quote:

At first you said that you would not debate forest management with me, but, it seems that my "gadfly" approach has changed your mind.

Kutenay,

Gadfly is a good term. Had to look it up to see the relevance. Please note, though, that you have not roused me from complacency per se....I honestly don't have the time at the moment to debate this issue to the level of detail it deserves. As I mentioned, I try to spend my time here after hours and my objective is to wind down, not continue where I left off at the office. Its not that I wouldn't enjoy a good debate with you on this if I weren't so busy, however. I agree with you that it is fun to debate the "really important stuff" and to me this counts. If you are patient with me, we can pick away at this topic over time. As I get settled into my new home and job and find some time to do other important things like hunting, I will have more time for this stuff.

Also, please accept my apologies for the frequent quoting and brief comments. I hate doing it, but its much faster than the alternative.

quote:

sorry about the typo re: Alces

No problem...I am actually getting better at skipping over peoples typos. But I know you are a stickler for detail.

quote:

NOW, you cunning character, admit that FIRE and clearcutting DO NOT modify forest eco-systems in similar ways and thus do not affect populations of various organisms in the same way. I hoped that you would bring this point forward as this is central to my original point re: Moose in clearcuts. IF, precribed burning is done in an appropriate fashion,THEN Moose, Elk and Mule Deer plus Black Bear habitat can be enhanced; BUT, the massive clearcuts typical of even contemporary corporate logging do not mimic such "natural" openings in the forest canopy and they also radically alter the understory in terms of browse plants and nutrient retention....this is what I should have said to begin with.

You are correct....FIRE and Clearcutting are not the same. Clearcutting and its variants (like seed tree cuts or variable retention harvesting at its lower end of retention) do, however, if planned well, mimic fire to the extent that it is possible to do so. Exactly duplicate, no, but mimic, yes. I will go into some detail with you on the techniques we use now to mimic fire (or other disturbance regimes like windthrow, etc), when time permits. Lots of current thought and science is being put into this.

The complexity of this issue is the only reason that I made my initial comment. Broad brush statements on this topic from either side of the issue are too misleading.

quote:

the majority of the logging now being done is both corporate directed, clearcut oriented and has a massive impact on Moose and other ungulates, the decimation of the West Kootenay Mountain Caribou herd being a case in point.

Corporate directed...yes. Clearcut oriented...yes, but.... A lot of the current clearcutting in the interior is oriented towards mountain pine beetle control, or increasingly, salvage. And in most cases, the most ecologically appropriate harvesting/silviculture strategy for these early seral stands with shade intolerant species happens to be "clearcutting", albeit likely with some modificaton for retention of specific values where possible. Retention of some vertical structure to mimic the grey ghosts (snags) left following a wildfire is critical.

As I mentioned above, the massive impact to moose and other ungulates that you describe is definitely debateable. Moose habitat is a topic near and dear to me, so I have done a fair bit of research on it.

The Selkirk and Purcell caribou issue is another big one for me. Many preeminent biologists have widely divergent opinions on this one. Most admit, however, that although harvesting has had an unfavorable impact in parts of their local range, the bulk of the impact historically, and most likely into the future, is changing climate. These caribou are on the southern fringe of their habitat (which used to stretch almost to the eastern seaboard in the US!) and many biologists firmly believe that their extirpation from the Kootenays is inevitable. Logging has undoubtedly affected caribou, but my point here is that it is not an open and shut case that logging is the main contributor to their demise in every case.

quote:

so, we agree on a few things.

We definitely do.

quote:

my reading in forestry, etc, it is largely from Kimmins, Masur, Krajina, McT.-Cowan, and others with an ecological and even aesthetic appraoch to the subject. I also have spent a lot of time with friends who are biologists, Drs. J. Hatter, B. Fraser and even V.Geist have heavily influenced my opinions on these issues.

All good respected scientists. My ecological training was done at UBC by Kimmins and Klinka. Kimmins basically laid the foundation of my learning in this regard. I have a lot of respect for his views.

My wildlife training was under the tutelage of Tom Sullivan and Fred Bunnell.

Valerius Geist is probably my favorite author (and orator) on wildlife management. Well, not probably...he is.

I have worked with Bruce Mclellan quite a bit on grizzly bears too (Flathead River) over the years. I respect him a lot.

I like your comment on "aesthetic". Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder, and as such, many people cannot stomach the look of any logging. But I have always figured that if there was a way to do it that improved its appearance, why not. In the past there were very few foresters that gave it any consideration at all. That has and continues to change, thankfully.

quote:

I guess that it all comes down to whether or not you believe in human ability to "manage" the biosphere through science and technology. When I was your age, I did, now, I don't and am in favour of very strict limitation on human activities in order to preserve natural ecosystems.....this makes me, gasp, shudder, a "tree-hugger", my bad....

Herein lies the real crux of the issue. I think we can manage the biosphere to some degree. I also think we HAVE TO. In for a dime, in for a dollar. We change things with our roads, communities, consumptive use of resources, and just our presence in large numbers (water usage, food requirements, sewage production, etc, etc.). We must follow through.

Do I think we can do as good a job as ol' Ma Nature? No. But we must do the best we can.

The honest truth is that I feel exactly as you. I wish I was born 150 years ago (or more), so that I would not have to witness or be a part of what we are doing to our planet, and so that I could have enjoyed Canada the way our pioneers did. Unfortunately, that didn't and ain't gonna happen.

Equally unfortunately, our contemporary society demands a high standard of living. Good roads, fancy vehicles, fancy homes, etc, etc. Fortunately they like to build with lumber...its better than the alternatives (ie. a renewable resource).

I know what I can change and what I can't. I have decided that I will not allow myself to become angry at the world because I can't change it (like a couple of my best friends, who are also "throwbacks"). I know I am not going to change society so that it will adopt a way of life closer to the land like I prefer. I am just one small fish in a big, big pond. So, I think its better to be on the bus and help steer it, than to stand out in front of it waving my hands.

Well, I gotta run. Apologies again for the "sound-bite" type responses.

Cheers,
Canuck

Geez, and I thought it was only the yanks that got into it with eachother. Oh, please excuse the comments of a foreigner

Oh no, the popular attitude that we Canucks are a bunch of reserved, subservient, polite and self-effacing wimps is about as far from reality as thinking that all Chinese are bad drivers or Jews go about saying, "Oi Veh" all the time. Younger Canucks, like Canuck, are fairly civilized, but we older types are grouchy, opinionated, frequently aggressive, nationalistic and love beer and arguments! We also have "issues", but, I can't remember any of mine at the moment.

My reference to Alces Alces Gigas and typo was due to the use of verbal shorthand, common among folks who work in resource management where tree species, for example are oftimes referred to by their specific names, i.e., "Banksiana" for the common Jackpine. The Moose on the "North Coast" are actually "Gigas" blending into the more common Canadian variety, so, technically I was correct; however, scientists will debate the actual type boundary, I tend to follow "Banfield".

In my most recent forays into the bush, within the past year or so, I have spent about a month in recently logged areas where clearcutting has changed the habitat for wildlife in ways that I consider harmful. I get around the entire province and backpack into many remote areas, so, I can monitor ecosystem trends over time. This tends to make me VERY conservative in my approach to this situation and my family background tends to make me inclined toward preservation of naturally evolved ecosystems, for cultural, aesthetic and ecological reasons.

Also, this forum is a real opportunity to exchange information among those interested in more than just trophy hunting and I deliberately introduce topics and discuss them in a fashion that will elicit serious, heartfelt comments as witness Canuck's very articulate presentation of contemporary thought within the forestry profession. I consider this to be of great value, which is why I take the time to do it......and I am tired of shooting those bloody Ardvaarks!

Y'know what irks me? There are a lot of alternatives to using up our ecosystems like we do. I don't think anyone would argue that we have to use natural resources-yes even I the tree hugger have a chevy truck and it uses oil products. In the end it all boils down to an over population of humanity. If we would have the wisdom to restrict our population to around 2 or 3 billion people we could do things in a little more sustainable fashion.

the chef

Hello Chef;
The bad news is the Government figures we don't have enough Liberal supporters in this country and plans to raise Immigration numbers by 40 % over the next several years. This in the face of studies showing that immigrants are increasingly falling behind on the socio-economic scale and are becoming an increasing burden to the rest of us.
The biggest problem with humanity is that we are short term thinkers. We don't plan for the day after tomorrow. It's been that way since the beginning of time. I figure, we are the lucky ones to be living at the high point of Civilization.
Grizz

Kutenay.

You have PM.

Ian

Ian, I would prefer that you reproduce your PM to me here and I shall reply to it. I do not want to discuss these issues in a venue that is not open to the others who have participated as this is not fair, IMO. I will reply if/when you choose to do so.

As you prefer:


Posted 05 October 2005 8:12 PM
Good day to you Sir!

I fear that public sh*t slinging is not my thing, so felt that it might be better to converse via PM. I do this because despite your comments, I have read your posts and feel that our views are NOT dissimilar. Thus, I try and avoid getting excited and descending into personal insult.

I have no interest in 'mocking' your family and am at a loss as to where you identified this. Please read my original comment again - breath deeply, and consider for a second what was said.

ONLY, that from the folks born in Canada at that time (your criteria for land ownership)- your forebears were undoubtedly the recipients of the sort of views that YOU now express! That the cycle repeats some generations later caused a certain wry amusement!

Hopefully, you are able to see this point of view and accept that my comment was not a personal insult or worse. If not, I should also give a fiddlers fuck - my thanks for that one, it brightened my day!

As for some of your other concerns - well, I certainly don't feel either responsible or apologetic for the actions of generations gone before. I make my own way in the world and try not to tar an individual with stereotypes - prior to having met him personally.

At the age of 59, you have had a couple decades more practice than me - so I'm happy to recognise your experience and qualifications. It would be nice to assume you might give me some credit for qualities other than the country of my birth - which, incidentally, was Mauritius!

I also accept that I have yet to master the art of spell checking my posts. A failure that doubtless allowed some amusement amongst your Zen Buddist friends. Again, my thanks - wit is appreciated.

Curmudgen you may be - but you can't be all bad. I'm also crazy about BRNO's. The ZKK in .375HH remains my 'goto' gun and it aint for sale. Half inch groups and a barrel you can prop a quad with, don't usually get found in one package....That would be another story however!

Finally, after all that has been said - I'm also glad - not to be stood in front of you!

Keep well.

Ian

I do not want to belabour this point as it is of no interest to the other posters here and I did not initiate this thread; however, I said that I would reply to you and so I shall.

Your initial posts were couched in language that I, and many other older guys find meaningless and offensive, i.e., ...I sense...issues....stereotyping and so forth. This is the sort of essentially hollow rhetoric that the "left-libs" attempt to advance their agenda with constantly and I do not react well to it.

The comment about my family and ...the original inhabitants...is, again, the sort of crack that we hear in Canada continually; this in reference to Aboriginals and stated by recent immigrants who attempt to denigrate Canadians like me in order to advance their agendas here. This is one of the most offensive things that can be said to a Canuck whose ancestors were among the founding pioneers here and, for your own sake, never go into a bar in B.C., Newfie, or Cape Breton and say this as the reactions will be very unpleasant.

The FACT is that my ancestors WERE among the original inhabitants of this nation and other people did not then and certainly do not now refer to us as foreign. We built Canada and it is OURS to run as we see fit and my friends who also come from founding families strongly agree with this...a number of them are far more aggressive about it than I am. It is simply not the place of anyone to tell me or people like me in this country anything about Canada and comments about our ancestors can bring about sudden and extreme reactions.

As to "Limey", this is a common term for the English here and always has been. You live in Devon and Lyme Regis and Lyme Bay are close by although this was not the origin of the term. This is not stereotyping as my grandmother was an English First World War bride, she married my grandfather who was a Canadian officer wounded at Passchendaele, as her father was a Guard's officer and actually lived in Devon....probably a bunch of pirates!!!! So, I can hardly be accused of discriminating against my own ancestors.

I was pretty certain that you were not English after your initial post, but, you are from Mauritius? None of my business, but, why would someone from what I imagine is a tropical paradise like that move to crowded, cold, damp England, "sceptered isle" or not? Do you find that the English accept you as a Limey or do you run into the problems with the Yobs with the steel-toed boots and terminally impaired psyches?

Anyway, I like a man who stands up, even if he pisses me off sometimes and I am not inclined to go off nearly as neurotically as you appear to think I do....it's due to my Highland Haggisbasher and Squarehead Viking heritage....what can I say? So, next time you are in the Colonies. Old Trout, PM me and I will buy you a pint! Now, back to the original intent of the post, eh wot?

"We built Canada and it is OURS to run as we see fit"

Certainly cannot disagree with that. But it seems like many here do not see things as being "fit".

.

quote:

"We built Canada and it is OURS to run as we see fit"

Actually our ancestors built this country but the government runs it as they please even though the vast majority of the population do not think that the country is run properly.

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

quote:

"We built Canada and it is OURS to run as we see fit"

Actually our ancestors built this country but the government runs it as they please even though the vast majority of the population do not think that the country is run properly.

Whether you are in Canada, the US, GB, Australia, or for that matter everywhere else that holds elections, there are two answers to that problem. If you don't like what is going on one should first run for office, and second make sure and vote.

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

quote:

"We built Canada and it is OURS to run as we see fit"

Actually our ancestors built this country but the government runs it as they please even though the vast majority of the population do not think that the country is run properly.

Whether you are in Canada, the US, GB, Australia, or for that matter everywhere else that holds elections, there are two answers to that problem. If you don't like what is going on one should first run for office, and second make sure and vote.

That is nice to say but I live in western Canada.With quebec voting for the bloc,Ontario has enough seats to decide what government runs Canada reguardless of how the rest of the country votes.The system was designed in the east to ensure that the east will always have this power.

.

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Stubblejumper:

How many Canadians actually bother to vote ?

I know that a lot of westerners including myself vote in an effort to try to defeat the liberals,but even if we were to win all of our seats ,it wouldn't be enough.

quote:

Originally posted by stubblejumper:

quote:

Originally posted by ALF:
Stubblejumper:

How many Canadians actually bother to vote ?

I know that a lot of westerners including myself vote in an effort to try to defeat the liberals,but even if we were to win all of our seats ,it wouldn't be enough.

Time to run for office!

I'm not sure exactly how you guys got here from the Tar Sands, but I agree that the problem is Ontario. Even though I live there.
Toronto and the "golden horseshoe" to be more specific.
We need a change in the way that Federal governments are elected. I'm not sure just how, but one small area should not have that much power. I will remind you though, that Quebec before the Bloc was Liberal land.

quote:

We need a change in the way that Federal governments are elected.

And Ontario and Quebec have enough seats to prevent that from ever happening.

I wonder what would happen if an election was run soley on electoral reform?
Not that the Liberals would ever let that happen.

As for the no reforesting in the tarsands,I have spent two years running mounders and chain drags in the tarsands north of ft mac,and am leaving tomorrow for the opti nexon site at anzac southeast of ft mac to do some more cut blocks that will be planted next year.Some cuts are left for aspen regeneration that will do fine,.The highway north of ft mac does look a bit like the landscape of the moon with the big pits i will agree.The logging that takes place seems to give much more feed for moose and deer and bears.The animals are always feeding on the edge of cuts,that is where I always get them and see them frequently in the equipment I run.The deer populations are getting absurd.The forestry companies are spending alot on regeneration of the forests and I will continue making my living working in this as I love it.!!!

quote:

As for the no reforesting in the tarsands

I didn't say no reforesting in the tarsands.What I did say was that a large portion of one companies lease that was to be reforested,has been seeded with grass and stocked with bison because it cost the company much less than reforesting .

Cripes at 65 dollar oil reforestation costs shouldn't be an issue on would think..

quote:

Originally posted by machinistbutler:
Cripes at 65 dollar oil reforestation costs shouldn't be an issue on would think..

No matter how much the oil companies make,they still want more and they will cut every corner they can to get it.

I have been watching this post, I also live in Ft McMurray, the oil sand development leaves a very heavy foot print on the bush, it takes decades before the reforestation is natural, the established companines do take reclaiming the land pretty seriously.
Re the mediocre hunting up here, the problem up here is access to the millions of acres of crown land, it's very hard to access during "moose" season beacuse of the huge amounts of muskeg. The peace region doesn't have this to deal with, the pressure in areas that can be accessed is very high. Still lots of bears, a growing deer herd and some moose, just no where near as many as the areas south and west.

This kind of discussion is very relevant and interesting to hunters in general. It describes the age-old argument about economic stability and resource conservation and subsequent wildlife supply. Two very different landscapes and ecosystems are being discussed here, both of which I have a lot of experience in dealing with. One, the northern boreal forest of Ft. Mac (bog oriented), and second, pursuant to the discussions of Kutenay and Canuck, the Montane Interior Cedar Hemlock, Interior Douglas Fir, Ponderosa Pine and Engelmann Spruce/Sub-Alpine fir of both east and west Kootenays of SE BC.

I will speak only to the northern boreal of Ft. Mac and the original question which is along the lines of: 'Does industrial development affect wildlife species in the Ft. Mac area?' My answer is absolutely. Are large ungulate populations relatively 'thin' in these habitats? Yes for moose generally, no for moose sub-regionally. Although moose densities are low in many northern WMU's, they are as high as anywhere else in specific areas within the WMU's, usually in those habitats bordered by rivers and containing upland aspen and white spruce interspersed with sedge wetlands with succulent willow and alder. As for other ungulates, woodland caribou are in decline, but existed in relatively low densities to begin with. Now, lets look at these two species' response to industrial development, both forestry and oil/gas (seismic). As for Moose, the general rule of thumb is that early seral vegetation in boreal forests spells lots of forage, which leads to healthy moose which leads to higher reproductive success and subsequent positive population response. Now here's the rub: where we get better access to these habitats via roads and seismic lines, we usually get better hunter access to the moose, as well as better non-human predator access. So on one hand, Moose pops can do well within an industrial landscape, given what Kootenay and Canuck say about ecosystem management, RONV (Which is very, very difficult to emulate by the way according to Kimmins, Bunnell, etc the list goes on and on and FSC can't even deal with it), and other innovative ways of managing forests,but they can also be easily exploited as well.

As for Woodland Caribou, there is alot of compellig evidence not disputed by the oil and gas/forest industry to indicate that seismic exploration and cutblocks/roads negatively affect the population of caribou. The mechanisms are described as follows: A. James at the UofA studied collared wolves and noted that they travel 2.5 faster on seismic lines/roads than they do through unfragmented habitats, and that their hunting efficiency is consequently much higher on those linear disturbances. Caribou being caribou and not especially wary, get hammered by wolves the moment they step out on a seismic line. To corroborate, another UofA study by S.Dyer noted that caribou will avoid roads, seismic lines, well sites, and cutblocks more than dense forest. They will use them, yes, but if they do, they generally get eaten. So more of them avoid the lines than use them. I get people say to me they see caribou on seismic all the time. Yes - and those are the ones getting eaten. I did a study last year with remote cameras on seismic lines and got pics of wolves carrying bones back and forth on lines. Were they caribou bones? I don't know for sure, but my caribou photos sure dropped off after that.

Further to these studies, there has been a model developed by the ACC that shows caribou are in decline when more than 50% of their habitat is within 250m of a linear or industrial disturbance.

So, for caribou, the evidence indicates that industrial disturbance can contribute to a population decline. For moose, it can be beneficial, as long as access management is implemented. Will the tar sands development affect wildlife? Quite likely - and it may be detrimental for both moose and caribou, because the development is 'in-situ' and the habitat is altered for a long period of time. Along with these two species, which are of some importance to hunters, we must also look at entire ecosystems, like Canuck and Kutenay suggest, the dirt, the trees, the woodpeckers etc.

It is only when we look at ecosystems as a whole that we lend credibility to activities utilizing a few of the values within them. Sporthunting is such an example, and it is futile to label ourselves as tree-huggers, timber barons etc. We are hunters and conservationists. We love to hunt and because we do, we should care about the wildlife and the habitats upon which they depend, regardless if the wildlife is moose or woodpeckers, because everything is connected in nature. Yes we need economic stability and Alberta is a prime example of a province that has achieved it through natural resources. I'm glad there's a chicken in every pot and a new truck in every garage. But I am also concerned that the wealth we have gives us the time and means to enjoy what we work so hard for: a great place to live, a wild place, and place rich in wildlife and game; somewhere I can take my kids hunting and know that they will be able to take their kids to the same place. A balance has to be achieved.

Doesn't Kutenay seem a lot like one of those Short Haired pointers? You know the type. They have to be run for about 3 miles before they will settle down and hunt! In Kutenay's case, he has to rant for a while before he can settle down and start to make any kind of rational statements.
I personally have always felt that B.C. and Canada should move to establish some U.S. styled wildernesss areas while the opportunity still exists. For those areas which are already developed, a better more balanced approach to harvest/extraction only makes sense. A comment was made earlier about corporations destroying habitat then paying inadequate compensation after the fact. This still occurs. As well, watershed damage often occurs under special license as if such license will prevent erosion.
I personally enjoy informed debate by those who are, perhaps, better informed than I. Keep it up but ease up on the inflammatory rhetoric if possible.
BTW, the 30/06 is suitable for aardvark under only limited circumstances. Quartering shots or shots at individuals which are mostly underground should certainly be avoided. I would hate to see one of these animals enraged. I don't know what they have for dentition but with that tongue they could give you a real lickin'! Regards, Bill.

The other reasons for lower moose numbers in the Fort Mcmurray area is that the population has risen dramatically resulting in much more hunting pressure,and access is much better now due to all of the new roads and cutlines in the area.When I moved here in 1980 there was a much smaller human population and much more limited access.There was also a general season for moose with no draw required.

Oh really, I find this a rather odd comment coming from a guy whom I have both complimented and defended on this very forum several times.

But, WTF, I have been active in actual wilderness protection in the Kootenays since 1960, on a volunteer basis, it's a "Canadian" thing.

Kutenay, I am pretty sure Bill is just teasing you.

I was actually just about to tease him.... something along the lines of thinking that a 416 Taylor would make great Aardvark medicine, if a certain pokey gunsmith would call me to say its ready. His bridge is in (ie. no longer cut off from civilization, nor distracted by moonlighting on its construction), so he should have lots of free time for my rifle.

Cheers,
Canuck

I actually went back and re-read my statements, I find nothing lacking in rationality or in my analysis of contemporary environmental problems in B.C. or their causes. So, I consider Bill's point to be invalid, I don't waste my time with empty rhetoric; he is certainly free to say whatever he wants.

In view of comments made concerning my ancestors at a later time on a different thread by one of the participants in this discussion, I have come to realize that I was far too soft in my comments vis a vis immigrants, an error I shall not repeat. There is an attitude on the part of many immigrants and foreigners that Canada is some sort of empty cornucopia of resources that they have the "right" to exploit.

This is frequently expressed by derogatory remarks about how ALL Canadians are just "immigrants", we are "defined" by "diversity", have NO "real culture" and are lucky that they will deign to come and live among peasants like us; you know exactly what I refer to, it's encouraged by governments and for obvious reasons.

I used to spend time debating with people like this, now, I politely tell them, ONCE, that this type of rhetoric that debases Canadian birth is not acceptable here in Canada. Sometimes certain individuals ignore such timely warnings and one must deal with them in the traditional Canuck method as NO immigrant prick is EVER going to badmouth this country or my family without my dealing with it, period.

This is good, I was getting too soft over Yuletide, time to sharpen Mjollnir Jr. and get back to normal programming!

Heaven forbid that you go soft, Koots. I couldn't handle it if you started a thread on needlepoint or 'hugging your neighbour'. Don't change!

Kutenay,

I imigrated to Canada from New Zealand with my parents when I was 7 years old. That was in 1977. So I guess I have been here for almost 30 years. We became Canadian citizens when we wre legally able to do so. I visited New Zealand once since I have been here. I really don't think Canadians in general know how lucky they are living here are until they go visit some place else even a stable country like New Zealand. Now that I am a Canadian citizen I do think however that I should have and do have just as much rights in this country as you do. Even though I was not born here. My children are born here and it would be stupid to say that they now have the "right to live here" while I am only privliged to live here. I think we now have an extremly sad imigration policy. And that most of it is run by high level burocrats looking only after there own asses. I think if you are allowed the privlege to come here you are coming here to be Canadian first. Not AfroCanadian, chineeseCanadian, New ZealandCanadian but Canadian. I too get tired of people coming here and our polititians , lawers, and burocrats protecting their country of origin rights before they become citizens, because until they become citizens they are guests in our country. Nothing ticks me off more when you read in the paper about someone who was allowed into Canada with a criminal record, who cannot speak one of our offical languages or someone who does not bring a skill of some sort. Eg: A Trade or a proffesional.

DT, if you read my posts here, you will notice a consistent, rock-solid attitude IN FAVOUR of (a) the British Commonwealth, (b) ABSOLUTE EQUALITY FOR EVERYONE IN CANADA, (c) changes to our current immigration policy of exactly the sort you mention, (d) an end to the destructive policy of "official multiculturalism".

I respond to negative comments concerning Canada with considerable force and Canadian birth is not something I allow mockery of. Immigration to Canada is a PRIVILEGE for ANYONE and obtaining Canadian citizenship is an honour, far too easily bestowed and upon some who do not deserve it.

I suggest that you watch and see for yourself the attitudes of certain posters here which tend to "inspire" some of my remarks. Where I grew up, an immigrant who made even one smartass remark about this country usually ended up on his ass with a busted nose, a Canadian cultural practice that I heartily approve of and will cheerfully practise on loudmouths.

Anyway, I trust that this alleviates any concern you may have, I am generally very friendly to everyone, especially people from the U.K., "Oz", "Kiwi", but, I take no shit about Canada from anyone. Ironically, my two "best" friends are a guy whose family came here from an Asian nation just before he was born in the late '60s, he is not "white", but, is as Canadian as I am and agrees with my points concerning "multiculturalism" and an immigrant from a middle Euopean nation.....and he is more forceful about these issues than I am.

So, I think that you and I agree, overall.

"Where I grew up, an immigrant who made even one smartass remark about this country usually ended up on his ass with a busted nose, a Canadian cultural practice that I heartily approve of and will cheerfully practise on loudmouths."

What is going to happen when the guy is a better fighter than you and puts you on your ass real quick?

I guess that you have never been in a B.C. logger's bar, it can be an "uplifting" experience......anyway, Mjollnir Jr. is at hand

It wasn't the loggers I was refering to, it was you!

What you don't seem to grasp, is that I was "one of them" for most of my working life, actually a forest fire suppression worker/supervisor. We ALL worked and "partied" together. We all had/have the same attitudes about our country, but, you are very welcome to come and find out for yourself.

Long story short; YES. Environmental degradation=diminished hunting opportunity