reevesr1

We are all far from perfect. I was saying you were wrong in calling me (however indirectly you were doing it), and the thousands and thousands others like me somehow less than moral for continuing to pursue a career in the oil industry. And my house is in Chaparral, but not on the lake. And I've worked my butt off to get it for about 30 yrs now. The oilsands are not at the head of the crow, or the bow. A better question in my mind would be what if a multi billion barrel oil field was found at the head of the crow. What would I do then? I'm not sure. But there are tons of gas wells around Nordegg. Seems like the fishing is pretty good there still. And I come from a state (two of them) that have supplied North America with oil and refined products for my whole life, and much of my parents lives as well. Fishing there is still fantastic, off the charts fantastic at times. So I don't think that the environment and industry cannot coexist. But as I said, I don't know what I would do, but the Bow has a city of 1 million sitting on it and does not seem all the worse for wear from a fishing perspective. Though not the best sometimes from a experience perspective (trash and such). The problem with the case for stopping the oil sands, from my narrow perspective, is you can't stop it. In the next several decades this oil is necessary. In fact, I believe that the floor in oil prices will eventually be the cost to produce in the oilsands as more and more of these fields are developed. So the challenge, to me, is to not try to stop it but to put regs in place to mitigate environmental impacts. There will always be those who try to stop any industrial advance-and that is not necessarily a bad thing. And sometimes they will succeed. But if the project is valuable enough it will not be stopped, but changes can be made to lessen the impact on the environment. These changes cost money, upping the price of the product. If these prices get too high then alternative fuels become more attractive and will be developed more, lessening the demand for oil. The other way to lessen is for the entire world, particularly North America, China, India (not as big now but getting bigger all the time), Europe, etc., etc. to change the way they live their lives. Not an impossible task, but pretty nearly so. You can always energize much of the younger consuming generation to try to make changes to better the planet. But as they age (and remember that I come from the generation that was going to change the world, and didn't) they become more conservative. Has happened all through history, and will probably happen to this generation as well. As we accumulate more stuff, and kids, we tend to become more interested in protecting what we think we have and less interested in the world at large. Very sad, but very true. I was at a Folk Music Festival this weekend (learning how to think for myself, didn't see Glen Beck there). There was this old Scottish folk singer at a workshop with The Oyster Band and Chumbawumba-all UK folkies and all pretty angry. He sang a song lamenting how he came from the generation that would change the world who became a bunch of p*%%ies. True. But I was struck with the thought that iwhen you are young and don't have anything (and as an old folk singer he probably still doesn't have anything) it is easier to think you can continue to live without anything and spend your time making the world a better place. As you marry, get kids, a mortgage, more kids, those things get harder to think about when its 5 days from payday and you don't have any money left. Your perspective changes. Not everyone's, but most of us. Again, a sad commentary. But a true one I think. Oh, and if anyone wants to discuss alternative energy I also worked in the Nuclear Industry before the oil industry. Lesser of two evils?

So tonyr, I applaud you for being a man of your convictions and dropping out of the oil industry for one more moral. That is commendable, and I say that without a drop of sarcasm. Sticking to one's convictions is an admirable trait. I also applaud your efforts to change, or eliminate (good luck with that one-ok that was a bit sarcastic) the oil industry in an effort to better our planet. Again, I am sincere in that sentiment. What I would like to ask is why, instead of taking the time to insult those of us still in the industry as uncaring, blind, money grubbing bastards (I apologize for putting some words in your mouth, but that was your intent unless I totally misread your post) you did not take the opportunity to tell everyone how they can help your cause? I'm quite sure you have changed many other aspects of your life to lower your carbon footprint, and could have shared those. If you are going to show how you are taking the moral high ground, is it really appropriate to point out how the rest of us are somehow immoral? The oil industry is an absolute necessity in our world as currently constructed. To change that will take massive, massive effort. Until that day please do not kid yourself. Your world, like the world of all the rest of us needs fossil fuels and therefore needs money grubbing bastards like me working in it. Nobody here is disputing that it cannot be done better w/respect to the environment, and is currently done better now than it was 5, 10, 20 or 50 yrs ago. Much of that was mandated by changing regulations. Some of it, contrary to popular opinion, was done by the industry itself. People like yourself and others like you pointing our issues with any portion of the industry will help change practices if they strike a cord with the public. That is a great thing. But it serves no purpose for you, or others like you, to insult those of us in the industry. Your post implies I am somehow immoral for working in the industry I work in. I cannot tell you how wrong your are.

Why is it those sources who are biased and not yours? Therein lies the problem. Everyone is biased, including you, me (ok, maybe not me as I'm fair and impartial), the CBC, the Gov of Alberta, the Gov of Sask, etc. And with the advent of the internet it does not take long to find a study or news article who's results line up with one's beliefs.

From this morning's Metro. To this guy, we are all GOBs.

I can almost hear the people typing coordinates into google maps, or looking up addlepate (I did both myself, though I suspected what the coordinates would show). Thanks for the laugh. Dune, I think many have tried to have rational discussions here, but it does tend to degenerate into playground bs on many subjects. But I gotta tell ya, that can be fun sometimes too, though utterly pointless. But in all the BS, often you do learn something. Like today I learned what addlepated means. Seriously, sometimes these things start rational, fall into name calling and getting locked. Sometimes however they pass through the name calling stage and make it back to rational. I don't agree with the thought that they should not be discussed. Of course they should, for the very few times they do make to the rational stage.

Glen Beck. That's funny. I do watch him sometimes when I need a laugh. Same with Rush, I listen to him when I feel the need to yell at the radio. Both a couple of right wing windbags. Never voted for the right in my life, so don't confuse my reaction to the original post with a political position. Had the article been posted without the "another proud moment for Alberta" comment maybe the responses would have been different. And thanks for the science lesson. Maybe we could add some di and tri sodium phosphate to get the ph back up (just in case you want to get into a water chemistry discussion).

Just a quick set of definitions for any website arguments: Fact=the belief of the person making an argument or presenting a position Opinion=the belief of whoever he is arguing with. Sorry Dave and Lynn. Just had to keep the fires burning.

Engineers always get the girl. Ever watch Star Trek?

I missed that at first. I don't care who you are, that's funny right there,

First, I don't want to confuse what they were doing with hunting. But if I follow your logic, then wouldn't any hunting out of season violation be a use of firearms while committing a crime offense, and therefore federal? Unless they were hunting with a slingshot maybe? (Unnecessary use of sarcasm on that line. Meant for humor effects only) As far as law enforcement being frustrated with the justice system, find me a place where that isn't true. Dictatorships, military juntas, and totalitarian regimes excluded. I personally don't want to live in a place where law enforcement is perfectly content with the justice system, and vice-versa. At the end of the day, I think the outcome for these guys was pretty close to appropriate. Which, other than a dislike of perch in community lakes, could be the first thing sundancefisher and I ever agreed on.

Please do not forget that in our chosen sport we know damn well that we kill some percentage of the fish we catch each year. At the end of the day, we kill trout for fun. To many, what does that say about our "value of an animals life"? Like Rusty said in his post, many people see very little, if any, difference in what those guys did and what we do. I know that we are all fishing within the regulations, but that does not matter to the people who think what we do is just as bad as what these guys did. While we understand the difference, others do not.

I would definitely be in.

Touche.

Matt, Take it from a engineer who has worked in the oil industry for going on 20 yrs now. This province and country needs the oilsands, and until VIABLE alternative energy sources are available (and anyone who think those exist today is fooling themselves), so does the world. A bit of a selfish position on my part as I probably have money in the bank (though not as much as last year) directly attributable to my peripheral association with the oilsands (SAGD). SL, Unnecessary shot at you on my part, sorry. Though you do tend to come down on the anti-industry side on a fairly regular basis. Doesn't make you wrong about this subject though, or any other for that matter. I come down on the pro-industry side probably too often. The possibility exists that I am wrong sometimes as well. In my defence, my kids need to eat. But-is the CBC a left leaning news organization? Um, yes it most certainly is IMHO. Does that mean that both they and the Sask Environment Ministry are in cohoots? It most certainly does not. But the answer to this is not to shut down the oilsands. It is to discover the source of the acid rain and fix it. Whatever, I'm sure this thread will degenerate into a money grubbing bastards thread like these things are wont to do. Sorry I contributed to it's downfall.

So what would be a fine that would satisfy the masses here? They have been publicly humiliated (rightfully so), fined a total of $16,000 (and I don't know about the majority here, but a 5K fine would HURT about right now), had their licenses revoked for 3 yrs (I think that is light, would have thought 5 or 10), and had their weapons confiscated. So what if the max is 300K? (which would be close to 1 million if applied to all 3). That number is insane in this case. What would have been fair 10K? 100K? Maybe we could have drawn and quartered them? Eviscerated? Personally, I think the sentences were on the light side, but no outrageously so. This case also showed that outrage from the resource users themselves can play a part in the apprehension of these guys, not to mention massive amounts of press coverage. Isn't that enough for everyone, or are we just looking for our pound of flesh? I know I said in the beginning that I hoped there was a "special place in hell" for these guys, so I was possibly a bit over the top in my condemnation as well. And who is to say they haven't learned their lesson? And of course they were hoping for leniency. If it had been my kid, I would have kicked his little butt in private and pleaded for leniency in public-just like any father. Sorry for the rant. I'm righteously indignant about the righteous indignation around here!

A one sided article from the CBC? No way! And SupremeLeader is against the Oil Sands? Again, no way!

Thanks for the explanation. Wasnt aware I was being desensitized.

At the slight risk of looking more ignorant than usual, I'm going to admit: I don't have the slightest idea what I'm looking at here.

Back in the day there was a geologist who was working up in the mountains on ground he had staked. He had set up a small camp at the base down by a river and every day he hiked up to his claims and spent his days mapping and sampling. A rancher down by the river noticed the geologist hiking across his property every day at dawn and coming back at night. When winter came he saw the geologist return to his canvas tent at dusk and light the stove. One particularly cold morning he stopped the geologist and invited him to live in the ranch. He argued that there was no mapping and sampling to be done with all the snow, and as long as he helped out there were 3 square meals a day and a warm bed in the bunkhouse. The geologist accepted. Come spring the geologist headed out back up to work on his claims, but word of a new discovery lead him elsewhere. About 2 years later the geologist found himself coming back to his claims. While buying supplies in the nearby town he noticed the rancher's daughter pushing a baby carriage down the street. He walked up beside the stroller and looked at the child. The child had red hair. He had red hair. He stopped the rancher's daughter and asked "Is this child mine??" The rancher's daughter nodded in confirmation. The geologist went on to say "You know I'm awfully fond of you... why didn't you tell me you were pregnant before I left the ranch??" The rancher's daughter looked pensive for a second before explaining: "Well, you see, it came down to a family discussion... and the long and short of it is that we decided it would be better to have a bastard in the family than a geologist

Steve, That is just spectgacular, both you and 'becca. Now, GET OFF MY WATER!

Um, excuse me SDL- WTF is a yellow TFO doing in one of those pictures? Stealing my trademark! Looks fantastic! I especially love the fact that you had limited wt you could bring, but still had 3 flats of beer! Awesome.

Those damn bass fishin' rednecks. Thanks for that Chris.

My bag: Titleist DCIs Taylor made sand wedge Cleveland Gap Wedge Cleveland launcher 3 wd (several years old, but I love it) Cleveland HiBore driver (don't get one unless you like to hit it long and straight) Odyssey 2 ball blade putter So I've bought into the golf equipment thing. It matters, matters, and matters. Oh, Taylor Made and Titleist Pro V1s. Only name brand in golf for me. Fishing Reels: 2 Scierra XDPs,1 Bauer JM3 (I think) and a couple of Okumas Rods 3 TFOs 1 Amundson Wind Warrior 1 Wayne Hanson Traveler shop rod So no high end brand name gear for me, yet. I just don't feel I need it yet. But do I think a high end Sage is a better rod than a TFO? Well of course I do. Just don't think I need it. But to close my argument on this thread, I still don't buy into the idea they are ripping us off. I also listened to the podcast from the Scott guy. I believe him. But it won't do anything for those who don't.

Paul, I'll take a look when I get home. But he's probably paid for by the rod manufacturers. Everyone knows they are ripping us off with their generic materials. Hey hawg, Isn't your go to rod a custom G&L? I test drove one once and loved it.Don't remember it being too cheap though............

I hope there is a special place in hell.........