Nova Scotia Fishing Forum banner
1 - 20 of 129 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm not sure how widely this will be circulated in the news, but I thought it might be of interest to some folks on here so I copied-pasted it.
Cheers,
-Dave

MEDIA RELEASE - TROUT NOVA SCOTIAwww.troutnovascotia.ca
For Immediate Release
Halifax, NS: November 23, 2010 - Trout Nova Scotia says illegal introduction of non-native
species huge threat to wild trout populations

Trout Nova Scotia would like to commend the Province for introducing amendments to the
Coastal Fisheries Resources Act designed to help protect against the possession and
transportation of non-native fish species entering our watersheds.
Trout Nova Scotia says that the illegal introduction of non-native species into our watersheds,
particularly smallmouth bass and chain pickerel, pose the biggest threat to Nova Scotia's wild
trout populations.

Smallmouth bass and chain pickerel are predatory in nature and out-compete trout for food. They
are often introduced into watersheds by anglers who prefer to fish for these species. Once
introduced, wild trout populations can no longer survive in any significant way.
Over 200 lakes in Nova Scotia are now filled with smallmouth bass that once supported trout
populations. This number keeps growing every year due to illegal introductions and the fact that
these fish travel through connected waterways.

While Trout Nova Scotia views the recent legislative amendment as a good first step, there is a
much broader strategy the Province should undertake to firmly address this dire situation,
including:

1. Stiffer Penalties - If convicted of transporting live fish under the new regulations, the
penalties should include a minimum $1000 fine, suspension of fishing privileges for at
least five years, and forfeiture of items used in the offence including vehicle, boat, trailer,
etc. Stricter penalties send a strong message and serve to deter people from attempting
this illegal activity.

2. Targeted Enforcement - While our enforcement officers do a great job, we know
financial and human resources are limited. That is why we feel the majority of their
enforcement efforts as it pertains to the recreational fishery should target "Class A" trout
waters-those watersheds that still have healthy populations of wild brook trout.
Intelligence-led enforcement techniques should be used to prioritize their efforts on
"Class A" waters through tips and information gathered from members of the general
public. The only enforcement conducted on watersheds dominated by illegal
introductions of smallmouth bass and chain pickerel should be the monitoring of live fish
transport through the use of boats towed by motor vehicles leaving lakes. As most illegal
introductions of non-native species are being perpetrated through the use of aerated live
wells on boats, this type of enforcement is paramount.

3. Reclamation of Key Watersheds - Explore the option of aggressive electro-seining
techniques to remove illegal introductions to reclaim important trout watersheds that have
been overtaken by smallmouth bass and/or chain pickerel. For example, a pilot project on
Lake Ainslie could be undertaken in an attempt to remove smallmouth bass from this
extremely important watershed. Lake Ainslie is part of the Margaree River Watershed, a
Canadian Heritage River and a world-class salmon and trout system. Smallmouth bass
were illegally introduced into Lake Ainslie in 2003 and since that time the population has
exploded. There is no indication at this point in time that they have migrated to the North
East branch of the river, so there may be time to control the bass population before they
infiltrate prime salmon habitat. If this technique is used over several years, it may provide
a plausible method of controlling the bass population while preventing their further
movement and proliferation throughout the watershed.

4. Erect Barriers - Erect barriers to protect healthy wild trout populations from adjacent
lakes that contain smallmouth bass and/or chain pickerel.

5. Public Awareness Campaign - The Province should launch a major public awareness
campaign on the detrimental effects of illegally introducing non-native species into our
watersheds, with specific emphasis on how such practices impact wild trout populations.
This campaign would require signage along important wild trout and salmon watersheds,
and would need to be supported by an aggressive advertising strategy through print,
radio, television and the Internet. The campaign should clearly outline the penalties
associated with being convicted with possession of live fish.

6. Delist Smallmouth Bass as a Sport Fish - Under the current Maritime Provinces
Fishery Regulations, smallmouth bass are listed as a sport fish. This should not be the
case given that they were illegally introduced into most Nova Scotia watersheds. Being
granted sport fish status entitles this species special protection. For example, it is Trout
Nova Scotia's opinion that smallmouth bass should not be subject to any bag limits.
Because they are listed as a sport fish under the Federal Act, bag limits are imposed.
A survey conducted by Nova Scotia Inland Fisheries in 2000 found that over 70 per cent of
anglers fish for trout as their main species. Thus the importance of maintaining healthy trout
populations cannot be ignored. That being said, protecting Nova Scotia's wild trout stocks is not
just a benefit to the angling community. Wild trout, specifically the brook trout, is the proverbial
"canary in the coal mine" when it comes to healthy watersheds. Brook trout require cool and
well oxygenated water to survive and thus serve as an important indicator of healthy watersheds
which are necessary to provide safe drinking water to both municipal water supplies and private
wells. Moreover, healthy watersheds are required for recreational activities as boating and
swimming.

In 2006, the Province declared the brook trout Nova Scotia's Provincial Fish. This implies that
there should be a vested interest among government officials to maintain the health of wild brook
trout stocks through increased protection and enforcement.

To reiterate, we commend the Department of Fisheries and Agriculture under Minister Belliveau
for introducing tougher regulations intended to penalize and/or deter those who feel it is
acceptable to transport and transplant live fish, even though it is illegal and creates ecological
havoc with wild stocks. While such regulations represent a good start, much more needs to be
done if we are to save what few healthy wild trout populations remain in this province.
Following the proposed strategy outlined above will encourage and promote more robust
protection of our provincial fish, the brook trout. After all, preserving our wild brook trout stocks
will benefit all Nova Scotians-from an environmental, social and economic perspective.

Trout Nova Scotia is a non-profit organization mandated to create a sustainable trout fishery
within the province for future generations. Trout Nova Scotia works with all levels of
government and conservation organizations to develop programs and policies that have a
positive impact on trout, trout habitat and sustainable trout fishing practices.

For more information contact:
Lyle Goldberg, Past President, Trout Nova Scotia
Phone: 902-471-1975
Email: [email protected]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
These ideas are definitely a good start and I applaud Trout Nova Scotia for this thoughtful response to a huge problem that is largely ignored. Lets hope for the sake of our resource these suggestions are taken seriously by the law makers. I think the minimum fine should start at $10,000.00.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
I'm not sure how widely this will be circulated in the news, but I thought it might be of interest to some folks on here so I copied-pasted it.
Cheers,
-Dave
GOOD GRAVY, HERE WE GO AGAIN!!!

MEDIA RELEASE - TROUT NOVA SCOTIAwww.troutnovascotia.ca
For Immediate Release
Halifax, NS: November 23, 2010 - Trout Nova Scotia says illegal introduction of non-native
species huge threat to wild trout populations
Oh, really? Just where are these "wild" trout populations that chain pickerel [the sole 'illegal introduction' to N.S.] pose such 'a huge threat' to? Please specify lakes and rivers, with data, not anecdotes.

Trout Nova Scotia would like to commend the Province for introducing amendments to the
Coastal Fisheries Resources Act designed to help protect against the possession and
transportation of non-native fish species entering our watersheds.
As do we all.

Trout Nova Scotia says that the illegal introduction of non-native species into our watersheds,
particularly smallmouth bass and chain pickerel, pose the biggest threat to Nova Scotia's wild
trout populations.
In that case, Trout NS is either 'off its rocker' or lying through its teeth. The biggest threat to N.S. "wild trout populations" are human beings;-- by about a gazillion light years over anything else!! And by that I mean ALL human beings, not just bucket biologists. Members of "Trout N.S." can count themselves in that number, like it or not.

Smallmouth bass and chain pickerel are predatory in nature and out-compete trout for food.
All fish are "predatory in nature". None more "predatory" than a brook trout. Since we are now bringing up smallmouth bass, why no mention of the "predatory" hatchery brook trout, the "predatory" hatchery [and wild] brown trout [another exotic] and the "predatory" hatchery rainbow trout, [another exotic]?

They
are often introduced into watersheds by anglers who prefer to fish for these species.
Not to excuse the 'bucket biologists', but in fact most illegal introductions were carried out by anglers who preferred to fish for something in waters that had no "wild" trout or salmon to fish for. Today most of the spread of "invasives" is natural, so far as
I can tell.
But here's a naughty suggestion--if bucket biology is the way to get fish species to spread and increase, why doesn't Trout N.S. get out there with brook trout in their buckets? I'm sure the Dept. of Agriculture and Fisheries would be glad to supply them with every trout they can successfully seed in currently non-trout bearing waters. Is it because the N.S.D.A.F. is already planting trout everywhere that they have any chance of thriving, i.e., self-reproducing and becoming, over generations, "wild", again? Or is it that there are no such waters, nor have there been for over a century?

Once
introduced, wild trout populations can no longer survive in any significant way.
Again, please specify the lakes and rivers in which "wild" [not hatchery] brook trout populations were in fact 'thriving' in a 'significant way' prior to the arrival of bass, pickerel [and brown trout].

Over 200 lakes in Nova Scotia are now filled with smallmouth bass that once supported trout
populations.
Sophistry based on false logic. The implication here is that those 200 lakes supported 'thriving populations of wild brook trout' prior to the arrival of smallmouth bass. They did not. The few that did no hold both bass and 'wild' trout. Hatchery trout, not so much.

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Continued--

This number keeps growing every year due to illegal introductions and the fact that
these fish travel through connected waterways.
True. But unless they are in fact destroying wild brook trout populations, [facts, please. Real scientific evidence], what's your problem, and how can you stop the natural spread in any case? If you can't fix a problem, live with it. Don't go whining and moaning and pointing fingers and name-calling. All you do then is tell the public that some fish are 'sacrosanct' but others are 'evil', in the old Calvinist dualist mindset that has screwed up so much for so long.


While Trout Nova Scotia views the recent legislative amendment as a good first step, there is a
much broader strategy the Province should undertake to firmly address this dire situation,
including:

1. Stiffer Penalties - If convicted of transporting live fish under the new regulations, the
penalties should include a minimum $1000 fine, suspension of fishing privileges for at
least five years, and forfeiture of items used in the offence including vehicle, boat, trailer,
etc. Stricter penalties send a strong message and serve to deter people from attempting
this illegal activity.
Fine. But does this include all live fish, eg. brook trout, goldfish, mackeral, etc., or solely and only the one's you people call "sh-tfish sh-tfish', i.e., smallmouthbass and chain pickerel? If all fish, you are creating something of a bureaucratic dog's breakfast that must be nearly un-inforceable. If the latter, then you are shown up for persuing your own personal agendum, according to your own personal preferences, for your own sake and nobody else's. Certainly not for any fish's sake.

2. Targeted Enforcement - While our enforcement officers do a great job, we know
financial and human resources are limited. That is why we feel the majority of their
enforcement efforts as it pertains to the recreational fishery should target "Class A" trout
waters-those watersheds that still have healthy populations of wild brook trout.
Intelligence-led enforcement techniques should be used to prioritize their efforts on
"Class A" waters through tips and information gathered from members of the general
public.
Couldn't agree more.

The only enforcement conducted on watersheds dominated by illegal
introductions of smallmouth bass and chain pickerel should be the monitoring of live fish
transport through the use of boats towed by motor vehicles leaving lakes. As most illegal
introductions of non-native species are being perpetrated through the use of aerated live
wells on boats, this type of enforcement is paramount.
That's quite an accusation. Bass associations might accuse you of slander. Got any hard evidence to back up this claim? I mean, you could get sued!!

Secondly, a 'two-tiered' enforcement system only teaches poachers that some wild things aren't worth protecting, so let 'er rip! Eases the consciences of A-h-les, but that's about it.

chuck
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Continued---

3. Reclamation of Key Watersheds - Explore the option of aggressive electro-seining
techniques to remove illegal introductions to reclaim important trout watersheds that have
been overtaken by smallmouth bass and/or chain pickerel. For example, a pilot project on
Lake Ainslie could be undertaken in an attempt to remove smallmouth bass from this
extremely important watershed. Lake Ainslie is part of the Margaree River Watershed, a
Canadian Heritage River and a world-class salmon and trout system. Smallmouth bass
were illegally introduced into Lake Ainslie in 2003 and since that time the population has
exploded. There is no indication at this point in time that they have migrated to the North
East branch of the river, so there may be time to control the bass population before they
infiltrate prime salmon habitat. If this technique is used over several years, it may provide
a plausible method of controlling the bass population while preventing their further
movement and proliferation throughout the watershed.
Sure, give it a try. But I think we need a ten-year cut-off date. Firm, not Harper style. If after ten years they aren't eliminated, stop wasting money.

4. Erect Barriers - Erect barriers to protect healthy wild trout populations from adjacent
lakes that contain smallmouth bass and/or chain pickerel.
Sounds great. But is it practical, or just a pipe dream?

5. Public Awareness Campaign - The Province should launch a major public awareness
campaign on the detrimental effects of illegally introducing non-native species into our
watersheds, with specific emphasis on how such practices impact wild trout populations.
This campaign would require signage along important wild trout and salmon watersheds,
and would need to be supported by an aggressive advertising strategy through print,
radio, television and the Internet. The campaign should clearly outline the penalties
associated with being convicted with possession of live fish.
Fine. Just don't use lies and half-truths for propaganda.

6. Delist Smallmouth Bass as a Sport Fish
Just who the heck do you people think you are?!?!?


chuck

[
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,129 Posts
Interesting post. I believe that, if any delisting of sport fish is to be done that it be done on a level playing field. Therefore, I would propose that if the SM Bass is to lose its protection, then the Rainbow and Brown Trout must lose theirs as well. I've fished for,caught, eaten, and enjoyed doing so, all three non-native invasives,exotics or call them what you will. Fair is fair and if 1 goes,so must they all. I also believe that a $1,000 fine plus forfeiture of all articles used in the transport of live,(vehicles, boats,tanks,etc)non native species is a good,realistic, place to start, coupled with a 5 year ban on angling for any specie, fresh or salt, in any Nova Scotia waters. Regards
 
  • Like
Reactions: JHG

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Continued--

' - Under the current Maritime Provinces
Fishery Regulations, smallmouth bass are listed as a sport fish. This should not be the
case given that they were illegally introduced into most Nova Scotia watersheds.
So what? What does that have to do with the fact that they were legally introduced as a sport fish. Your argument is phony. If being a 'sport' fish means a fish that, unlike a 'pan' fish, people fish for the fun of hooking, not eating, than bass and chain pickerel are more sport fish than brook trout, which is essentially a 'pan' fish to most Nova Scotians.

You want more brook trout? Genetically engineer a variety that tastes like a rubber boot. Or convince the public to practice C&R. Or make it illegal to retain any brook trout more than 12 inches long, with all those severe penalties you mentioned earlier in a different context.

Being
granted sport fish status entitles this species special protection. For example, it is Trout
Nova Scotia's opinion that smallmouth bass should not be subject to any bag limits.
Opinions are like a-- h-les. Everybody's got one.

Because they are listed as a sport fish under the Federal Act, bag limits are imposed.
A survey conducted by Nova Scotia Inland Fisheries in 2000 found that over 70 per cent of
anglers fish for trout as their main species.
True. Why? Because they like to eat the pan fish we call trout. And since hatchery trout are easy to get, hatchery trout are the fish that 70% of trout anglers fish for. IMHO. Since they are 'tame' trout that will die on their own, why have bag limits on them. 'Put 'n Take' trout deserve no protection,

Thus the importance of maintaining healthy trout
populations cannot be ignored. That being said, protecting Nova Scotia's wild trout stocks is not
just a benefit to the angling community. Wild trout, specifically the brook trout, is the proverbial
"canary in the coal mine" when it comes to healthy watersheds. Brook trout require cool and
well oxygenated water to survive and thus serve as an important indicator of healthy watersheds
which are necessary to provide safe drinking water to both municipal water supplies and private
wells. Moreover, healthy watersheds are required for recreational activities as boating and
swimming.
Then what's all this other junk about? Obviously the key to healthy wild trout populations is the restoration and conservation of healthy wild trout ecosystems. How about you get to work on that before you start pointing fingers at fish you don't like?

In 2006, the Province declared the brook trout Nova Scotia's Provincial Fish. This implies that
there should be a vested interest among government officials to maintain the health of wild brook
trout stocks through increased protection and enforcement.
True. BUT that does not mean that they should mount a concentrated attack on other species that you find unattractive.

chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
Chuck

Your comments are one of the better things that I have read on this site for quite some time. Congratulations on taking the high road on this sensitive topic.

This is not a cut and dry subject. There are valid points from each side. I am just happy to see it addressed in a calm and open minded matter.

On a personal note the author of this artical should be ashamed of themselves. It was obviously a self serving piece of (Well you know what) to bring any form of attention to his personal likes and dislikes.

My only concern is that the squeeky wheel always gets the oil.


Best fishes,
Charles
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
well chuck
though it comes across a bit heated
i gotta thank you for saving me a bunch of typing
you pretty much said every one of my thoughts on the artical
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
3. Reclamation of Key Watersheds - Explore the option of aggressive electro-seining
techniques
as mentioned at the RFAC meeting this fall
this method is costly both time and money and only effective at removing the larger fish
so there is no 100% success and must be on going maintain any results
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
249 Posts
Chuck, I think your terribly wrong about Humans (Anglers) being more of a threat to wild brook trout that pickerel or bass. And even if your not, Humans can be educated, or re-educated, predatory fish cannot. Pickerel and Bass hunt wild brook trout 24/7, 365 days a year. Not to mention there technique is far better that any angler iv ever met. Next time you run into a chain pickerel on the street ask him if he wants to go to dinner, I guarantee he says he already ate....... A brook trout. lol
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
Chuck, I think your terribly wrong about Humans (Anglers) being more of a threat to wild brook trout that pickerel or bass. And even if your not, Humans can be educated, or re-educated, predatory fish cannot. Pickerel and Bass hunt wild brook trout 24/7, 365 days a year. Not to mention there technique is far better that any angler iv ever met. Next time you run into a chain pickerel on the street ask him if he wants to go to dinner, I guarantee he says he already ate....... A brook trout. lol
its a proven fact but its not just though angling
its a combination of habitat destruction pollution and over harvesting
a lot of trout populations in NS were in danger long before bass or pickerel
ever got close to them

and one statistic i would like to see is out of the 70% of fisherman that prefer to target trout
what percent of them practice catch and release

also i love to fish and love to eat fish
and i can honestly say i have yet to see a trout in the stomach of
a trout or a bass i have cleaned
ive seen bugs bass perch and pickerel
but never a trout
and lot of the lakes are regularly stocked and theres no problem catch
trout in them
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
I personally like the diversity of fish I have to angle for and each species has it's place in the aquatic environment. Some anglers put species in the order of their own preference and dismiss other anglers preferences as just wrong. you might believe that I an referring to trout and salmon anglers dismissing bass as a threat to their preference but the major problem is anglers who fish bass and pickeral as their choice are spreading them and not respecting the preference of the trout and salmon anglers!
So we have a them and us mentality! The major problem in the spread of bass and pickerel is a threat to trout and salmon. If you are a bass angler you would be upset if trout were introduced to your bass lake and they reduced your opportunity. I know it is rediculas to pose the question that way but what if it was a virus developed to kill bass intoduced by trout and salmon anglers. You would be as pissed as the trout and salmon anglers are now.
I believe we are at a point in time that requires a serious look at the future. I personally believe we should draw a line in the sand and make every effort to stop the spread of bass and pickerel period! I dont know if it can be done but if it does it will come from education directed towards the bass and pickerel anglers to respect other anglers and their preference. The education should not develope rifts between the two groups but develope a feeling of shareing the diversity we as anglers have in this Province and protect it by stopping the spread of one species over another.
Can you imagine what the outcome would be if a bass organization posted a release that reversed the target species to eliminate. OK thats a sretch but all this release by Trout NS does is put up a wall. This approach has not produced favourable results and I believe it is time for a change in approach. IMO
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
I personally like the diversity of fish I have to angle for and each species has it's place in the aquatic environment. Some anglers put species in the order of their own preference and dismiss other anglers preferences as just wrong. you might believe that I an referring to trout and salmon anglers dismissing bass as a threat to their preference but the major problem is anglers who fish bass and pickeral as their choice are spreading them and not respecting the preference of the trout and salmon anglers!
Hi Perry;

I take it from your statement that you endorse the claim made by trout/salmon anglers that bass anglers, such as those who belong to bass tournament clubs such as CASA, are deliberately seeding watersheds that contain "significant populations" of "wild" brook trout? That that defamatory claim is true on its face, without factual evidence?!?

And that the chain pickeral are not being spread naturally, by, among other things, their sticky fertilized eggs on waterbirds, boat hulls, and the felt soles of trout/salmon anglers chest waders? But rather, that mean nasty people are sneaking them into ponds, streams, lakes , and so on, that also contain "significant numbers" of "wild" trout, just because they hate trout [call them nasty names, and wish they were wiped out]? Just because they "don't respect" trout fishers?

I doubt that, personally. No offence, I hope?

So we have a them and us mentality!
Sad but true. The old Calvinist dualism all over again. "Those that ain't with us are agin' us." "If you ain't my enemy's enemy, then you're my enemy.", personified in the values of George W. Bush, among several million others.

The major problem in the spread of bass and pickerel is a threat to trout and salmon.
I've heard you scorn hatchery trout, [albeit not hatchery salmon], so you must be talking "wild" trout. You may be right. I don't know. But saying this immediately after what you've just said simply backs up the unproven claim I just questioned.

If you are a bass angler you would be upset if trout were introduced to your bass lake and they reduced your opportunity.
Your implication being, [one more time], that it is a true thing that bass fisherman are seeding healthy, productive, self-reproducing wild trout waters with bass. Again no offense, but I doubt it.

I personally believe we should draw a line in the sand and make every effort to stop the spread of bass and pickerel period!
That's fine, but my "line in the sand" stops at rotenone and other poisons. So maybe not "every" effort?

I dont know if it can be done but if it does it will come from education directed towards the bass and pickerel anglers to respect other anglers and their preference. The education should not develope rifts between the two groups but develope a feeling of shareing the diversity we as anglers have in this Province and protect it by stopping the spread of one species over another.
I agree. But some might get really ticked if stocking brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout were halted.

...all this release by Trout NS does is put up a wall. This approach has not produced favourable results and I believe it is time for a change in approach. IMO
Agree heartily.

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Member
Joined
·
457 Posts
So we have a them and us mentality
sad but true
ive fished multi species my whole life and would never of been
able to place myself in one group or the other
its just that after the last goings on
on the old NSF i felt so pushed,disgusted,offended and hurt
that i find it hard to want to aline myself with anything
from the trout / native species side of the fence

i dont like it but i just cant help it rightnow
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,353 Posts
Just my opinion! Not interested in defending it. We keep going doing the same thing expecting a diffent result. Is this not the first sign of something or other. I still like the diversity of fishing I have and just want the diversity to continue.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Just my opinion! Not interested in defending it. We keep going doing the same thing expecting a diffent result. Is this not the first sign of something or other. I still like the diversity of fishing I have and just want the diversity to continue.
I agree, Perry. Just an idea, but how about local ngo's based on county or watershed with the power to make recommendation wrt to wildlife enhancement/conservation and to act as political pressure groups for the benefit of their own area. This might bring different angling
interests together, creating mutual respect and a desire to work together for the good of their own particular backyard. They might even come to like each other!!

cheers,

chuck
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
587 Posts
sad but true
ive fished multi species my whole life and would never of been
able to place myself in one group or the other
its just that after the last goings on
on the old NSF i felt so pushed,disgusted,offended and hurt
that i find it hard to want to aline myself with anything
from the trout / native species side of the fence

i dont like it but i just cant help it rightnow
Hi All
I agree with Shienar 100%!
Truth of the matter is Trout Anglers are the cause of the trout problems!
Outlaw frying pans would be a good start and as sensible as anything I've seen so far!
Have a nice day
Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
806 Posts
Thanks Tim and Perry for adding some clarity to this thread.

I was almost ready to put on my waders to wade through the other BS.
CF- please send me ur addy and I will send you a TNS memberhip application
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
767 Posts
Thanks Tim and Perry for adding some clarity to this thread.

I was almost ready to put on my waders to wade through the other BS.
CF- please send me ur addy and I will send you a TNS memberhip application
Thanks robbie, but I've already got as much TP as I need.


CF

PS--Glad to see you're taking Perry's advice and trying to be understanding of the opinions of others. NOT!! --cf
 
1 - 20 of 129 Posts
Top