reevesr1

Hmmm. I would say that outsourced doesn't necessarily imply cheaper. So how many guitars are we talking about? (I have this line from Frank Zappa's Joe's Garage in my head "It was a Stratocaster with a Whammy Bar") Smaller manufacturing operations with an emphasis on hands on assembling/crafting certainly could be an exception to the rule. Particularly one's that have been able to retain pride in what they make. Actually, there are lots of exceptions. I don't think that everything made in the west is crap, far from it. But not everything outsourced is just cheap crap either. Far from it.

I like to catch more fish than this guy with funny dots over his U.

Didn't want to hijack SD's thread, but his discussion of the Korean made Hardy got me thinking. Why would there be a fear of a foreign made product, particularly a Korean made product? Could it be a holdout from when old guys like me were kids when "Made in Japan" signified cheap? That really hasn't been the case in so, so long. Now Made in Japan signifies quality, and the Korean's are on their way to replicating that. If I were to be afraid of anything, "Made in England" would not instill confidence in me right now. Think Made in America- like 50 yrs from now if the USA continues on it's downward slide. They have had half a century head start on a crumbling manufacturing industy. Now I know for classic brands like Hardy (the thought of a Harley being made in China makes me shudder), we would prefer our traditions to remain being made where they started. And I think it is a legitimate question to ask if a Korean made Hardy is still a Hardy-but I certainly wouldn't worry about the quality. Western society has lost the right to assume their products are better.

Well, she is pretty annoying. Oh and Squatcher, I've fished in pee and had flat tires because of you. I appreciate it dude.

Not to be more obtuse than usual, but what good is netting going to do? The problem will just be back in a few years as no chance of getting anywhere near all of them with any type of net I've ever heard of.

Wait a minute, wasn't I downstream of you this weekend??

I was wathching American Idol last night with my wife and daughter for "family time". But they left to go to a movie and I watched the second hour by myself. I also posted in the "Ask the Pro's" section even tho I'm not a pro.

Wouldn't mind a place at Castle Mountain! You can ride all winter, fish the crow on warm days, then have your choice of streams in the summer. Now about that whole "need a job" thing. I actually almost bought there. But my wife said "it sure is windy." I made the mistake of saying "this is nothing, you should be here when it really blows." We bought in Panorama.

I work for a big, nasty multinational company. We transfer people here from literally all over the world. Only problem is getting them to leave. Grass may be greener somewhere else, but it's pretty green here. Lived in quite a few places, in Canada and the US. Be tough to get me to leave.

One hell of a tarpon there Al! Is that Clives special lake? I here little girls catch tarpon there too!

That is one ugly fish! Can't believe my whitefish thread made 3 pages! Troutlover says I've been outed as a whitefish lover.

Brian, I say this with all due respect. The argument you are using is "at least he is not as bad as....". To me, you are using the actions of others (McT, Heatley), and a perceived lack of consequences for their acts, as justification for the lack of consequences for Bert. In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, that argument does not hold water. They have nothing to do with each other. Two were civil offenses and dealt with by the legal system. One was done in the context of the game and dealt with by the game (I realize there is civil as well). All are eligible to play. All should be allowed to. Doesn't mean I would want them on my team. I stand by my initial observation. I would not want Bert on my team, as I don't think (again, my opinion) he is a person of good character. If you do, that's fine. Many others agree with you. As I've said before, I'm ok with that. You find my argument invalid. Fair enough. But don't try to tell me to lay off of him. I have no intention of doing so. Just as I'm not asking you to stop cheering for him just because I don't like him. And for the record, I've never consistently booed anyone in my life. I don't boo any of the above players/coaches. Doesn't mean I pull for any of them.

Kingfisher, So sorry for your loss. My father died of cancer as well, a little over 2 yrs ago. He fought it off for years, but at the end there was not much left of him to fight. When it became obvious the end was near, the family gathered together to say goodbye. My son and his cousin, both 13 at the time and crazy for fishing were in his bedroom talking to him. When they came out, dad called for my mom. She went in, and came out 30 seconds later laughing. I asked what was up and she said: "Your father just asked me to make him a ham sandwich, and that he was going to take the boys fishing." Now, he had prostate cancer that had metastasized in him stomach. He had not been able to eat for days, and actually never ate again. Nor did he eat the ham sandwich. But he was serious about trying. I'll never forget that moment. I did get to fish with my dad many times when he was sick. I never knew which one would be the last, and if truth be known, I'm not sure I remember exactly which one was the last. Didn't matter though, but I wish I had a picture. I would cherish it as you will cherish yours.

Who ever said drunk driving was ok? Certainly not me. If my "intent" line was misinterpreted, I apologize. Though the eventual outcome of drunk driving is predictable, and the guy getting behind the wheel always knows he is wrong, they are not getting into the car with the intent to kill someone. As I've said numerous times in this post, I think the penalties for drunk driving are too light, by far. But if you guys want to believe that I think drunk driving is ok, then please, go right ahead. I still don't understand why that has anything to do with Bert. The bottom line is either you believe his actions were cowardly and had the intent to injure, or you don't. I do. Some agree. Many others don't. But drunk driving or vehicular manslaughter have nothing to do with this.

It shouldn't. That's not why they booed him. OK, but still doesn't make me want him on my team. People fight all the time in hockey. Very few attack from behind and ride him down. Agree to a point. I could argue intent to harm with drunk driving (and as I said, the punishment is far too lenient), but not the same as someone's rage taking them over the edge. But drunk driving and McT have nothing to do with this. I think it is total rationalization to look for other bad guys, or guys who did bad things, who are still in the game to make everyone feel ok with having Bert on your team. Anyway, this is probably pointless. If people are ok with it, nothing I'm going to say will change their mind. Conversely, I doubt anyone is going to change my mind either.

First off, don't downplay the "scrum." There was nothing scrum like about what Bert did. To say otherwise is revisionist history. As to the booing of Bert-Calgary was the worst for the booing before they got him. A couple of goals, and all is forgiven 'eh? Should I post the definition of hypocrite here? How about the definition of rationalization? Look, I'm not exactly sure what Heatley and McT have to do with this. What each of them did was horrific, and I think dealt with by the justice system. Personally, I think they got off lightly (I think our drunk driving penalties are a joke. Could claim the same about reckless endangerment or vehicular manslaughter). But in both cases, it is difficult to come up with intent to harm on their part. In Bert's case it is difficult not to. In no way am I saying that Bert (or McT or Heatley) should not be allowed to play, or coach. They were all dealt with, whether you believe the punishments fit the crime or not, and as such deserve the opportunity to continue their career. Doesn't mean I would necessarily want them on my team. As to Bert, I certainly wouldn't have him on my team. Period. I may be in the minority on this and I'm ok with that. Didn't say anyone had to agree with me, just stating my view.

Someone drives someone's head into the ice every damn game? Life expectancy must be short for hockey players. I HATE it when the team I pull for gets a bad guy only for the sake of winning. Shows a decided lack of character on the part of management. Thankfully, it almost never works. Put bad character on your team and chemistry typically goes to *hit. See the Dallas Cowboys as a prime example. Character counts in life, why shouldn't it count on a sports team? I still root for the Flames. I will not however root for #7.

They don't always fight well, but they quite often do, at least until they get big. But they don't tend to run, unless you are like Rev Bob and fish with a 3 wt all the time. I've enjoyed this thread. Like many things in life, there is no right answer, and peoples public position can be signficantly different than their private behavior. In the end, to each his own. I like sticking up for the whitie because he is an underdog and I think underappreciated. He is not a trout, lord knows, but has earned my respect, sometimes anyway. Anyone around here casts aspersions on my friend the whitie, expect me to come to his defense!

In keeping with trailheads haiku #2: Cracka on the line Gives some more satisfaction Then trout left uncaught

Damn. Pretty good goaltender you guys got there. Edit: other guy didn't suck much either. Fun game.

Wasn't that the day we stopped coming home from the bullie trip? 2 days of fishing for big cutties and bullies in BC, with very mixed success, and taking a bit of a side trip to said small alberta creek on the way home-and close the day laughing our assess off at the little whities. There were so many fish rising it was like rain. We thought they were little rainbows and hoped there might be the odd bigger fish in the group. We also changed flies numerous times before the first tiny whitie was actually hooked. And no, we did not continue to fish for them. Just a couple to confirm they were all whities!!

Thats some big ass rocks in that river! How did they get so square?

Free to a Good Home?

Well Rev, my bet is most people are like that, there are just a lot who won't admit it. I remember having a blast with you one day catching some big honkin' whities. Didn't hurt that there were plenty of rainbows mixed in. I would be a bit surprised that some who feign disdain for the homely whitie in public would stand there just like we did catching big white after big white. But only if they were by themselves. Kinda like fat chicks and mopeds eh? (just quoting an old politically incorrect joke ladies. Please don't flame me!) Marc-I never really thought of the fact they fight better than trout in cold water. But now that you mention it, they certainly do seem to keep their energy in really cold water better. I wonder if that's why we catch proportionally more in the winter-higher metabolisms=more feeding than trout?

I've been thinking lately about what makes one fish more desirable than another. If we are going to release them all, what difference does it make? Where I grew up it was, and still is, caught up in how edible the fish is. Even though many of us are catch and release now, we still mostly target fish who are tasty! It doesn't hurt that they are pretty good looking fish (and just what defines good looking-we tend to target predator fish and their appearance appeals to our senses), and put up pretty good fights. But there are lots of fish that look good, fight great, and were totally ignored because they had no food value. When my dad was a kid, Galveston Bay was loaded with tarpon. They were utterly ignored as a game fish as they had no food value. My dad and a couple of his friends were among the first, and almost only, fishermen to target them because fighting them "took your breath away." Here was a gorgeous fish that in my mind exemplifies what a game fish should be, a big, FAST, gorgeous, sleek, surface fighting beasts! And no one went after them. Why? It couldn't just be that they were not good to eat. In the 50s and 60s, it's not like fishermen were fishing for sustinence. While they certainly ate what they caught, it's not like they had to. The reason noone fished for tarpon, in my mind, is the fish had no "bragability" in those days. If you came back with a story, or worse yet a dead useless fish, nobody would care. Therefore, no value. I was on a trip several years ago in southern Louisiana. I'm in a friends boat and I see a massive school of lady fish. We called them "poor man's tarpon." They get up to around 4-5 lbs, are super aggressive fish that will hit almost anything when they are feeding (hey, just like a cuttie!), spend more time in the air when fighting than in the water, fast and pull hard. What's not to like? Well, to many of the people I fish with, everything. One friend said "I don't want those slimy, bloody things in my boat." My response was "you've sorta forgotten what this is supposed to be about." But again, for many fishermen, they think "why catch them." It's not like we could have gone back to the camp and brag about all the ladyfish we caught. Noone would have cared. To this day, I feel like I missed one of the best fishing opportunities of my life. It would have been a blast. Lots of fish fall into the undesirable category, sharks among them (though that is changing). I would rather catch sharks than almost anything. As fishing has become more and more catch and release, fortunately these opinions are changing. Bonefish, tarpon, and to a lesser extent jack crevelle have become target gamefish even though they have no food value. I'm not sure if permit are edible, but it doesn't matter. They are targeted for their power and wariness, not their food value. But they now have massive "bragability!" So what of fresh water equivalents? It is easy to see why trout are desirable. They are almost without exception gorgeous fish, and almost all hard fighters. Some certainly more than others. Rainbows to me are the pinnacle around here, but that is because I think they fight the best. Browns next because they are so damn pretty and fight reasonably well. Not as active as rainbows, more a power fish. Cutties are next. Again, off the charts pretty but don't fight nearly as well (I wish I could teach them to jump!) and quite frankly can be pretty stupid. Though if truth be told, I like that in a fish from time to time! Who says it's always supposed to be hard? But what of the whitefish? Why so maligned? They are admittedly ugly. But why should that matter? What do I care what the fish looks like as long as it pulls hard? And many whities pull real hard. Some big ones can get a bit log like-but so do some browns and many bull trout (who are ugly as well, particularly the big ones). But the poor whitefish has no bragability whatsoever. How many pictures of whities do you see? Almost none, because either no one will comment at all, or if they do, it will be usually negative. I would mention the sucker here, but what would be the point? He has even fewer supporters than the whitie. I don't mind catching them, but I'm a fish whore so don't count. There is another fish in the bow that has some prestige, though in truth I don't understand why, and that's the pike. They fight like crap, at least to me, and they can ruin your day if you hand gets close to their teeth. But they have MASSIVE bragability. Why? While the strike can be really exciting in all their agressiveness, once you are past the first part of the fight, they are really boring. Now, any 10+lb fish can be a challenge on a fly rod, particularly in flowing water, but why does the pike get such great press while the whitie gets pooped on? Is it the fact the pike is the apex predator and the whitie not? I don't know the answer to these questions. Truth be known, I like to catch them all. Like most, if pressed, I would say I'd rather catch a big rainbow than almost anything around here (and I include bull trout in this-something about them just doesn't engage my imagination. This could be because I've caught lots of big fish and don't really judge a fish just on how big he gets, or if he is the apex predator) because they are just so damn much fun. But I would never turn my nose up at a whitie, or a sucker for that matter. Unless they are getting in the way of catching that big rainbow! I like to brag as much, probably more, than the next guy. Sorry for the pointless ramble. I need to go fishing! Anyone know where I can load up on whities??