Creating a Lake

[Bird]

I would be quite happy if the law gave permission to the land owner or his designated representatives to use lethal force to prevent trespassing on fenced land.

I don't think I'd actually do that but when I was just a kid living at the top of a hill just a mile or so northeast of Healdton, OK, one day I noticed a couple of young fellows on our place toward the bottom of the hill. So I walked out on the front porch with the 12 gauge. I saw that they were not looking toward the house and had not noticed me. So I very quickly fired one shot in the air, then lowered the barrel as if I were aiming at them. When they looked around and saw that shotgun aimed at them, they did leave the property at a high rate of speed.

 

[EddieWalker]

Less then a year after Columbine, my buddy, who owned some land in California had a confrontation with some tresspassers. When he told them to leave his land, they replied with somthing to the effect "what are you going to do if we don't leave?" His reply was along the lines of that he'd shoot them.

They left and called the cops on him for threatening them. He was arrested for terrorists threats and spent the weekend in jail. On Monday, the judge through out the charges.

Less the five years later, when we were crossing the border into Canada, the Canadians checked his record and the arrest showed up. He had to prove to the Canadians that he was never charged and wasn't a wanted criminal. How and why Canada feels it's their business is anybodies guess. But to top it off, they said that since the offence was less then five years old, they were not authorized at that level to admit him into the country. They did volunteer that in his situation, he'd probably win an apeal if he wanted to file one and take it to court. He declined and we didn't go hunting in Canada.

Eddie

 

[smfcpacfp]

Less the five years later, when we were crossing the border into Canada, the Canadians checked his record and the arrest showed up. He had to prove to the Canadians that he was never charged and wasn't a wanted criminal. How and why Canada feels it's their business is anybodies guess.

Eddie

Are you saying you don't understand why Canada would be concerned about the past criminal history of people entering their country? I guess it would be to avoid situations like 9/11. It is generally considered a priviledge to enter a foreign country, not a right.

I enjoyed your lake creation story and pictures.

 

[patrick_g]

I would be quite happy if the law gave permission to the land owner or his designated representatives to use lethal force to prevent trespassing on fenced land.

I don't think I'd actually do that

Do what, Bird? I said nothing about personally shooting anyone. I think there would be a terrific deterrent effect on trespassing which would reduce the likelihood of being in a position to be able to shoot anyone which would be the desired effect, severely reduced trespassing.

Pat

 

[EddieWalker]

Are you saying you don't understand why Canada would be concerned about the past criminal history of people entering their country? I guess it would be to avoid situations like 9/11. It is generally considered a priviledge to enter a foreign country, not a right.

I enjoyed your lake creation story and pictures.

Common sense would be that you are correct. Canada has the right and a duty to it's people to keep out undesirable people, which would include Americans with criminal records. I actually think that's a great idea and wish we did the same thing here.

The reality is that they have just invented a new tax, or fee, to enter the country. While my friend wasn't allowed to enter the country because his arrest was less then five years previous, I and others, who had criminal histories that had happened more then five years before were allowed to enter for a $200 CAN. The fee was to become "rehabilitated."

In my case, I was arrested for Drunk Driving in 1991. I had my court fax the border people my file showing that I wasn't a criminal any more and they said that I was fine to enter their country after paying my $200 fee. How does a mistake on my part ten years earlier relate to paying the Canadians $200 protect the citizens of that country?

It's a scam on their part and just another tax that they extort from those trying to enter their country. If it was really an issue, they wouldn't have allowe me to enter their country. $200 didn't change anything, make anybody safer or stop me from doing it again.

There was one guy who stole a Christmas tree in 1971 that was paying his rehabilitation fee, plus several others with Drunk Driving convictions older then mine. Everyone of us had to pay the Candians to enter, and then we were just fine to come on in. Of course, my friend, who was never charged with anything wasn't able to enter because he had been arrested. Not convicted or anything like that, just arrested and then let go.

Eddie

 

[patrick_g]

Everyone of us had to pay the Candians to enter, and then we were just fine to come on in. Of course, my friend, who was never charged with anything wasn't able to enter because he had been arrested. Not convicted or anything like that, just arrested and then let go.

Eddie

I'm not a Canadian and not defending them or their law but had a thought about what the basis for the fee might be.

Not talking about any individual but on average the statistics show that folks with convictions are more likely to get crosswise with the law than those who have no priors. IT would be entirely logical to charge the average cost of policing to the group of folks most likely to require extra Government expense than to everyone.

I don't know this to be the case but it would be logical and fair. Whatever it is it is not likely to be a fee charged because someone tossed a dart at a bunch of postit notes on the wall with ideas scribbled on them from a brainstorming for revenues meeting.

I think it would be a terrific thing if the US did it too. How many NAFTA trucks are driven by repeat offenders regarding equipment and or traffic violations. Lots of folks cross our borders all the time who have records and many are the ones who cost us taxpayers to apprehend, detain, incarcerate and or deport them again and again. Charge them at least the cost of catching and deporting them as an entry fee. Take the burden off of my taxes.

Pat

 

[rtdiggr]

Eddie i can't anwser to $200 fee, Maybe it is the cost of paper work. Your border does the same for people with records, if you have a drug record[no not me] no questions just go home, they don't want anything to do with you.
I have never had any problems at the border [going either way] but there are alot of stories [both ways] of being picked on.
Now that our money is around the same as the US the borders are packed. It is funny alot of people complain because of the wait and then complain they have to pay duty for $100's or $1000's they spend in another country. Lets face it, it also hurt's our economy when alot of people are going else way to buy items.

Oh yeah great pond by the way, if you are heading this way you can help me with my pond........when i get to it.

Shane

 

[rlk]

My plan for bass was to wait until next fall and buy a bunch from my fish supplier, but that may have changed. I've been getting bass from my wifes step dad, who is a die hard fisherman. When he catches a bass that's over two pounds, he gives me a call and I meet him to get it. Then I bring it home and let it go in Lake Marabou.
Eddie

Eddie, during 2003 when I purchased the fish to stock my pond, I asked my fish supplier about getting large fish from another pond and putting them into my pond. He did not like this, because of the likelyhood of introducing diseases from the other pond into your pond.

If your pond receives water from a river or large creek, this may not be a problem. My pond only gets runoff from surrounding forests and pastures, so I decided to not take a chance on introducing fish from another pond.

You could call your fish supplier and ask him his throughts.

Bob

 

[Bird]

Bob, perhaps that's the reason state law in Texas prohibits putting a fish into any public waters other than the water it was caught in. In other words, as far as I know, there's nothing wrong with Eddie putting those bass into his private lake or pond, but it is illegal to put one into a public lake that was caught somewhere else.

 

[EddieWalker]

... I asked my fish supplier about getting large fish from another pond and putting them into my pond. He did not like this, because of the likelyhood of introducing diseases from the other pond into your pond.

Bob,

The bass are coming from two different private ponds that were both supplied from Tyler Fish Farms. They stocked them, along with a third pond that my Father In Law fishes. So far, he's only been fishing the two ponds, but I'll take fish from the third one also if and when he catches some from there.

There is always the chance that those fish have something that I don't want. But honestly, with the bullhead catfish appearing out of nowhere, I'm more concerned with what I'll end up with in there from Mother Nature, then from those ponds the bass are coming from.

I think every fish supplier will caution against stocking with free fish. It's bad business for them and hard to make a profit when I'm not buying their product. If I didn't know anything about those bass or where they came from,then I wouldn't do it.

I've turned down allot of catfish, bluegill, sunfish, crappy and "perch" from people who want to help out. My excuse is the same as you mentioned. I tell them that I don't know the history of those fish and I don't want to risk introducing somthing into my pond that will cause the other fish to get sick and die off.

Eddie