Plane hunter angry with Canadian salvage laws

TOGA Descent · Post by **TOGA Descent** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:03 am

I agree - considering the cost of recovering these "Wrecks" which have been rotting at the bottom of OUR lakes - only our American "Friends" could afford this type of recovery effort.

After all, they could use the money that they did NOT send for Tsunami relief. Or, they could use the money that they did NOT spend to ensure that our Canadian Soldiers were NOT killed by one of THEIR trigger happy fighter pilots.

Maybe, they could use the money that they are NOT spending on Social Security and Medicare.

Nope, instead of using that money for better purposes, they would prefer to come to OUR country and demand that we circum to THEIR "American Laws."

Our "American Friends" could also fund this recovery project with the money they have taken from OUR softwood industry. Or, they could use the money that they took from OUR cattle industry.

Oh, here's a stellar idea. They could use the profits from the sale of OUR oil which they are pumping into THEIR oil reserves.

Get a grip people, our "American Friends" have been Fuc&$ng us up the Whazoo for too long, and issues like this are a perfect example that the "border fornication" will not soon end, unless WE start to take some ownership in OUR land, and the various things that are on, in, or under that land!

Siddley Hawker · Post by **Siddley Hawker** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:35 pm

And after reading bullshit like that, I can see why yer mom would be proud to have a son who played a musical instrument.

Over the Horn · Post by **Over the Horn** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:31 pm

Wow what a shit storm on this one!!!

MAGDROP...."canadian heritage"??????? And a Canadian would EVER spend the money to recover an airplane from the bottom of a lake in the Yukon??? ROTFLMFAO over that one!!

if you missed the point I'll make it again the rules are in place on aircraft salvage ( and other historical items ) because of the actions of the treasure hunters scooping an aircraft before the Yukon transportation museum could ( the Yukon last I heard was in Canada for us all to enjoy ) the museum and its volunteers only discovered the P-39 missing when they went to collect it ( yes Doc Canadians recovering aircraft strange but true

) with the intentions of restoring it for the museum. my original point was, foriegn collecters only have to look as far as the them self to blame on this one. I would have no problem with historic aircraft being restored by rich yankees if they played by our rule's however it is their lack of respect for our laws ( along with every other agreement our country has with them ) that give's me little sympathy for them.

again feel free to correct me on any of this if I'm wrong

Siddley Hawker · Post by **Siddley Hawker** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:07 pm

I can't speak for the Yukon, only from what I know goes on on the East Coast. Some years ago, somebody remembered the B-17 that was bellied onto Dyke Lake in Northern Quebec, back in 1946 or so. The airplane sank when the ice melted and was forgotten for 50 years until an American salvor wanted to raise it and restore it to flying condition. The Newfoundland government said no way, it's now in Newfoundland waters and it's part of our heritage. By that yardstick, any crash site in Newfoundland or Labrador is part of their heritage and therefore can't be salvaged by anybody until the Government finds the money to salvage it. There's a commercial Canso at the bottom of Ashuanipi Lake at Oreway. Is that part of their heritage also? What about the B-24 north of Blanc Sablon, is that a heritage site? What about the Canso at the bottom of Lac Nitchequon, is that a part of Quebec's heritage and thus untouchable? There's an old Vickers at the bottom of a lake 30 miles up the Moisie River, can anyone salvage it or is that yet another heritage site? The remains of AYO would still be out in the bush instead of in the museum in the Soo if the Government had anything to do with it.

TOGA Descent · Post by **TOGA Descent** » Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:45 pm

Siddley, you're either a relative of the "Bush Family" or a complete idiot! Which is it? I'm guessing the latter!

Siddley Hawker · Post by **Siddley Hawker** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:57 pm

TOGA dude, yer piano's outta tune.

CaptainHaddock · Post by **CaptainHaddock** » Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:48 pm

I can certainly think of a place to stick this!

'It's tempting to lay the blame for this at the feet of Trudeau, but that's
too simplistic. The truth is far deeper. Socialist, and yes Communist,
infiltration of our unions and media in the 60's and 70's'

Holy crap! I don't know what your smokin' or the buddy you copied this from was. Next your going to say our country was guided by shadowy men from the Kremlim. Canada became the way it is by the general will of the majority, if they prefered a semi=socialist state, then that's what we got. If we prefer something different it will change. Your right politicians cater to the desires of the voting public-that's the system. I agree as do many on this forum that we should be spending more on our military. I believe in it's use for UN/Nato-peacekeeping, not war propagation, any of us can put our money where our mouth is and decide with our vote come election time.
Since the 1950's the make up of this country has changed greatly, it is much more diverse (yes multicultural-I said it!). With the diversity comes changing focus for the country. We do need to invest in R and D though, but there are A LOT more pressing items then a frikkin missile defence (what an INCREDIBLE waste of money and talent)-Cancer, MS, communications, renewable fuels,etc. I realize many compare Canada to the US but they are very different nations (as Canada is different from many nations). Both countries have different priorities, and different methods. If the voting majority desires a national child care system then the weak politicians will pursue that.If the majority desires a missile defence program then the weak politicians will pursue it. Any individual is able to vote with there feet (see were not communist-yet) and migrate to where they feel there interests are met best.

Cheers TinTin

(I have my helmet and flak jacket on for response)

ahramin · Post by **ahramin** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:15 am

tintin: Yes it seems to me that you have trouble thinking. Maybe you can count though.

What percentage of the population of this country actually voted for the liberals? %20? At most?

This is not a majority.

If you think a regionalized, first past the post, representative democratic system means that the majority rules, you are naive at best.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:28 pm

Here you go, gentlemen: http://www.fairvotecanada.org

Driving Rain · Post by **Driving Rain** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:48 pm

Careful now fellas, this is a dangerous idea from the NDP camp.

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:55 pm

Walter Robinson (former head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation) Hugh Segal (ex-Mulroney staffer) Ted White (ex-Reform MP)...just a few of the supporting members....and card-carrying NDPers, all of them!

CaptainHaddock · Post by **CaptainHaddock** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:19 pm

Ahramin, I must be niave but at least I'm not condescending. If you didn't like the results, you can vote again when the minority government fails. If you are unhappy with First Past the Post system and want representation by population write your MP. By have a multi party system you are provided with a larger range in the parties but smaller majorities for the leading party due to split of the vote. I'm done hijacking the post a give you the last word. (the popular vote breakdown is from CBC-part of our kremlin gov't).

Cheers Tintin

"Though Paul Martin's party lost 41 seats compared to its showing in the 2000 election, picking up 135 seats this time, voter support dropped by only four percentage points. About 37 per cent of Canadians who voted today cast ballots for the Liberals, compared to almost 41 per cent four years ago.

By comparison, the united-right Conservatives won the support of about 30 per cent of voters, compared to the 37.8 per cent who voted for either the Alliance or the Progressive Conservatives in 2000. That's down eight percentage points, though the party earned 99 seats.

The New Democratic Party was the big winner of the night in terms of popular vote. Its number rose seven percentage points, to more than 15 per cent in 2004, as it took 19 seats.

The Bloc Québécois gained 22 seats for a total of 54 as its support rose by 2 percentage points.

LH · Post by LH » Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:35 pm

What difference does it make what party holds power anyway? It's called "Parliamentary Democracy" which means once they are in power every MP will vote the way the Party Whip tells him to vote. If he doesn't , then come next election the Party Leader (PM) will refuse to sign his nomination papers and that's the end of that MP's association with that Party. Everyone will also take note that a person may become Prime Minister of Canada and never run for election by the public of Canada. His Party may elect whomever they please and the Canadian public has no legal way to stop it. Everyone on this site should be able to name at least two Canadians who became PM of Canada in that manner, never went ot the polls to assume that Office and they should be able to do that regardless of age. In Political Science that is known as "a benevolent dictatorship".

Plane hunter angry with Canadian salvage laws

Only the Americans can afford the cost...