Forum Replies Created

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 37 total)
  • KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #1403404

    It’s not the nets. 2 years ago we had a 0-18 inch slot on walleye, and every hook an line fisherman in the state showed up and pounded the lake, keeping limit after limit. I live on the lake. I saw it. I caught fish and kept some. I fished the FLW and placed 6th. Awesome walleye fishing! But when a lake is producing a bite at that level, and is visited by more fisherman that typical, who keep everything they catch, the 0-18 inch fish numbers end up in our bellies. Add the launch boats take and you get a walleye crash with “small walleye.” But I’m with you, let’s blame the natives. Anybody but us! And I’m not saying the net’s don’t impact walleye numbers, because they do. But we can’t and are not going to change that; it’s a federal court ruling that will stand as long as the band wants it to so its just another variable fisheries managers have to account for. But the nets didn’t fish out the small walleye. That would be you and me. Oh wait, you only kept a couple, because you are better than the rest of us (wink). Time to look in the mirror, shut the fishery down except catch and release, and let it heal. Thankfully the DNR is doing that for the most part. But get out of your ivory tower blaming the indians for everything. I live here and I see what actually goes on. Come up from your town and visit when they are biting and pound the lake, blame the indians when you can’t get a bite. The first step in fixing it is admitting the real problem.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #1197317

    Just got off the pond for the second night in a row. 0 walleyes in 2 nights of trolling for 2 boats. We have fished every rock and weed spot from Indian point north to Wealthwood, from 14-4 ft of water, with stick baits, shad style baits, and slip bobbers. I am sure the fish are biting somewhere for someone, but IT IS TOUGH! Going to trailer the boats up to Leech tomorrow morning. Gotta catch a walleye!

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #971944

    The United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce . . . with the Indian Tribes.” It is no surprise that American Indian tribes are mentioned in our Constitution. Indian tribes have always played a major part in the non-Indian exploration, settlement, and development of this country. When Christopher Columbus thought he had discovered the “New World” in 1492, it is estimated that 10-30 million native people lived in North America, that is, in the present day countries of Mexico, United States and Canada. These millions of people lived under governments of varying sophistication and complexity. These native governments were viable and fully operational political bodies which controlled their citizens and their territories and were an important factor in the development of the United States government we live under today.

    The European countries that colonized North America dealt with the native tribal governments as sovereign governments, that is, as governments that had independent and supreme authority over their citizens and territories. Especially in the area of the present day United States, the European powers interacted with American Indian tribal governments through official diplomatic means. Starting with England as early as 1620, and France, Spain, and Holland, the European powers negotiated with Indian tribes through official government to government council sessions and by entering treaties which recognized tribal governmental control over the territory of this “New World.” The European countries had a selfish motive for dealing with American Indian tribes in this fashion. The European governments wanted to legitimize the transactions they entered with Indian tribes to buy tribal lands. Thus, they wanted to make the transactions look official and legal by buying Indian lands through governmental treaties so that other European countries could not contest or object to these land sales.

    The United States adopted this tradition of dealing with Indian tribes as sovereign governments from the European powers. From the very beginning of its existence, the U.S. dealt with Indian tribes on an official governmental and treaty making basis. Political involvement in Indian affairs was a very important part of governmental life in early America. Indian tribes were very powerful in the 1700s and early 1800s in America and were a serious threat to the new United States. Hence, the United States government was heavily involved in negotiating and dealing with tribes as part of its governmental policies. The United States ultimately negotiated, signed and ratified almost 390 treaties with American Indian tribes. Most of these treaties are still valid today. The United States did not give Indian tribes anything for free in these treaties. Instead, the treaties were formal government to government negotiations regarding sales of land and property rights that the tribes owned and that the United States wanted to buy. The United States Supreme Court stated in 1905 that United States and Indian treaties are “not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a reservation of those not granted.” Thus, while tribal governments sold some of their rights in land, animals, and resources to the United States for payments of money, goods, and promises of peace and security, the tribes held onto or reserved to themselves other lands and property rights that they did not sell in the treaties. The United States Supreme Court has likened these Indian treaties to contracts between “two sovereign nations.”

    When the thirteen American colonies decided to rebel against England and seek their independence, they formed the Continental Congress to manage their national affairs. This Congress operated from 1774-1781 and dealt with Indian tribes on a diplomatic, political basis and signed one treaty with the Delaware Tribe in 1778. The political interest of the United States at that time was to keep the tribes happy with the new American government and to keep Indian tribes from fighting for the English in the American Revolutionary War during 1775-1781. This Congress engaged in diplomatic relations with tribes by sending representatives to the tribes bearing many gifts and promises of peace and friendship to keep the tribes neutral in the United States’ war with England.

    The thirteen American colonies then adopted the Articles of Confederation in 1781 and convened in a new Congress to manage their affairs on the national level. This Congress also had to manage Indian affairs and keep the tribes from fighting against the United States. The new Congress also sent diplomatic representatives to the tribes and promised friendship and peace, and ultimately it signed eight treaties with Indian tribes between 1781-1789, including treaties with the Iroquois Confederacy, the Cherokee Tribe, the Shawnee Tribe and numerous other tribes. However, this Congress’ power in Indian affairs was limited because the Articles of Confederation did not clearly give this Congress the exclusive power to deal with tribes. Thus, various states meddled in Indian affairs and actually caused wars between tribes and Georgia and South Carolina, for example, because the states were trying to steal Indian lands. The problems caused by states getting involved in Indian affairs led many people to call for the formation of a new and stronger United States government wherein the exclusive power over Indian affairs would be placed only in the hands of the national government and would be taken completely away from the states.

    When the representatives of the thirteen colonies/states started drafting the United States Constitution, to form the United States government we now live under, the “Founding Fathers” of this nation had to carefully consider the role of Indian tribes in the political arrangement of the new nation. As James Madison pointed out, much of the trouble that England and the thirteen colonies had suffered with Indian tribes from the 1640’s forward arose when individual colonists or colonial governments tried to greedily take Indian lands. In those instances, the colonies and individual colonists would negotiate with tribes without the permission or the involvement of the English King or the American national leadership. The drafters of the U.S. Constitution tried to solve this problem by taking Indian affairs out of the hands of the colonies/states and individuals and placing the sole power to deal and negotiate with tribes into the hands of the U.S. Congress. Thus, Indian tribes and their people, and the United States relationship with tribes are addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

    In Article I, the United States Constitution accomplishes the goal of excluding states and individuals from Indian affairs by stating that only Congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . .” The United States Supreme Court has interpreted this language to mean that the Congress was granted the exclusive right and power to regulate trade and affairs with the Indian tribes. The very first United States Congress formed under our new Constitution, in 1789-1791, immediately assumed this power and in the first five weeks of its existence it enacted four statutes concerning Indian affairs. In 1789, the new Congress, for example, established a Department of War with responsibility over Indian affairs, set aside money to negotiate Indian treaties, and appointed federal commissioners to negotiate treaties with tribes. In July 1790, this Congress passed a law which forbids states and individuals from dealing with tribes and from buying Indian lands. This law is still in effect today.

    Indian tribes are also referred to, but are not expressly designated, in Article VI of the Constitution where it is made clear that all treaties entered by the United States “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” In 1789, the United States had only entered a few treaties with European countries while it had already entered nine treaties with different Indian tribes. Consequently, this treaty provision of the U.S. Constitution states that the federal government’s treaties with Indian tribes are the supreme law of the United States.

    Individual Indians are also mentioned in the Constitution of 1789, Article I, and again in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was ratified in 1868. In counting the population of the states to determine how many representatives a state can have in Congress, Indians were expressly not to be counted unless they paid taxes. In effect, Indians were not considered to be federal or state citizens unless they paid taxes. After the Civil War when citizenship rights were extended through the Fourteenth Amendment to ex-slaves and to “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States,” that Amendment still excluded individual Indians from citizenship rights and excluded them from being counted towards figuring congressional representation unless they paid taxes. This demonstrates that Congress still considered Indians to be citizens of other sovereign governments even in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. This view was correct because most Indians did not become United States citizens until 1924 when Congress passed a law making all Indians United States citizens. For many years after 1924, states were still uncertain whether Indians were also citizens of the state where they lived and in many states Indians were not allowed to vote in state elections.

    American Indian tribes have played a major role in the development and history of the United States and have engaged in official, diplomatic governmental relations with other sovereign governments from the first moment Europeans stepped foot on this continent. Indian tribes have been a part of the day to day political life of the United States and continue to have an important role in American life down to this day. Tribes continue to have a government to government relationship with the United States and they continue to be sovereign governments with primary control over their citizens and their territory. It is no surprise, then, that the relationship between Indian people, tribal governments and the United States is addressed in the provisions of the United States Constitution.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #896304

    The past 3 falls have been tough, with most fisherman catching less than one fish per hour, according to the DNR. I think the bite this fall may be better (can it get worse?), but keepers will be tough to find. I have been alternating between Leech, Winni and ML this year, and Leech and Winni are still FAR outproducing ML. I have also heard the tribe will be setting out tulibee gill nets potentially early this year, so be VERY CAREFUL to not run your boat into these nets. It can be extremely dangerous at night. Good Fishing!

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #747016

    Jack: Thank you very much for the info and for representing the best interest of the lake at these meetings. I know it is a difficult task to balance people’s desire to keep fish along with the long-term goal of maintaining a healthy fishery, but I think the DNR is doing a great job. ML is a buetiful, awesome fishery for almost every species in the lake, and I prefer the 18-28 inch walleye slot, and in general, a philosophy of underharvest for all species by hook and line anglers. Thanks for your hard work.

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #732619

    MM MM good. I do love fresh Muskie with a hint of smokey Cedar, but this weekend is Tulibee-only.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #732287

    Thank you very much for the information. My place is near the Red Door so I will stop by and purchase what I need to get after them. I’m pumped!

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #602534

    Attached below is two diffrent versions of the story (one arguably slanted against, one pretty cleary more in favor); a few more details for people interested. I am not sure if I am for or against the measures being discussed: I would want to see the actual bill being introduced. Does anyone have a copy of that? The NRA piece uses inflammatory language with no evidence to support the claims. PS: I am a member of the NRA.

    Group says anti-gun proposals are off target

    Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 12:08 AM

    By Andrew Beckett

    The Governor is out with a new set of gun control initiatives, but one group says those proposals won’t do much to reduce crime.

    The Governor on Tuesday unveiled legislative initiatives largely aimed a ending gun-related violence in Milwaukee. However, Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement director Jim Fendry says they won’t really solve the problems facing the state because most only impact people who buy guys legally.

    The plan includes more monitoring for individuals who can’t legally possess firearms, such as felons and those who have been civilly committed. Fendry expects the measure to have the support it needs, but it doubts it will keep guns away from everyone who shouldn’t have one.

    It also closes a so-called gun show loophole by only allowing federally licensed dealers to make sales. Fendry says 95 percent of the people running tables at gun shows are already licensed and run background checks.

    The proposal would also create a statewide gun ballistics database. Fendry says such a system is based on the assumption that fired bullets are like human fingerprints, but he says that’s not the case with guns. Over time, repeated firings can wear down the barrel and change the unique print left on a bullet fired from that weapon.

    The Governor also wants to repeal the state’s 1995 pre-emption law, which erased local gun control ordinances. Fendry says that breaks away from what’s largely been a state policy on several other issues, such as liquor ordinances and traffic laws.

    Several of the proposals from the Governor have already been introduced at the Capitol by lawmakers.

    And from a source called the “Republic” (google Doyle Gun Measures): In response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech Governor Doyle wants to increase monitoring of individuals who have been civilly committed or prohibited by a court of law from using firearm. The state currently coordinates with the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) to track individuals who are civilly committed and prohibited from obtaining or using a firearm in Wisconsin. Governor Doyle is taking the next step, proposing legislation to share that information with the federal government, contributing to a national database. This step prevents these individuals from traveling to a state where their background is not available to purchase a firearm, and then bringing it back to Wisconsin to commit a crime.

    Governor Doyle thanked Representative Tony Staskunas for his work on this issue.

    Empowering Local Communities to Ensure Public Safety

    In 1995, the state Legislature passed the preemption law – erasing all local ordinances related to firearms and denying cities, villages, towns and counties from enacting any new laws that would be more restrictive than the state statutes. As Attorney General, Governor Doyle strongly opposed this legislation – seeing the significant threat it posed to the safety of cities like Milwaukee. To keep Wisconsin residents safe, the Governor is proposing a rollback of the preemption law to give cities like Milwaukee the flexibility they need maintain order and keep their citizens out of harms way.

    Closing the Gun Show Loophole

    Under current law, individuals who are not federally licensed firearm dealers can sell firearms without background checks at places like gun shows that are unregulated by state law – providing a loophole for guns to end up in the hands of criminals. To close that loophole, Governor Doyle is proposing prohibiting any individual in the state from selling or buying a firearm, transferring or obtaining ownership of a handgun unless two provisions are met: One person involved in the transaction must be a federally licensed firearms dealer; and the seller or transferor of the firearm must make the transaction through a licensed firearm dealer.

    Governor Doyle thanked Senator Spencer Coggs for his leadership on this issue.

    Legislation Prohibiting Firearms for Convicted Criminals, People under 21

    Governor Doyle is proposing legislation that would prohibit the possession and purchase of a firearm for an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor that involved a firearm. As Attorney General, the Governor advocated strongly for this measure and it is included in the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Police Department’s 2007-2008 Public Safety Package. Additionally, Governor Doyle is proposing to prohibit sales of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, to help keep guns out of the hands of the state’s young people.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #34502

    Attached below is two diffrent versions of the story (one arguably slanted against, one pretty cleary more in favor); a few more details for people interested. I am not sure if I am for or against the measures being discussed: I would want to see the actual bill being introduced. Does anyone have a copy of that? The NRA piece uses inflammatory language with no evidence to support the claims. PS: I am a member of the NRA.

    Group says anti-gun proposals are off target

    Wednesday, August 22, 2007, 12:08 AM

    By Andrew Beckett

    The Governor is out with a new set of gun control initiatives, but one group says those proposals won’t do much to reduce crime.

    The Governor on Tuesday unveiled legislative initiatives largely aimed a ending gun-related violence in Milwaukee. However, Wisconsin Pro-Gun Movement director Jim Fendry says they won’t really solve the problems facing the state because most only impact people who buy guys legally.

    The plan includes more monitoring for individuals who can’t legally possess firearms, such as felons and those who have been civilly committed. Fendry expects the measure to have the support it needs, but it doubts it will keep guns away from everyone who shouldn’t have one.

    It also closes a so-called gun show loophole by only allowing federally licensed dealers to make sales. Fendry says 95 percent of the people running tables at gun shows are already licensed and run background checks.

    The proposal would also create a statewide gun ballistics database. Fendry says such a system is based on the assumption that fired bullets are like human fingerprints, but he says that’s not the case with guns. Over time, repeated firings can wear down the barrel and change the unique print left on a bullet fired from that weapon.

    The Governor also wants to repeal the state’s 1995 pre-emption law, which erased local gun control ordinances. Fendry says that breaks away from what’s largely been a state policy on several other issues, such as liquor ordinances and traffic laws.

    Several of the proposals from the Governor have already been introduced at the Capitol by lawmakers.

    And from a source called the “Republic” (google Doyle Gun Measures): In response to the tragedy at Virginia Tech Governor Doyle wants to increase monitoring of individuals who have been civilly committed or prohibited by a court of law from using firearm. The state currently coordinates with the Wisconsin Department of Justice (DOJ) to track individuals who are civilly committed and prohibited from obtaining or using a firearm in Wisconsin. Governor Doyle is taking the next step, proposing legislation to share that information with the federal government, contributing to a national database. This step prevents these individuals from traveling to a state where their background is not available to purchase a firearm, and then bringing it back to Wisconsin to commit a crime.

    Governor Doyle thanked Representative Tony Staskunas for his work on this issue.

    Empowering Local Communities to Ensure Public Safety

    In 1995, the state Legislature passed the preemption law – erasing all local ordinances related to firearms and denying cities, villages, towns and counties from enacting any new laws that would be more restrictive than the state statutes. As Attorney General, Governor Doyle strongly opposed this legislation – seeing the significant threat it posed to the safety of cities like Milwaukee. To keep Wisconsin residents safe, the Governor is proposing a rollback of the preemption law to give cities like Milwaukee the flexibility they need maintain order and keep their citizens out of harms way.

    Closing the Gun Show Loophole

    Under current law, individuals who are not federally licensed firearm dealers can sell firearms without background checks at places like gun shows that are unregulated by state law – providing a loophole for guns to end up in the hands of criminals. To close that loophole, Governor Doyle is proposing prohibiting any individual in the state from selling or buying a firearm, transferring or obtaining ownership of a handgun unless two provisions are met: One person involved in the transaction must be a federally licensed firearms dealer; and the seller or transferor of the firearm must make the transaction through a licensed firearm dealer.

    Governor Doyle thanked Senator Spencer Coggs for his leadership on this issue.

    Legislation Prohibiting Firearms for Convicted Criminals, People under 21

    Governor Doyle is proposing legislation that would prohibit the possession and purchase of a firearm for an individual who has been convicted of a misdemeanor that involved a firearm. As Attorney General, the Governor advocated strongly for this measure and it is included in the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee Police Department’s 2007-2008 Public Safety Package. Additionally, Governor Doyle is proposing to prohibit sales of firearms to individuals under the age of 21, to help keep guns out of the hands of the state’s young people.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #592093

    Slowroller: We have spent a lot of time varying our depth approach on the open water Muskies, and by far our action is coming in the upper half of the water column. IN fact, I would say 90% of our follows and strikes are happening in the top 10 feet of water over the basin. This seems to be the primary diffrence in walleye and muskie out in no man’s land. If you go deep you more consitetnly catch Walleyes (although we catch some walleyes in the top water columm); if you put the big baits higher, much better odds of Muskie action. Don’t be afraid to run baits in 3-7 feet of water over the 35′ basin.

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #592065

    Blue: I have been hitting the smallmouths on the rocks on the NW side, south of Pike’s (some fish on Pike’s) and up through Knox Point. The fishing is getting better by the day. By far the best bite for me ( and leechboy and Birddog) has been pumpkin Tubes. We have thrown everything at them, although I admit I won’t stick with topwater if it is not going hot, and Tubes seem to be preferred for them (in my boat anyway).

    Wear your wrist brace, the smallmouths are getting hot!

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #592062

    That’s a nice fish LeechBoy & BirdDog (aka Lance Wendlandt & Shane Wendlandt). But get your netting arms ready ’cause I plan on you two doing a lot of netting and picture taking this weekend on the pond Time to get a bigger one

    PS: Put some beer on ice for me and see you tomorrow!

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #570136

    Guys: First of all, I would not consider this a political post; not sure where someone got that notion. The reasons the MPCA and other anglers like myself prefer non-lead alternatives is because 1) There are alternatives more effective for providing weight with today’s metals (Tungsten, Steel, Bismuth) 2) Lead is poisinous. Now, so are a lot of other things in life, but since there are better options, many of us prefer to us them.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #560519

    Update: I recieved a call from a cites TV reporter doing an investigation piece on the purchase (I think she said channel 9). I am meeting with her April 20th to discuss the purchase and plan on aurguing this was a waste of tax payer money, if the goal is to provide public access to the lake, for the reasons articulated by many of you above. It won’t change the purchase since it has went through, but at least maybe it will remind the DNR to consider alternives when spending money on public ML access in the future. I’ll report back after I meet with her.

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #556332

    Thanks for the information guys. I am psyched to get after ’em this year!

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #550249

    Wow! Bird-dog, you are always on fish-how do you so consitently stay on Mille Lacs fish? You must be a great fisherman, or know some great fisherman If you ever want to share a boat, or stay somewhere for free where you can use all the propane, electricity you want etc., and invite all your freinds, call me and you can use my cabin

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #549698

    It certainly reminds us that government in this country was made to protect the people’s best interest, and that our founding fathers knew through history we must be ever vigilant to not let government actions go unchecked. The thought that ED can be used to purchase a new public access, when the purchase arguably does not accomplish much for the tax payers, reminds us of that. I have sent an email into the folks you listed Steve and gave them my input as a ML user and home owner, which is we need to spend money to expand and improve our existing access points, including enlarging the harbors, build ocean-quality breakwalls, dredge channels for safe navigation to deep water, etc. (check out Chequamagon Bay’s/Lake Superior recent upgrades); we should have three or four of those high quality public accesses on ML with the number of visitors. Thanks for keeping us all in the loop Steve and let us know if there is anything else we should be doing in addition to writing and calling.

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #548427

    Chris, on the Eminent Domain issue, Minnesota can and has used it to purchase lake front property including access in other situations, so the answer is yes, the DNR could if they wanted to (I’m an attorney). Keep in mind the courts would determine price though unless the parties could work that out, and usually with ED they cannot (the party being forced to sell is usually mad). The case of the state taking through ED is stronger with a recent Supreme Court ruling where the court ruled 5-4 government can take through ED and then sell to a private developer (this was a big issue when Chief Justice John Roberts was questioned before being sworn in). Hope this helps. BTW, my brother Lance and I still go catfishing to those spots you guided us to in Hastings and they are still kicking out big cats! . We enjoy reading your posts on ML as we, like most people here, know what a great fisherman you are. Next time you see our Yamaha Special edition White Lund with Blue Lettering we’ll be the guys waiving.

    Kelly Wendlandt

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #540692

    BirdDog: I called my wife in to look at you and your buddies catch, and (even though I did not notice) she noticed it was a nice table you and your buddy were cleaning fish on. Aunt Dar and Jenny gonna talk to you boys…..

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #531302

    Mudshark: Looking at your sites listed, RealClimate.Org is a scientific site that supports Global Warming. The specific article listed talks about Aresols potential cooling effect (Global Dimming) and how that might impact Global Warming. Thanks for sharing that and I encourage eveyone interested to read the article and look at the site. John-Daly.Org is a personal site from a self-described Global Warming critic who is a talk show host and writer on many topics including economics, business, and Global Warming (check out his book “Pricing in a Global Economy”). ; not that in itself it makes the information useless, but John Daly has no known scientific peer support, which of course, he says is because scientists don’t know what they are talking about: )

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #531254

    Guys:
    Yes, Global warming is a theory, but I think you are ignoring overwhelming evidence that suggests we are the main cause. If i understand, your position is that there is no concrete evidence that man is responsible for Global warming. From a linear perpective, here is the argument for man caused global warming.
    Ice cores over the past 400 thousand years suggest a direct correlation between hightened Co2 in the atmosphere and and increase temps. As Co2 diminshes, so does mean temp.
    Co2’s in the atmoshere have been increasing at a significant level over the past 30 years.
    A mulitiute of world wide studies suggest man is resposible for the increasing amount of CO2 in the atmoshphere(PS) Ice core suggest that CO2’s are much higher than they have been in that 400k year ice sample.
    Temps are now rising in conguence with the hightened CO2 levels detected over the last 30-40 years.
    Yes it’s just a theory. It seems you are asserting that there is not objective scientific concenus on the causal connection for GW. If that is your assertion, it is incorrect. The global scientific community agrees on these points. What part of the argument/science don’t you buy? It really is difficult to find objective science that contracdicts the theory of man created climate change. If you know of some, please show me. I’m interested. -kw

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #531143

    Gary:
    The links you provided to support your arguement are from “the heartland institute”. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute
    This is not a science site. The owners of this site are paid by Phillip Morris and GM. You have to realize that it certainly gives the impression that you are not open minded on this issue. Global warming is not a political issue. The science is compelling, if you take the time to study it. AS for Mars ice caps melting, there are no water “ice caps” on Mars. If you really want to discuss “junk science”, an analogy between the Mars CO2 ice cap and earths H2O ice is a good place to start. Isolated Frozen Hydrogen and O on the surface of sand dunes?? Our rovers turned up no direct evidence of water on the planet. Some speculate water may exist. But the jump to Mars climate change being related to Earths? There is absolutely no evidence of that. Maybe on the Heartland site.
    Back to the main issue, It’s ok to not believe in science. But to suggest that there is not an objective scientific concensus on Global Warming is disingenuous. We owe our children more.

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #510359

    So it is 70% off of all merchandise you purchase? Is there a cap?

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #507075

    Troy, sorry for your loss and my prayers go out to you and his family.

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #506511

    Absolutely the right move James. Thanks!

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #506094

    I recently looked around the twin cities area for a Mustand Survival Suite to replace my old one,and could not find one. I ended up buying one on-line. I been using MSS since I commerically fished in Alaska 20 years ago, and now use it on Mille Lacs in spring/fall until winter. In my mind it is absolutely ESSENTIAL gear for anyone who goes out with water temps lower than 60 degrees. They are very comfortable, help keep you warm, are waterproof, and keep you alive 3.5+ hours in 40 degree water. A MUST HAVE for DIEHARDS!

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #494594

    Good post Wade. I completely agree and you won’t see any more political responses from me.

    Tight lines,

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #494382

    First of all I am an American. You can call me Liberal or Left or something else, but I am American and I care about this country as much as any GOPer. I am interested in what is best for our country and my children. From that perspective, my opionions are selfish. Here are changes Democrats will hopefully bring:

    Changes: 1. Place more dollars and energy into fighting radical religous and other groups that hate the US. In order to do this we first need to identify the enemy. This is not Iraq. There are some of these people in Iraq, but the threat is not Iraq. Iraq is a country with defined borders. The people who are trying to kill us are from many countries and there common denomintor is their hatred of the US-not a geographical boundry. If responding to the terrorist threat could be accomplished by invading one country this war would be easy. We would invade Saudi Arabi and be done with it (that’s were most of the 9/11 terrorists came from; right: ). We accomplish identifying the enemy in this war by spending money on spies on the streets in foreign nations, and creating and tracking technology data repositories that are shared at a federal, state and county level. The current GOP has misdirected billions of dollars into a war with Iraq and reduced spending for FBI and CIA agents operating as intelligence gatherers in other counties. We need better intelligence and this administion has taken its eye off the ball.
    2. Be proactive with how great our country is. This war is a war of ideals, ideas and PR. You may hate to hear that-but as a country we need to do a better job showing the world what a great place the US is (we all know it, the rest of the world does not.) Muslims? Welcome. Christians? Welcome. Athiests? Welcome (and I hope you find Jesus). We need to start acting like leaders of the free world again. This bullcrap with water boarding, and trying to gain information through torture? THat is old Soviet Union Communism stuff. We are the Free, Proud and Great, and our for-fathers fought to create a country where the government COULD NOT do that to people. What’s the big deal to throw a couple towel heads in jail without a trial of any sort (on evidence or infomation gained threw torture)? The big deal is we are AMERICAN. We are supposed to lead EVEN IN TOUGH TIMES.

    3. Balance the budget. NON-Military spending is up 44% since Bush got into office. I am from the midwest. We don’t spend money we don’t have.
    4. Allow stem-cell and all other bio-medical research. For the most part, let the scientists handle science, not politicians.
    5. Honor the constitution (see points above). The folks who started this great country were really smart. This document is an incredible lasting document for a free society. It may be painful to follow at times, but in the long run, it is why we are the biggest and best country to ever be.

    PS: No amendments to this great document relating to marriage or anything else thanks. You have to be kidding me.

    Tight Lines!

    Kelly

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #494325

    Dresdad quote: “John Kerry, basically has stated in a speech that the people who have served in Iraq are uneducated losers.”

    I read the article attached above, and what he said is that if you don’t get educated you end up in Iraq. That is not the same as an uneducated loser. I would disagree with Kerry’s statement, as I am sure many Military leaders and those who are in the Military Reserves in Iraq have college level educations. However, excluding officers and Reservists, many of the soldiers fighting on the streets come from working class families and do not have college educations. That is factual. Our wealthiest citizens, for the most part do not fight our wars. It is our working class (majority again, there are exceptions). How many Congressmen’s kids are in Iraq? (I think it is 2 or 3). Why are George Bush’s daughters not there? Answer: Because they are in college, and their dad does not want them “in harms way.” I come from a farming/working class family, my dad was Army, both grandfathers Army/Marines. I respect the men and women of the armed services and pray for their safe return. I am not in favor of this war, but I am in favor of a strong armed forces to protect our legitimate interests (North Korea would be one example of a place we need a strong Military; fighting terror in Afghanistan another). I am a Democrat, although I have voted Rebulican for George B the first, Tommy Thomson, and others. If caring about God, Family, public education, clean water for fishing, public hunting land, and caring about your neighbor and helping those who need a hand make you a Liberal Democrat, then I guess that is what I am. It’s time to get our country moving forward again, that means politically cleaning house. Unfortunately, there is no clear answer for me saying all Demoracts are good and all Republicans are bad. Some are good, some are bad, and most are serving their own self interest while doing what they think is best for our country. In my mind though, the Republicans have increased the debt to 9 Billion, messed up foriegn and domestic policy for the most part, and have many memebers corrupt and running unchecked (Delay, Neigh, Abramhoff, Foley, etc). We need a change, and I am voting Democrate (except in a few cases).

    Signed, Kelly Wendlandt

    KellyW
    Posts: 44
    #493399

    No offense, but please reserve all future political commentary for a political web site. Most of us, whether we agree with you or not, prefer to focus on fishing and hunting here. Thanks friend!

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 37 total)