Here are links to a couple of recent articles in the Duluth News Tribune about the BWCA.  You might need to set up a free account to view them.  The first article is about the declining use of the wilderness:
  (You need to Login or Register

The second is about a couple of campers who spent an unintended night in the woods:
  (You need to Login or Register

The first article can also be accessed by googling "Is Canoe Country Losing its Luster" and loading the google cache

Hey, at least at least they can't accuse us of loving it to death anymore!

It surprises me that the BW seems to have lost twice as many visitors as Q. I'd have thought it would be the other way around considering cost, past passport and fishing issues for Quetico. Either way, both a better value now than they were 6 years ago.

I hear the downturn is due to these internets. :)  Alright fine. So now people can simply read about all the bad things like bugs and rain and wind and lightening, oh my. So much for the slick brochures. New (better?) gear sounds rather expensive as well. Oh and all the hoops we jump through to avoid bears. "Wait. There's bears? We heard about the bugs but that's a deal breaker dude."   ;D

Anyone remember what their outfitted trips have cost over the years? Just the canoeing part not the drive. My first two, early 80's, couldn't have cost more than $150 for permit, license, canoe and food - 2 weeks in Q. (More than my rent at the time but food was included!)

What's deluxe outfitting costing these days? Are there volume (youth) discounts? Has it changed much? Timeframe involved? Anyone do the contractor bag over the shoulder anymore?

db wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 5:39am:

I hear the downturn is due to these internets. :)

I think we need to develop a Quetico video game to stir up interest.

Maybe something along the lines of a Rambo-like character chopping through overgrown portages with a machete, blowing away mugger bears with his Uzi and dynamiting beaver dams along the way. And all the time trying to avoid conservation officers while fishing with barbed hooks and live bait ...

;D

Let's go with wonder woman eh?

db wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 7:48am:

Let's go with wonder woman eh?

I think you and J_S_, might be on too something ;)

Since sex appeal drives the majority of promotional campaigns, then maybe if the Q wants more American paddlers, it should push, what I'll call the Ontario Advantage ;D

I believe it's LEGAL for women to be topless at public beaches (right)?
So they should extend that too the Q, if it's not okay already.

A few ads with some NUBILE topless gals touting the parks virtues might do the trick. I know the Q has Jimbo's Butt Sisters, but we want to INCREASE attendance, not scare it away :P

I nominate the Molson Beer girls for a start. They would look good in a topless version of the WW costume  ;)

Hello everyone.  I wrote an article about the down trend in Quetico.  I am glad to see people here think it is something to be concerned about and should be remedied.  I had one person comment that he liked the high fees and restrictions because it keeps the "idiots" out.  With the recession here in the USA the $20.00 a night fee also keeps out a lot of the middle and working class here in the USA not to mention the poor.  The "idiots" that the commentator may have been talking about may have been me, but I think he is also indirectly talking about those that cannot afford the Quetico experience anymore.

I am going to Quetico August 10 and it will be great to have the park relatively to myself, but it also concerns me that visitation is way down.  The more people that discover how beautiful it is up there the more people who want to protect it and protect the outdoors in general.

  (You need to Login or Register

db wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 5:39am:

...What's deluxe outfitting costing these days? ...

If you show up with only your personal & fishing gear, a week-long fully outfitted trip is on the order of $450 for an adult in my experience.  Kids are cheaper, kevlar is more.  It ain't a cheap vacation, but I'm still going.
-Tom

PS: I should qualify my comments: this is for a northern entry into Quetico.

db wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 5:39am:

Anyone remember what their outfitted trips have cost over the years? What's deluxe outfitting costing these days?

Here's a link to Canoe Canada's current rates:

  (You need to Login or Register

The oldest CCO historical rates on wayback machine are from 2001. If you're not familiar with that site, just go to   (You need to Login or Register and paste the above url into the obvious place. Then choose the date you want to go back to. (Just like Mr Peabody and Sherman!  :))

wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 4:51pm:

[quote author=db link=1277744549/0#2 date=1277876389]... PS: I should qualify my comments: this is for a northern entry into Quetico.

That is the way to do it.  I wish I would have decided to enter through the north.  $11.00 per night as opposed to $20.00 through Cache Bay or any southern entrance.  

travelingted - Border crossings with possible delays, distance and time all cost something too.
I read your piece as well and while you're certainly entitled to your opinion, your supporting details and facts sound more than a little off to me, someone who thinks it's damn cheap for world class, albeit civilized, canoe camping. The BW just makes it seem expensive IMO.

FWIW - Lead is not banned nor is it scheduled to be banned (that I'm aware of). That would be a bigger deal to almost all fishermen and associated businesses. It could happen I guess, just not soon or retroactively.

In your article you asked: "The approach of Reilly begs the question of what is the purpose of a wilderness park?"
I have an easy canned answer for you that is specific to Quetico:
" 1977- Quetico Park Master Plan is accepted with the stated goal "to preserve Quetico Provincial Park, which contains a natural environment of recreational and historical significance, in perpetuity for the people of Ontario as an area of wilderness that is not adversely affected by human activities". A total ban on motors was to be implemented in 1979.

It appears to me that Mr. Reilly, call him a zealot or cautious steward, is faithfully doing his job within the bounds of the master plan's stated goal. They just had a plan review. I don't recall seeing a final draft yet but they do always ask for public input from US too.

You also wrote: "From the north it is only $11.00, which is a clear upcharge levied on American visitors."
Here's an MNR resource for current Quetico pricing:
  (You need to Login or Register
Residents and non-residents have had different rates and quotas since the 80's or early 90's. We joked about it years ago before the Stanton Bay entry was improved and the parking lot was closed to non-residents. The reasoning for both is to favor and encourage use by residents. They are perfectly upfront about it and it seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I've not paid attention in the past but it seems that currently, both residents and non-residents pay the same rate for Cache Bay, Prairie Portage & Kings Point. Considerer what it might cost to operate and supply these stations via floatplane? As I understand it, they continue to serve the most heavily used areas of Quetico Park available to anyone at any price.


Anyway, welcome to QJ. Please note we try real hard around here to at least get our facts straight and it can be challenging at times. Live bait was phased out over a period of years. Stanton Bay entry still confuses people. Passports were on again, off again for years, but always looming large in the background. Barbless was suddenly delayed by a year due to a scheduling mixup. Motor lakes are decided upon every spring. It's hard to keep track of it all as not everything affects everyone. Old, incomplete or just plain wrong info abounds though someone here is usually paying enough attention to share accurate, up to date info when they discover it and think others would benefit from it. The more recent changes must seem daunting to those who go once every few years or have always thought about a first trip.

Solo.....

look who's recently been spotted in downtown Atikokan

  (You need to Login or Register   (You need to Login or Register

That's just wrong :'(
I'll give her/it credit for having the cajoles too walk around like that. She must have one of the Wal-Mart dressing room mirrors at home. The one's that make Muffin Tops think Lycra is their friend :-[
Somewhere Lynda Carter is sobbing uncontrollably ;)

There were two BW/Q related articles in the Pioneer Press on July 4: Canoe Businesses see steady drop in visits:     (You need to Login or Register[/url] and the other is about Polymet's "revamped" environmental study:   (You need to Login or Register

Sorry Ted, but your articles are shit - the second one even worse than the first IMO.  Bitch, bitch, bitch.  Quetico is not "Canada's BWCA".  If you don't understand what you are paying $11 or $20 a night for or what Robin et al are preserving then you have no appreciation for what Quetico offers and NO idea what Quetico is.

brian

And what's the big deal about differential pricing?  Its not unique to Quetico.

As I write this, I'm sitting in Colorado.  Yesterday, I purchased a fishing license ... residents: $26, non-residents: $56.  Last night I attended "Roof Top Rodeo" in Estes Park ... highest, by altitude, in the world.  Ticket prices for general admission ... residents: $5, non-residents: $17.

A few years ago, I was spending a little time in the mountains of northern New Mexico.  I bought gasoline at the local station a couple of days before Memorial Day.  Two days later the price had jumped by $.20 a gallon in preparation for tourist arrivals.

Ever take the train in Italy?  Locals pay 1/3rd the price that tourist get to pay?

Ever rented a car, stayed at a hotel or motel away from home?  Guess what, visitors get to pay a "special" tax for the priviledge of being a vistor.

... and the list goes on-and-on!  

dd

Thank you all reading my articles and commenting.  Brian, even your negative comments are welcome.  I plan on investigating this matter further as I will be canoeing in Quetico in August.  The lead ban info was given to me by an outfitter.  I should have double checked my info on that one, but I thank you for your correction.

db wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 9:04pm:

Anyway, welcome to QJ.

Thank you very much for the welcome.  I know I may have rubbed members the wrong way with my introductory post, especially Brian  ;D, by harshly criticizing Quetico management.  I also know it is faux pas to post links to your site on a first post, and I am sorry for that, but I was interested in input from people who love the area.  I plan on posting here more and contributing to the forum in the future.

$20 a night per person plus fees in Q, that's pretty expensive.  We didn't make the trip north this year due to money. Wanted to go to Q next year but will probably stay in BW.  Sold some parts to Canada today, gouged them good so I feel better.

Well. I love making new friends around here.  BnD and I just hit it off today as well.   ;D  Ted appears interested enough to stick around though and thick skinned enought to give it right back.

People biching about the cost of Quetico from the standpoint of penalizing Americans is an invalid argument however.  You need to do your research about what Quetico IS and IS NOT and what its intended purpose and primary function is.  You may not agree with it but too bad.  It is what it is.  Vacation somewhere else.

IndyPaddler wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 6:40pm:

$20 a night per person plus fees in Q, that's pretty expensive.  We didn't make the trip north this year due to money. Wanted to go to Q next year but will probably stay in BW.  Sold some parts to Canada today, gouged them good so I feel better.

I'm curious.  What's a cheaper vacation?  Anywhere that's not camping is going to cost you $50-100/room/night just to have somewhere to sleep.  
Then you gotta eat.  My camping food cost is about $10-15/day.  I could barely get McDonald's at that price.
Daily entertainment for camping is literally free.  No museum/gallery admission which can be $10+/person.
Sure gear can be expensive, but it doesn't have to be.  Those costs are diminished annually.  I spent $500 on a pack that I've used for 20 years, $25/year, literally pennies/day used.  It's not like you need to be at the height of fashion, leave the Florsheims & tuxedo at home.  Heck, it's not like you need a fresh change of clothes for every day.

I can do cheaper than that $20/person/day just by not going to any operating park and go for free.  Lots of non-operating parks around me.  Lots more crown land.  Thousands of acres of it at/near Quetico.

Then there's the actual effect of the vacation.  After a few days of camping I'm 10 years younger and ready to prove it.  After a few days of hotels & flights & sightseeing I'm dead beat and need a vacation.

Provincial parks are cheap at twice the price they currently are.



Oh and I'm unable to read the article since I don't feel like signing up to be data-mined.  Want your article read?  Publish it where folks can read it without having to jump through hoops.  Not intended as a rant or put-down, just a friendly suggestion.  If the article content was posted here, that would be nice.

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 7:03pm:

Well. I love making new friends around here.  BnD and I just hit it off today as well.   ;D  Ted appears interested enough to stick around though and thick skinned enought to give it right back. People biching about the cost of Quetico from the standpoint of penalizing Americans is an invalid argument however.  You need to do your research about what Quetico IS and IS NOT and what its intended purpose and primary function is.  You may not agree with it but too bad.  It is what it is.  Vacation somewhere else.

I do not appreciate or like having my articles compared to scat, however, I realize I brought this on myself and can accept it.  Anytime your opinion is aired in an open forum not everyone is going to like it and some may hate it.  I also should have double checked my information.  I think people here will like the articles I write in the future about Quetico.  After my trip is done I plan to write some articles about the experience, without the commentary about the cost or regulations.  This will be my fifth trip to Quetico and first in about 6-7 years.  I am really looking forward to it despite the cost.

Keep your chin up Ted.  I'm glad you're able to go to the Quet. this year and look forward to hearing about your trip, as I enjoy reading all trip reports.

travelingted wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:

I do not appreciate or like having my articles compared to scat, however, . . .

I apologize.  My choice of words was obstreperous.  I won't let it happen again.

jjcanoeguide wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 8:44pm:

Keep your chin up Ted.  I'm glad you're able to go to the Quet. this year and look forward to hearing about your trip, as I enjoy reading all trip reports.

Thank you very much.

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 9:14pm:

travelingted wrote on Jul 8th, 2010 at 8:25pm: I do not appreciate or like having my articles compared to scat, however, . . . I apologize.  My choice of words was obstreperous.  I won't let it happen again.

No worries.  Now I just have to check the dictionary for obstreperous  ;D

Quote:

I apologize.  My choice of words was obstreperous.  I won't let it happen again.

Can we hold you to that?  8-)

Old Salt wrote on Jul 9^th, 2010 at 12:05am:

Can we hold you to that?  8-)

We'll see.

I think we've made a convert in Ted though and I have a hunch that after his August trip, his next column will be singing the praises of Quetico and how even if it were $50 a night, he would be recommending the destination to all White Sox fans.   ;)

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 8^th, 2010 at 9:14pm:

obstreperous

Crap!  I learned something today and it's Friday.   :D

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 7^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:

Sorry Ted, but your articles are shit - the second one even worse than the first IMO.  Bitch, bitch, bitch.  Quetico is not "Canada's BWCA".  If you don't understand what you are paying $11 or $20 a night for or what Robin et al are preserving then you have no appreciation for what Quetico offers and NO idea what Quetico is. brian

  Oh look, another interested poster blindsided by phantom. Please tell me PJ do you just look around this site for threads to trash and beat down with abusive and condescending language. Don't worry Ted, PJ's probably kicks his dog (or worse) everyday when he wakes up if his life reflects his attitude and posts on this forum.

 I will add to this thread that I recently paid $28/night or $224 for an 8 night trip with my 18 year old son. If I had gone through Cache Ranger Station (which I originally planned) it would have been $320 camping fees for the same duration trip. Yes, I do think that is a little high. I realize the Canucks have expenses and obviously its not a deal breaker but, yes I do think it is expensive camping fees. With that said I am planning my next trip.

  Shhhh don't tell PJ I'm not sure I can take another beat down right now. I'm still kind of woosey from the last one.

wrote on Jul 10^th, 2010 at 11:57am:

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 7th, 2010 at 3:00pm: Sorry Ted, but your articles are shit - the second one even worse than the first IMO.  Bitch, bitch, bitch.  Quetico is not "Canada's BWCA".  If you don't understand what you are paying $11 or $20 a night for or what Robin et al are preserving then you have no appreciation for what Quetico offers and NO idea what Quetico is. brian   Oh look, another interested poster blindsided by phantom. Please tell me PJ do you just look around this site for threads to trash and beat down with abusive and condescending language. Don't worry Ted, PJ's probably kicks his dog (or worse) everyday when he wakes up if his life reflects his attitude and posts on this forum.  I will add to this thread that I recently paid $28/night or $224 for an 8 night trip with my 18 year old son. If I had gone through Cache Ranger Station (which I originally planned) it would have been $320 camping fees for the same duration trip. Yes, I do think that is a little high. I realize the Canucks have expenses and obviously its not a deal breaker but, yes I do think it is expensive camping fees. With that said I am planning my next trip.   Shhhh don't tell PJ I'm not sure I can take another beat down right now. I'm still kind of woosey from the last one.

Haha, glad to see it is not just me he trashes.  Must have had a great trip to being going right back.  After my August trip, my next trip in Quetico will be through Atikokan.

PhantomJug wrote on Jul 9^th, 2010 at 2:11am:

Old Salt wrote on Jul 9th, 2010 at 12:05am: Can we hold you to that?  8-) We'll see. I think we've made a convert in Ted though and I have a hunch that after his August trip, his next column will be singing the praises of Quetico and how even if it were $50 a night, he would be recommending the destination to all White Sox fans.   ;)

I will always sing the praises of Quetico no matter what the fees are.  The park itself and the beauty found there is never in question.  However, I will never sing the praises of fees that are too high where the average normal Joe cannot enjoy them.  The park fees and the beauty of the park in my eyes are two different points.  I think with $10.00 a night fees the park would still be pristine and that would be a price I would be in favor of paying.  $20.00 is too much in my eyes, especially when other entry points are paying less.  $20.00 is not a game changer, but $50.00 definitely is.

travelingted wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

However, I will never sing the praises of fees that are too high where the average normal Joe cannot enjoy them.

I haven't seen Target Field or a home twins game this year.  I have also never been to a Vikings game.  I've never flown over-seas and haven't seen the Pacific Ocean.  I don't own an IPhone and I once had to do my own stitches because I couldn't afford for someone else to do it.  Shouldn't the "average joe" be able to appreciate and afford these things too?  Your articles went beyond a standard complaint about cost; that was my beef.  Quetico costs what it costs.  As long as you have and perpetuate an entitlement mentality you will know the cost of everything but the value of nothing.


travelingted wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

The park fees and the beauty of the park in my eyes are two different points.

Yeah - you want it all, you want it now, you want it for everyone and you want it for (essentially) free (and someone else to clean up after you.)


travelingted wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

I think with $10.00 a night fees the park would still be pristine and that would be a price I would be in favor of paying.  $20.00 is too much in my eyes, especially when other entry points are paying less.  $20.00 is not a game changer, but $50.00 definitely is.

YOU think?  Who are you?  Did you pencil it out?  Because I can show you a 1,029,000 acre example that shows otherwise.

travelingted wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 7:25pm:

I think with $10.00 a night fees the park would still be pristine and that would be a price I would be in favor of paying.  $20.00 is too much in my eyes, especially when other entry points are paying less.

So you still don't think paying more for an entry that cost more to maintain is fair? That extra expense should be picked up by northern entries?

I few years ago at Copia, right after a price increase, I was told that Quetico was one of the few PPs that actually made a profit and there was even some consideration for the exchange rate at the time as I recall. That was a few years ago though.

Lets assume Q is only breaking even now and the good people of Ontario were willing to subsidize half the cost of your trip in return for providing some good logging jobs for the residents of Atikokan. Sound good? Or, would you prefer twice as many visitors to arrive at the price point you'd feel is fair?

I have a story idea for ya Ted. I'd like to know if the BW's overnight visitors pay their keep. Does the SNF make a profit as a whole? I think there's timber sales as well but what I'd like to know is if just the overnight BWCAW visitors pay more or less than 100% of the associated cost or do we as taxpayers pick up their tab? I have no clue and would really like to know.

A BW trip is cheap in comparison and yet you drive right past it and continue complain about the price? I just don't understand your POV or reasoning. What's wrong with the BW anyway? Buy American eh? Taking your $400.00 worth of stimulus tax rebate money and spending it in Canada is fine by me. I'm just saying think about what your saying.

BTW - Ted - I see the lead misinformation is still up. Can't that and the $11.00 factual error be changed with a few keystrokes? The $3 is no big deal but as lung as someone has the file open....

FWIW - This thread contains some unkind and irrelevant opinions of a personal nature but everyone has access to basically all the facts on that so I see no need for anything to be removed unless individual authors reconsidered.

I did not realize that what I was posting mirrored how I've been allowing access to QJ recently. Thanks. (I appreciate it. Hey, at least I'm consistent :))

Ted's keyword laden piece is still available sans hoops here:
  (You need to Login or Register

I think it's available to all. And ya it's normally bad form but it was first linked to from the pay to play part of QJ where everything is fair game. It didn't get much play there though. It a worthwhile read at this point but is copyrighted so should not be posted unless he can himself. People need to make a living for their efforts and the effort was made so it became the topic at hand. Joe_Schmeaux provided a decent workaround for the original links that started this thread.

I reread my last post tonight and I never could spell an stuff yet my whole point was to say it's all about priorities and perspective. Unfortunately, I got lost in the details and forgot the point. Such is life. Some times ya gotta twirl the glass a bit and imagine it being half full to see if it has legs or not. Some times you look at your own tracks in disbelief.

Thanks for the better link!  Now that I read it, I can comment on it.

PJ's response was harsh, but not undeservedly so.


Quote:

There are no latrines, no picnic tables, no shelters, no electricity at any Quetico camp spot.

That's the point.  If you want these "amenities" go stay at Super8.  This position never ceases to amaze me.  The whole point about places like Q is to have a wilderness experience, not to have a scuba lesson scheduled at 10am followed by a massage, then lunch, then go for a dive, back at the buffet for dinner with rum punch and dancing to 30 year old whitiefied reggae tunes.


Quote:

Canada might have taken our draft dodgers in the past, but they will not take our drunken drivers. If a DUI is on your record then stay home in the USA.

Yep.  If you don't have the basic responsibility for life, we don't want you here.  We have our own idiots and don't need to import them.


Quote:

...what is the purpose of a wilderness park?

Journalists do research.  Go be a journalist.  This info is readily available.  I bet many of the non-journalists here can answer this inane question that was followed by blind speculation.


Quote:

Quetico has become one of the most expensive adventure travel destinations in the world aside from climbing Everest or seeing gorillas in the rainforests of Uganda.

Oh please.  Show me the costs of doing all these things excluding travel from your home.  


Quote:

It may not matter because the next restriction put down from Robin Reilly might be that no humans are allowed inside the park.

You should be sued for this, unless you have facts to back up your thinly veiled accusation.  Heck you should be sued for the lies & exagerations found in the entire article.

Above is just the short list.  I didn't bother reading the 2nd opinion piece.

IF your going to post around here, you better develop a thick skin ;)
Everyone is entitled too their point of view, just don't expect everyone else too agree with it.

I've been on the down side of PJ's and other's  posts, but I don't take things personally, or at least I don't stay " hurt" for long.

PJ speaks his mind. As does Wally, db and a host of others too numerous to mention.  I like and respect that.

In a PC world, a little honest give and take is a welcome breath of fresh air.

You post "facts", you better be able too back them up, because you never know who's knowledgeable on ANY given topic, on ANY given day :-[  

I've admitted my errors when they've been pointed out too me. I take it the way I think it was meant, NOT in the tone of the post.
Most people on the QJ would fall over backward too help someone.
You just have too approach the subject in the proper way ;)

Asking for info that's readily available with a little effort or making commentary that is based on personal opinion not accepted fact, will generate responses, you may or not care for :-?

solotripper wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 9:27pm:

PJ speaks his mind.

My mind?  I lost that years ago.

ST's right though.  The wilderness is not for the thin-skinned.  Say what you mean, mean what you say and sometimes you just gotta make your own way.  I rarely take anything personally around here (unless someone makes it personal) and my tone can be . . . lets say a little less than diplomatic (it's a gift).  Giving before taking goes a long way though.  I would never ask for anyones secret this or that unless I was willing to give up my own first.  And I've said it before around here; if we ever meet (God forbid) in Quetico, a pull from the jug is yours.   ;)

Well said ST.  One thing that I try to keep in mind when on the internet is that the voice I assign to others when they post is not their voice.  It's my voice that I've assigned to them.  What may sound harsh when I read isn't necessarally the intent or what another person hears.

Having said that.  The article really is poor.  Make no mistake.  It is  without research or understanding.  There is no journalism in it, only the personal spin of a disgruntled individual.

Quote:

One thing that I try to keep in mind when on the internet is that the voice I assign to others when they post is not their voice.  It's my voice that I've assigned to them.  What may sound harsh when I read isn't necessarally the intent or what another person hears.

Well Preacher, here's a point we can both agree on ;D
I don't think it can stated often enough. Unlike face to face inter-action where you can see "nuances", a grin/smirk/glint in someone's eye, on the Internet as Preacher said, you assign a "voice/image" of what YOU think the other person is saying or must look like.

I bet everyone that posts regularly on the QJ, has in retrospect, at least once, read their post and thought, " Man, that didn't come out anything like I meant it too" ;) What sounds so smart/clever/humorous/wickedly sarcastic in your head, can come across in print in ways you never intended.

Most of us post on the fly, we don't type it out, sit and re-read it and then submit it.  I don't want too see people afraid to speak their minds, so I try and follow the old debating rule, attack the subject matter, not the person. Sometimes we slip, but for the most part, unless it's waaay beyond the pale, it's in a sarcastic/humorous way.

Now the article we've been discussing is a completely different animal. It had the benefit of time/re-writes/editing. So the author should expect it to be taken as it's written, good or bad, controversial or not.

There's been a few tiffs here that got out of hand, and the moderators shut them down, as they should. But having thick skin, and avoiding vicious personal attacks goes a long way in keeping the QJ a place where you can speak your mind and let the fur fly ;D

I only speak and think what Rush tells me to

It's true...you think in your mind you know who folks are
but it's only the image and tone you have assigned to them.  You place a face and personality on them that most often is not real.











Example
Old Salt and Denton Doc.....couple of savy good ole boys right?  Until you meet them....then it's "Deliverance in the Quetico".  Rumor has it they even play banjo.... :o


  (You need to Login or Register   (You need to Login or Register

The WALLY I like too think exists,  the one in the Beer Belly Overalls would fit right in with that Deliverance crew ;D

Obviously photoshopped! The tatoos are all wrong!  ;D ;D

And, I quit smoking YEARS ago ... pic must be from some time ago.  However, I don't EVER remember being that WHITE!

... and, I don't play the banjo; I do, however, play percussion (its called a 9 mm).

dd (a.k.a. Bubba!)

----------------------------
We interrupt this rare moment of jocularity for an important message...


db wrote on Jul 12^th, 2010 at 6:22am:

I see the lead misinformation is still up. Can't that and the $11.00 factual error be changed with a few keystrokes? The $3 is no big deal but as lung as someone has the file open....

I for one am happy to see the factual errors I first mentioned in Ted's article have since been modified. I still disagree with the general drift of the opinions expressed but simply making the article lead-free instead of Quetico is a huge improvement IMO. Cudos Ted. I appreciate it.  [smiley=thumbup.gif]

On the thick skin tangent, if someone want's to feel slighted or get mad about the manner in which someone tries to help them, that's up to them. Life's too short to hold a grudge. Carry on.
----------------------------

Hey Wally, since Lush was off today ... who told you you could ... ahhhh I get it, satire like the master's. Good one! Still, someone will believe it I'm sure yet it's all a big conspiracy intended to confuse the little people. Ya, that picture must be old but I'm sure O_S is on the left and DD is on the right. I've met them both and that's an indisputable fact.  ;)

db wrote on Jul 17^th, 2010 at 6:28am:

---------------------------- We interrupt this rare moment of jocularity for an important message... db wrote on Jul 12th, 2010 at 6:22am: I see the lead misinformation is still up. Can't that and the $11.00 factual error be changed with a few keystrokes? The $3 is no big deal but as lung as someone has the file open.... I for one am happy to see the factual errors I first mentioned in Ted's article have since been modified. I still disagree with the general drift of the opinions expressed but simply making the article lead-free instead of Quetico is a huge improvement IMO. Cudos Ted. I appreciate it.  [smiley=thumbup.gif] On the thick skin tangent, if someone want's to feel slighted or get mad about the manner in which someone tries to help them, that's up to them. Life's too short to hold a grudge. Carry on. ---------------------------- Hey Wally, since Lush was off today ... who told you you could ... ahhhh I get it, satire like the master's. Good one! Still, someone will believe it I'm sure yet it's all a big conspiracy intended to confuse the little people. Ya, that picture must be old but I'm sure O_S is on the left and DD is on the right. I've met them both and that's an indisputable fact.  ;)

Hey Db,

I really appreciate that kudos and thanks for correcting me.  The wording in the fee chart is very confusing and I thought I had it straight, but your post made me look at it more closely, and I realized I was wrong.  

You guys probably thought I hit the road for good after all the negative comments.   ;D, nope, I am still here and will post more in the future.  Look forward to some great conversations with you guys in the coming weeks.

Your'e welcome and thanks right back. I didn't think you were gone for good.  [smiley=thumbup.gif]

travelingted wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 5:10am:

You guys probably thought I hit the road for good after all the negative comments.   ;D, nope, I am still here and will post more in the future.  Look forward to some great conversations with you guys in the coming weeks.

I see you made a new friend too (Zeb).  I could cut loose on him if you like Ted.   ;)

Man, I'm glad I hadn't just taken a drink of coffee when I saw that pic!  

PhantomJug wrote on Sep 1^st, 2010 at 3:53pm:

travelingted wrote on Sep 1st, 2010 at 5:10am: You guys probably thought I hit the road for good after all the negative comments.   ;D, nope, I am still here and will post more in the future.  Look forward to some great conversations with you guys in the coming weeks. I see you made a new friend too (Zeb).  I could cut loose on him if you like Ted.   ;)

Feel free if you want to, but Zeb seems pretty harmless.