Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fly-Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-07-2017, 12:19 PM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 395
Default A day of action!: Make a call, sign a petition for the Highwood Headwaters

I can't think of any circumstances where one could say logging the headwaters of a watershed is sound forestry management.

Today is a day of action; please make a call - took me less than 2 minutes - and let the minister of Agriculture and Forestry that the clear-cutting ought to be stopped, or at least put on hold.

310-0000

https://www.loveyourheadwaters.ca/kananaskis

Thanks,
Smitty
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-07-2017, 03:12 PM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 390
Default

Thanx for posting this.

Petition signed
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:12 PM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default

This is Y2Y (Yellowstone to Yukon)

Regardless of thoughts about logging, I cannot and will not support any Y2Y initiative. Their goal is to close ALL access no matter the user group.

Please read up on them before you sign and make an educated and informed decision before just signing because of an alarmist website.

Last edited by Albertadiver; 09-07-2017 at 04:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:50 PM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albertadiver View Post
This is Y2Y (Yellowstone to Yukon)

Regardless of thoughts about logging, I cannot and will not support any Y2Y initiative. Their goal is to close ALL access no matter the user group.

Please read up on them before you sign and make an educated and informed decision before just signing because of an alarmist website.
Fear mongering cuts both ways. I am well aware of Y2Y initiatives. I do know there name is generally "mud" around here; regardless, I posted anyways, even though I knew I'd get reactions like yours.

Speaking of becoming educated and informed, let's have a look shall we?:

https://y2y.net/about-us/faq

https://y2y.net/about-us/policies/y2...fishing-policy

Nowhere does it say "close ALL access no matter the user group".
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-07-2017, 04:55 PM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty9 View Post
Fear mongering cuts both ways. I am well aware of Y2Y initiatives. I do know there name is generally "mud" around here; regardless, I posted anyways, even though I knew I'd get reactions like yours.
I generally support not logging in the headwaters. Just drove through there on The weekend. The logging around plateau mtn is fairly extensive, but it will grow back and I have no concerns there. If it affects a watershed, sure I have concerns.

That being said, Y2Y Isn't going to be a group I could ever support. I encourage all to do their research first. If you are comfortable with your review of the organization then I'll respectfully disagree. I will agree with you that conservation is important.

Thx
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:34 PM
Taco's Avatar
Taco Taco is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Claresholm, Ab
Posts: 3,811
Default

Never figured you for a conspiracy theorist Diver. Btw I've done my research.

And my view on clearcut logging? Fire or clearcuts, take your pick. Neither are very pretty and logging is easier to control
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:25 PM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco View Post
Never figured you for a conspiracy theorist Diver. Btw I've done my research.

And my view on clearcut logging? Fire or clearcuts, take your pick. Neither are very pretty and logging is easier to control
Hi Taco,

I'd like to think I'm a pretty level headed guy that doesn't subscribe to the national enquirer and things like that.

If you dig deep enough, the root of Y2Y wants a utopian band of land completely off limits to man. They start with saying that selected wildlife refuges are needed for diversity and Genetic preservation. Then they say that selected native hunting is ok for their 'rights' but nowhere do they ever
support hunting for the regular Joe. Especially if you add 'trophy' to the discussion.

They are well connected on many levels. But as far as
I'm concerned they are a cancer that has no best interest for true outdoorsmen.

I will respect other viewpoints of course but I won't stand by without challenging what I've found in the hopes of getting others to review for themselves and come to their own conclusions.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:03 AM
Taco's Avatar
Taco Taco is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Claresholm, Ab
Posts: 3,811
Default

Diver,

In my old age I have come to judge things in a case by case issue to issue manner. While I support some of the things that the Y2Y initiative to accomplish their Highwood anti logging stands is not one of them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-08-2017, 09:00 AM
jgib01's Avatar
jgib01 jgib01 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kipp's Crossing
Posts: 134
Default

Well, I ask you to indulge me with a little education. My initial reaction is to wonder how clearcutting on top of creeks (or anywhere for that matter) can be a good thing? Perhaps I have been doing selective reading for most of my life (confirmation bias), but I thought it was pretty clear that erosion and habitat destruction consequences from clear cutting are a given.

Also, I think I need some further info about Y2Y, as there is nothing on their website or that I've heard in the media that would lead me to the conclusion that they are anti-fishing and hunting.

An excerpt from their website policy:
"Y2Y recognizes that hunting, trapping, and fishing:
are indigenous rights;
are part of the cultural heritage and economy of the Yellowstone to Yukon region;
are appropriate activities within the Yellowstone to Yukon region, provided that they are conducted in an ethical manner that includes fair chase principles; and
may be appropriate means to help maintain or manage fish and wildlife population health"

They go on to add a piece in their policy about the need for sanctuaries, but I have never heard that they are pushing to make areas like the Castle or K-Country entirely "no hunt/no fish" zones. What am I missing?
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-08-2017, 09:10 AM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Albertadiver View Post
Hi Taco,

But as far as
I'm concerned they are a cancer that has no best interest for true outdoorsmen.
I'd be interested to hear what you might consider a true outdoorsman?

Why is it that Environmentalists and folks interested in preserving and maintaining ecological balance to the best of human ability get maligned and bashed?


Ignorance, stupidity and fear ( of something taken away that should be a "god given right") seem to be major factors.


Thanx for providing the links Smitty.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-08-2017, 09:17 AM
Taco's Avatar
Taco Taco is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Claresholm, Ab
Posts: 3,811
Default

Quote:
Well, I ask you to indulge me with a little education. My initial reaction is to wonder how clearcutting on top of creeks (or anywhere for that matter) can be a good thing? Perhaps I have been doing selective reading for most of my life (confirmation bias), but I thought it was pretty clear that erosion and habitat destruction consequences from clear cutting are a given.
And my answer remains; Fire or Clearcut, chose one or the other, either one has to happen because millions of acres of our forests have become decadent after decades of fire suppression. Pick your poison.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-08-2017, 10:33 AM
jgib01's Avatar
jgib01 jgib01 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kipp's Crossing
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco View Post
And my answer remains; Fire or Clearcut, chose one or the other, either one has to happen because millions of acres of our forests have become decadent after decades of fire suppression. Pick your poison.
Chasing our own tails though. Clearcutting and plantation results in forests with higher fire sensitivity/severity than ecologically complex forests. I don't know what the perfect solution is to the problems created by our fire suppression activities, but I'm convinced it isn't clearcutting.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:06 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 395
Default

Taco:

My understanding is that forests evolved to deal with fire. And the after-effects of fire versus clear-cutting are different. So, my poison is...fire.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:12 AM
Taco's Avatar
Taco Taco is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Claresholm, Ab
Posts: 3,811
Default

Ask the people in Slave Lake, Fort Mac or BC's interior the same questions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:22 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipco View Post
I'd be interested to hear what you might consider a true outdoorsman?

Why is it that Environmentalists and folks interested in preserving and maintaining ecological balance to the best of human ability get maligned and bashed?


Ignorance, stupidity and fear ( of something taken away that should be a "god given right") seem to be major factors.


Thanx for providing the links Smitty.
^This.

The problem with using such a broad paintbrush to stereotype environmentalists is then turnabout is fair play, right?

I have no doubt that many environmentally oriented organizations have some radically inclined members. At the end of the day, I choose to judge them by that THEY choose to publish as their official stances on a variety of issues under the full scrutiny of the public spotlight.

They publicly state they are not against any of things they are regularly accused of and are bashed for. And if they tried to engage in a public conversation about ending public access, ending hunting and fishing, I would naturally fight tooth and nail against that.

Circling back to the early point about broad paintbrushes, I find it interesting that so much misinformation gets freely bandied about without being challenged. The AO forum generally leans to the right; there are far more liberal and ndp bashing than on the right side. Fair enough. No one (certainly not I) has a problem with that. Or if I did, that's life. Everyone seems to find a place these days on the 'net.

But it makes me chuckle and shake my head when posters often trumpet "get informed and educated"; like they are masters or occupiers of the exclusive domain of being "correct" and "informed" as if it belongs to those who only agree and confirms their biased worldview.

Stated differently, in short, I suppose the equivalent of accusing the environmentalists of having this "hidden, conspiratorial" agenda is the exact flip of the coin on the other side. In other words, I guess every WR, PC, and UCP supporter is fan of white nationalism, state-sponsored Christianity, permanent inequality for women and the LGTBQ community. Because those radical elements DO exist in the right wing. Shall we judge them and every policy issue based on the minority? Just who is being victimized here by the tyranny of the minority then?

Wait...too broad a brush?

Public discourse is best served when people choose to look past their own worldviews and confirmation biases and, instead, apply equally standards of scrutiny and rational thought to every issue. No?

Happy Trails,
Smitty

P.S. Anyways, after de-railing my own thread, I'll stand with the original point. Made the phone call, signed the petition, glad I did it. Cross one bridge at a time.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:24 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 395
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco View Post
Ask the people in Slave Lake, Fort Mac or BC's interior the same questions.
False equivalency. Or if it isn't, then also ask the people of Calgary, High River, and various other communities how they feel about flooding.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-08-2017, 11:54 AM
Taco's Avatar
Taco Taco is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Claresholm, Ab
Posts: 3,811
Default

K
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-09-2017, 06:25 AM
Myles's Avatar
Myles Myles is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty9 View Post
But it makes me chuckle and shake my head when posters often trumpet "get informed and educated"; like they are masters or occupiers of the exclusive domain of being "correct" and "informed" as if it belongs to those who only agree and confirms their biased worldview.
^ Like. Reminds me of the Castle debate and so many others on the hunting forum.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-09-2017, 03:51 PM
Dark Wing's Avatar
Dark Wing Dark Wing is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The elbow of Alberta
Posts: 1,185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgib01 View Post
Well, I ask you to indulge me with a little education. My initial reaction is to wonder how clearcutting on top of creeks (or anywhere for that matter) can be a good thing? Perhaps I have been doing selective reading for most of my life (confirmation bias), but I thought it was pretty clear that erosion and habitat destruction consequences from clear cutting are a given.

Also, I think I need some further info about Y2Y, as there is nothing on their website or that I've heard in the media that would lead me to the conclusion that they are anti-fishing and hunting.

An excerpt from their website policy:
"Y2Y recognizes that hunting, trapping, and fishing:
are indigenous rights;
are part of the cultural heritage and economy of the Yellowstone to Yukon region;
are appropriate activities within the Yellowstone to Yukon region, provided that they are conducted in an ethical manner that includes fair chase principles; and
may be appropriate means to help maintain or manage fish and wildlife population health"

They go on to add a piece in their policy about the need for sanctuaries, but I have never heard that they are pushing to make areas like the Castle or K-Country entirely "no hunt/no fish" zones. What am I missing?
Go to the home page , click on "Outdoor Pursuits" and scroll down to 2008 and read " Wolves in Sheeps clothing " . Y2Y Have links to eco terrorism and not friendly to outdoorsmen , or any who live in the corridor.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-10-2017, 09:19 AM
3blade's Avatar
3blade 3blade is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 3,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgib01 View Post
Well, I ask you to indulge me with a little education. My initial reaction is to wonder how clearcutting on top of creeks (or anywhere for that matter) can be a good thing? Perhaps I have been doing selective reading for most of my life (confirmation bias), but I thought it was pretty clear that erosion and habitat destruction consequences from clear cutting are a given.

Also, I think I need some further info about Y2Y, as there is nothing on their website or that I've heard in the media that would lead me to the conclusion that they are anti-fishing and hunting.

An excerpt from their website policy:
"Y2Y recognizes that hunting, trapping, and fishing:
are indigenous rights;
are part of the cultural heritage and economy of the Yellowstone to Yukon region;
are appropriate activities within the Yellowstone to Yukon region, provided that they are conducted in an ethical manner that includes fair chase principles; and
may be appropriate means to help maintain or manage fish and wildlife population health"

They go on to add a piece in their policy about the need for sanctuaries, but I have never heard that they are pushing to make areas like the Castle or K-Country entirely "no hunt/no fish" zones. What am I missing?
What you are missing, is the multitude of wording changes Y2Y previously made to their hunting policy. It used to be far more "anti" - anti predator hunting, anti trophy hunting, anti anyone but native hunting. Google it, there are various pages with screen shots. No one really believes their intent changed, they just realized they couldn't put hunters on blast without some serious pushback
__________________
DEER!!! No...nope. Hay bale.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-10-2017, 12:32 PM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Wing View Post
. Y2Y Have links to eco terrorism and not friendly to outdoorsmen , or any who live in the corridor.

Conspiracy theory hogwash.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-10-2017, 12:57 PM
Albertadiver's Avatar
Albertadiver Albertadiver is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 8,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pipco View Post
Conspiracy theory hogwash.
The owner of this outdoors forum and myself respectfully disagree with that statement.

http://www.albertaoutdoorsmen.ca/arc...ts-jun-17.html
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-10-2017, 01:07 PM
jgib01's Avatar
jgib01 jgib01 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kipp's Crossing
Posts: 134
Default

Well, I have had time to have a good read of all three of the Wolf articles written by Mr. Miskorsy. Frankly, they come off as less investigative journalism than they do as op-ed pieces. I'm not sure which was his intent. The first one was actually a fairly sound read, and started to show some interesting connections, albeit difficult ones to make firm conclusions from. Then the second article is premised with "The research is never-ending and the dots are near impossible to connect." Alrm bells... an interesting caveat to start of things off with.

By the third one, the assertions and connections have gone completely off the rails in my opinion. It is intimated that if a group opposes _his_ agenda, then they clearly have no place at the political/public/consultation tables in our province. He uses a pretty broad and non-discriminate brush to conclude that the "green agenda" in Alberta is led by groups who wants to exclude all human activity from protected areas, and states "These are groups that can not be allowed to make or participate in the decision making." Which groups are those? The articles paint issue with many groups from UNESCO (and anyone that would waste their time to support their vision), to the Alberta Conservation Association and even Mountain Equipment Co-op. Are these the groups he's referring to that shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion? Perhaps he might believe I shouldn't be allowed to put my forth opinion either, as I filled out the survey to state my support for many of the elements of the plan for protection of the Castle... ergo I supported something that Y2Y supports... ergo I must support everything Y2Y has ever stated, and ultimately Dave Foreman and eco-terrorism. As mentioned by another poster above, false equivalence seems to be the flavour of the day.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-10-2017, 01:20 PM
jgib01's Avatar
jgib01 jgib01 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Kipp's Crossing
Posts: 134
Default

Well, I have had time to have a good read of all three of the Wolf articles written by Mr. Miskorsy. Frankly, they come off as less investigative journalism than they do as op-ed pieces. I'm not sure which was his intent. The first one was actually a fairly sound read, and started to show some interesting connections, albeit difficult ones to make firm conclusions from. Then the second article is premised with "The research is never-ending and the dots are near impossible to connect." Alrm bells... an interesting caveat to start of things off with.

By the third one, the assertions and connections have gone completely off the rails in my opinion. It is intimated that if a group opposes _his_ agenda, then they clearly have no place at the political/public/consultation tables in our province. He uses a pretty broad and non-discriminate brush to conclude that the "green agenda" in Alberta is led by groups who wants to exclude all human activity from protected areas, and states "These are groups that can not be allowed to make or participate in the decision making." Which groups are those? The articles paint issue with many groups from UNESCO (and anyone that would waste their time to support their vision), to the Alberta Conservation Association and even Mountain Equipment Co-op. Are these the groups he's referring to that shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion? Perhaps he might believe I shouldn't be allowed to put my forth opinion either, as I filled out the survey to state my support for many of the elements of the plan for protection of the Castle... ergo I supported something that Y2Y supports... ergo I must support everything Y2Y has ever stated, and ultimately Dave Foreman and eco-terrorism. As mentioned by another poster above, false equivalence seems to be the flavour of the day.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-10-2017, 01:54 PM
Dark Wing's Avatar
Dark Wing Dark Wing is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The elbow of Alberta
Posts: 1,185
Default

https://postmediacalgaryherald2.file...ananaskis.jpeg

What ever , anyone who uses wood or wood products that support Y2Y are hypocrites . Looked at the maps on where there going to cut and it's not that bad. They aren't bitching when it's not happening in their back yard. Same old drivel about the poor grizzly bear and elk , well guess what it's creating habitat similar to a burn only it leaves a buffer around the water ways .
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-10-2017, 03:04 PM
SlimChance SlimChance is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 52
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Wing View Post
Go to the home page , click on "Outdoor Pursuits" and scroll down to 2008 and read " Wolves in Sheeps clothing " . Y2Y Have links to eco terrorism and not friendly to outdoorsmen , or any who live in the corridor.
They also have ties to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, but that makes for a mess compelling story, I guess. Either way, Y2Y isn't really specifically of concern here.

-----------------------------------

Back on topic - I feel torn on this one.

Completely natural management of these forests isn't going to work as lodgepole stands are going to burn every 80 or so years. That's not a great thing when you have a lot of people around.

On the other hand, There's a very real danger of devastating fisheries. These really are fragile ecological areas.

It would be nice to see people able to work together for a change. I don't doubt that an ecologically sensitive forestry management plan could be implemented but it seems like people (on either side) are pretty entrenched and refusing to budge.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-10-2017, 06:01 PM
FishALotNot FishALotNot is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 9
Default Y2Y - why sTo bad?

This sounds like a good cause to me, so I was surprised to hear all the vitriol surrounding Y2Y. Try as I may, I can't find *ANYTHING* credible on the internet that supports the bold negative allegations some posters are making about them. Is this all just "Trump"-ed up fear mongering, or is there actually some credible proof that Y2Y is out to blockade the wilderness from all of us hunters and fishermen? Seems like some sketchy allegations being made here...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-11-2017, 06:16 AM
pipco pipco is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: edmonton
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jgib01 View Post
Well, I have had time to have a good read of all three of the Wolf articles written by Mr. Miskorsy. Frankly, they come off as less investigative journalism than they do as op-ed pieces. I'm not sure which was his intent. The first one was actually a fairly sound read, and started to show some interesting connections, albeit difficult ones to make firm conclusions from. Then the second article is premised with "The research is never-ending and the dots are near impossible to connect." Alrm bells... an interesting caveat to start of things off with.

By the third one, the assertions and connections have gone completely off the rails in my opinion. It is intimated that if a group opposes _his_ agenda, then they clearly have no place at the political/public/consultation tables in our province. He uses a pretty broad and non-discriminate brush to conclude that the "green agenda" in Alberta is led by groups who wants to exclude all human activity from protected areas, and states "These are groups that can not be allowed to make or participate in the decision making." Which groups are those? The articles paint issue with many groups from UNESCO (and anyone that would waste their time to support their vision), to the Alberta Conservation Association and even Mountain Equipment Co-op. Are these the groups he's referring to that shouldn't be allowed to participate in the discussion? Perhaps he might believe I shouldn't be allowed to put my forth opinion either, as I filled out the survey to state my support for many of the elements of the plan for protection of the Castle... ergo I supported something that Y2Y supports... ergo I must support everything Y2Y has ever stated, and ultimately Dave Foreman and eco-terrorism. As mentioned by another poster above, false equivalence seems to be the flavour of the day.
Apparently, I'm also a supporter of alleged "eco-terrorists".

The term does have a catchy, fear mongering, right wing, extremist sort of tone that is catchy in headlines and a great way to pigeon hole environmental groups. The ones not doing things the "Right" way.

I can respectfully disagree with anyone against Y2Y.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:17 PM
walking buffalo's Avatar
walking buffalo walking buffalo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 8,561
Default

I can't wait to see these areas Logged or set on fire.

Kananaskis is in desperate need of some true ecosystem management.

Stop crying cause you think a monoculture of evergreen trees is what nature intended or needs. You're wrong.
__________________
Alberta Fish and Wildlife Outdoor Recreation Policy -

"to identify very rare, scarce or special forms of fish and wildlife outdoor recreation opportunities and to ensure that access to these opportunities continues to be available to all Albertans."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-11-2017, 05:31 PM
MountainTi's Avatar
MountainTi MountainTi is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Caroline
Posts: 3,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by walking buffalo View Post
I can't wait to see these areas Logged or set on fire.

Kananaskis is in desperate need of some true ecosystem management.

Stop crying cause you think a monoculture of evergreen trees is what nature intended or needs. You're wrong.
__________________
Keep your city outta my country

Go east young man.....and take a few of yer buddies with ya!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.