substantially agree with your main point. Provinces in Canada have been delegated constitutionally the authority to manage their natural resources, one of which is bait fish. However, your statement to make this point, that people in Quebec have to learn French, has nothing to do with this (your implicit personal bias coming out again). (5) People who can see the scientific merits of the arguments being in favour of the change to this fishing regulations are either people who already work for the politically motivated, anti favouring government agency in charge of this regulations and are therefore liars, or if they don't work there, they are just stooges trying to curry favour with that organization so that someday they might be able to make money by working there and therefore can't be believed because they have a conflict of interest (character attack #6). On this point, I'll just say I agree that conflict of interest is bad. However, in the context of this debate, that means that you have to ignore bait harvesters and retailers opinion, since they have the biggest conflict of interest, seeing as they directly make money of the sale of the thing being discussed. While I don't think this is what you want to say, this is the logical conclusion of excluding people with a conflict of interest. Am I understanding your points correctly? Please feel free to provide any feedback in the comments below. If you wish to continue this debate in good faith, the next step you should take is to summarize the points made by the "other side", as you see them, so that we can have an open and informed debate. Note that none of your points have anything at all to do with the aim of the policy itself: very slightly curbing the use of live bait to reduce the risk of the spread of invasive aquatic species.
  20. What the hell does attacking my character in the first place have to do with live bait. It's past history I spoke the truth about , but your right your not worth the fight . All I see is an arrogant clown who figures the only opinion that matters is that of his or people like him and everybody else should stay quiet. Oh and by the way there's lots here in TBay i'd like to see changed but your right there's core of people that don't and i'm not one of them so your off base on that one.
  21. Went out tonight got three. Not big ones with this one being biggest.
  22. Thanks for the reminder, gonna do that tomorrow.
  23. I think you only speak truth in the trumpian sense of truth, lol. I am not offended by you. More sad for you, actually, that you could be so angry and misinformed. I don't think I'm the best commenter on here, I would put Mad Scientist as the top commenter actually, and pastor norm as one of the people in the top 2 or 3. But don't hold anything against them due to your dislike of me. It's true that I don't really know you, I just base my opinion on the way you comment on things on here, and it doesn't paint the picture of a sane, rational individual, at least not to me (especially your completely off topic rant about Quebec, what the hell does that have to do with live bait?). In fact, in the case of both you and Mr. Bobber, I think of you as the caricature of the classic angry old Thunder Bay guy that complains about everything, and exudes attitudes that stand in the way of my home town ever being known for anything but crappy things (I don't live there anymore, and I've stopped defending it as a nice place to people, for a number of reasons that I won't get into. I do love the fishing there, hope it always stays the way it is). But, as you say, you do have the balls to say whatever to who ever. And I congratulate you for it, I'm sure in your own mind it's a great personality characteristic to have, just like Mr Bobber's "never compromise". I'm sure that's been a good financial decision for him, in the cost to maintain ex-wives department. In real life, the classic angry old Thunder Bay guy would now puff up his chest and say "oh yeah, come over here and say that to me, buddy". And I would walk away, thinking this sad old man is not worth the fight. And that is what you and Mr. Bobber are to anyone who is reasonable in this kinds of debates: not worth the fight. To bring this back to the topic of live bait, it's like I've said before: even with these rules fully implemented Ontario will still have the LEAST restriction on the use of live bait of anywhere in Canada. Think about that for a second. I don't think that means there is a victory anywhere for the anti-fishing or anti-hunting crowd. To me, its rather shows the strength of the pro-fishing, pro-hunting lobby, that even when this province changes the rules around this, it's STILL the least restrictive regime anywhere. And anybody who knows anything about ecological risk management knows the regime we have now of basically catch anything anywhere, move it where ever you want, is completely insane given that Ontario probably has the most risk of invasive aquatics anywhere, given the fraction of the province that's connected directly to great lakes watersheds, which are connected to many other watersheds further south in the US that contain innumerable species that none of us want anywhere near our waters. We can use still barbed trebles (many places single barbless only, one hook per lure), lead sinkers and jigs (many places this is banned, have you seen the cost of the tungsten alternatives), other organic bait allowed mostly without restriction (many places no worms, no leeches, nothing), and even after this we can still use live bait, just have to keep a receipt for 2 weeks and keep a log if you trap your own. Oh the horror!
  24. My mistake checked with a friend of mine , it's their stocking program that is private.
  25. arvey....BC has a Federal fishery management for tidal waters. Provincial regs and enforcement for sweet waters.
  26. Never meant to imply most. Most people are responsible. Responsible people aren't the reason for these bait regulations, the irresponsible ones are. But this doesn't really help curb irresponsible anglers, just people who happen to keep bait for more than two weeks. Also, if you have managed to keep bait alive for more than two weeks, you probably haven't been dumping it. What I meant is, some folks will end their trip with leftover bait and say "we'll I can't use this after a few days" and dump it instead of taking it home (I don't use live bait so not sure if taking bait home would survive long). The regs can't help stop this behaviour since CO'S can't be everywhere, but education might.
  27. I didn't say it was destroy the fishery. Do they have the same fishery as us? If i'm not mistaken B.C.'s fishery is run by an outside source not their ministry , I could be wrong I do remember somebody telling me.
  28. arvey... I only use BC and AB to show that both provinces have a growing and thriving sportfishery. You might not care what they do, but it proves that the idea the new reg would destroy fishing is a false idea.
  1. Load more activity