dryfly

Ho man...you mean stuff for a floor! I read the title as "Anti fatigue mating" and was thinking, "THIS thread is for me." In my dreams.

Thanks Kyle. I'll just quietly ignore weedy and adc! Since this thread is pretty much in the tank ... here is a better one weedy. See you tomorrow Al.

"He'll feel better after an afternoon nap." I'll feel way better tomorrow when I catch more trout that adc ... Ooops ... that sort of dreaming can invoke the fish gods to cause me serious "skunk" grief. Oh oh. I am doomed.

Hey thanks guys! I have a date with adc and a couple of other guys and we are indeed headed to BH on Monday morning. I was determined to not buy a license and not fish last week and it work out okay as we had a busy week with grandkids who were off school. We are rebuilding a fence here at home, but it can wait till Tuesday. So fishing it is ... sans license. I am privileged to join to the ranks of fishing icons like Don and Terry. Just think about it. I can take my two Lethbridge grandkids fishing and we can kill three limits and not have a license among us! How ya feeling about that, eh? Mini editorial rant. An adult from Germany (or what ever foreign country) can buy a one-day license for $26 (one-day license are not available to Albertans which is blatant discrimination) and take ten foreign kids fishing and kill eleven limits all for $26...foreigners under 16 years also do not need a license, which I think is downright insulting to Albertans. (This sort of stuff does not happen, but the regs allow it and it is wrong...I actually saw a German angler with three kids on the Crow once.) SRD needs to get on the program and change licensing fee structure. And yes, I'd gladly pay an annual fee as would Don, Terry and the other OFs here. Probably would not hurt to overhaul the licensing system..it is talked about but noting significant ever happens...token tweaking is all. No free rides for seniors, foreigners children and WAY higher fees for NR Canadians and NR foreigners. Thanks again! Clive

This is beedhead's tape measure...

Aha, and now we have a huge philosophical problem. Some housekeeping first. A lot of parties is probably dysfunctional to the point of confusion...there can be small differences between parties that might otherwise agree on 95% of policies. I agree that two is not a good idea at all. Three might be ideal and four where there are real differences. Some political science types say there are four basic political groupings; left and right economics and left and right "social" concepts..social conservatives or social liberals. So four should cover it, but this all goes to heck when there are so many degrees of each: far this, far that. But having (say) 8 or 10 parties is silly and wasteful and probably dysfunctional. Heck, I think your poll might (just might) indicate this already. Are people thinking the the WRP is so cool without understanding their policies might have an effect on budgets to protect the environment....although that is not clear as they seem to have little policies on, say, "fish." We agree on the offensiveness of "quality" of vote argument...it is tacky, but a reasonably good argument could be made that (say) awareness and objectivity could/should account for something in a vote. However, it is a non starter because it goes against the concept of equality. A dead issue. (I still think your vote is probably more "valuable" than one from say a Wal-Martian... Who knows?) Good arguments might be made for "Proportional representation, or proportional representation with a weighted seat/vote system, there are lots of alternatives that adhere to democratic principles." Maybe... ""this is absolutely 100% the best manifestation of democratic principles and it can't be improved so we're stuck with it"." I agree with you that it might be improved but deciding on just how that might be would be difficult especially when there are more than 3 or 4 parties. So then it would be a matter of drawing lines in the sand...no representation without X% of the vote or we'd end up with complete anarchy with every splinter party on the planet demanding a "seat" to represent their vote. But now the thorny stuff. A divergence of minds... "Mandatory voting is something I think this country/province should consider." To me this concept is offensive for basic human rights reasons .. it would infringe in human rights. We 'force' people to do many things in our society, for example, we require people to have drivers licenses. Fine. But forcing someone to vote denies their freedom of "speech," at least figuratively. If I am an anarchist and don't believe in voting then it infringes on my freedom to voice my opinion by not voting ... and forcing me to cast a 'spoiled ballot' is wrong. (BTW, since graduating from U in 1968 I've not voted on 2 or 3 municipal elections and might have missed one provincial election.) I think people should/must vote, but we have no right to force them to vote. If they (anarchists or whatever) rebel, we have the right to take action but we can't force anyone to vote. It is distasteful, even though we agree that a higher turnout would be good...although it might make no difference. Anyway, mandatory voting for me is as offensive as some of the concepts I floated were to you. Change of topic ... smitty, I am still surprised by the trend in the vote here at FFC and no one has commented on this except me. The poll results seem inconsistent with the comments on this forum. Based on a lot of comments here, one might think the WRP would not be favoured by the majority because they are social conservatives to the economic right, whereas many comments here often reflect social liberalism. So the results here are confusing. Of course, forum comments my be a function of social liberals being more vocal and giving a skewed impression of reality. And the results might indicate that males think DS is a hotty. Could happen. In fact, bet on it that her bubbly (sometimes foot-in-mouth) mien is attractive to some male type fly anglers. Methinks tis so. Regards Clive

This will sound offensive perhaps and I mean no harm. The ONLY thing that counts is "votes cast." Dredging out the "eligible voters" and saying a party won with a low percentage of the eligible votes is a non starter. And using it to show how poor the democratic system is not appropriate. Yet losing parties almost always drag this out (after an election) and holler for representation based on percentage of votes. It is a beneficial statistic to encourage people to vote and that it all it is useful for. "80% of the seats with only 28.4% of the eligible voters' votes." If those that actually voted more or less were representative of all eligible voters (i.e. distribution of party choice was the same for voters and non voters), then a high turnout would have no affect. If a higher percentage of non-voting eligible voters really wanted another party in power, then they only have themselves to blame. The democratic system is indeed flawed, but appears to be far better than alternatives. Too many parties is a major flaw. Oh gosh, this will sound bad....one might make an argument that the higher the turnout the lower the "quality" of the vote. Someone once said, "One flaw of democracy is that votes are counted and not weighed." That sounds snobbish or elitist, but an argument could be made for that. Obviously it will never happen. In this regard, I was gonna say something about the least federal election...but never mind. I don't like flaming crosses on my front lawn. There are potential problems with having four parties in the current election. Both the left and right run the risk of vote splitting. The PCs, WRP or Liberals could win with a low percentage of actual voters. Regards, Clive

Excellent poll smitty. Thanks. Okay, so only 24 have voted (hardy Gallup stuff), but what I find incredibly confusing is that when there is an "eco-enviro-climate-regulatory-enforcement-habitat-forestry" thread here people tend to want to burn the federal and provincial PCs at the stake. "They don't protect the rivers, forests, riparian areas, etc etc etc...." Yet given the platforms of the parties, WRP might be considered to be less eco-friendly than the PCs. WRP is way more to the economic right and more social conservatives ... way more so than the PCs. According the party platorms the AB PCs are middle of the road and only slightly to the economic right. So if find the poll results not consistent with common comments on the forum. Lordy! Don't tell me you guys think Danielle is a hotty and yer voting with yer hormones? Say it ain't so.

Dave Akamina Pass is in Waterton. The snow pack is off the charts at more than 200% of average...850mm water equivalent. or about 28 feet of snow at 1760 meters. It has snowed up high almost daily for weeks. A slow melt will be fine. A fast melt will not be a good thing. Clive

Snow pack at some monitoring sites in the hills is silly high! Wait for it coming soon to a stream near you. Here and here.

Gee Terry you must an engineer or sumting. That is a very cool idea. Totally eliminates any concern there could be over extending the factory cable...this effectively moves the battery terminals closer to the motor. Good one. Clive

Not used my MinnKota for years, however I too added 4 or 5 feet to the battery wires so the batt could sit up front to counterbalance my bulk. No problems.

The left-leaning media was trying to make it a big deal and imply the party was idiotic. It's pretty funny and that is how most sensible people with see it. Good on 'em. Perhaps the same ad designers as the SK Pork association a few years ago ...

Don Don Don Just rename your project and ask for ten times as much. Here is what you need to call it: Mitigation of catastrophic climate change on native fish habitat in the North Raven River using in stream structures Do not mention non natives....throw in a few species names the spotted-owl stickleback, Banff snail and you might even mention the indirect effects on (waht?) say, grizzly bears. It will be a shoo in and no one will ask questions. It has to be good , right? If you wanted $20,000 ask for $100,000. Some of which will be my consulting fee. And you thought it was hard. Any time.

Excellent opportunity and photos! Thanks for showing. Clive

Too funny. Bugger about the damn carp, but these guys got a good attitude. They are pretty good boarders too. These are my kind of people.

Holiday Inn maybe.

And it is still only January.

"Wow! You can sure fool people with Photoshopped pictures!"

Now !is most disturbing. Tree huggers having a wailing orgasmic protest. Idiots. The Castle protest is short-sighted. Trees will grown back and reforestation is mandated. Properly managed forest harvest is preferable to forest fires and as noted previously the dominant species in our forest are short-lived and become fire hazards as they age. Yet we continue to put out forest fires (as often as not) to save cabin owners...some of whom are out protesting against logging. They don't want logging but want taxpayers to put out fires that will burn their houses! Logging is temporarily destructive for sure and can be massive....like the current Castle logging. But it is hypocritical for someone who has cut down trees to build their dream retirement wood-framed home to protest against logging! Check out the Mountain Legacy website for an eye opener. It can be a bit fussy to get around. Go here for sure. The points being: -- forests recover -- in some mountain regions there are MORE trees in today than 100 years ago...(where there are before-and-after photos) The examples below compare "today" with 1913-1914 ... this is "Isolated Mtn" somewhere in SW Alberta..maybe LastBoyScout or Lad can tell us where... See here, here , here ,here and here for examples...some recently logged and some not... Note particularly ... Where there has been no recent logging see how much more lush today's forest areas are compared to 100 years ago. Ripe for a fire soon..at least sometime in a few decades of not logged or (ironically) burned? Okay, now go find the City of Calgary on Google Earth. Compare today's cancerous growth with that of 100 years ago. Which has more chance of being regenerated to a natural state? A city or a logged forest? Stay warm ... Clive

Just wondering aloud how many protesters will be out Tuesday and Wednesday morning throwing themselves in front of the logging machinery. Just wondering. S'pose a few diehards will be there.

Taco Damn interesting. Thanks. Ida bet ten bucks it was a char vs a Salmo. See here...says it crosses with browns and the offspring are fertile. Clive WOW!

You can also use mini foam indicators like the ones shown here. Won't spook fish in low clear water. This shows how they can be used for dry flies...work for nymphs too. Would tend to agree with Don ... if you saw a bunch o' fish they coulda seen you and whereas they won't leave the pool they will not feed. Clive

1) Taco...."bucket list. " HA HA HA! Trackhoe--bucket list. Good one Taco. 2) LastBoyScout. " Harvest responsibly or let it burn. " Amen to that. Well said. These species need to be renewed and they create a huge fire hazard if they get too old. Fires perform a role in Alberta's forests yet if we keep putting out the fires then the only chance at "renewal" is by managed harvest, as distasteful as some feel this is. If NIMBY applies to logging (in my back yard). Then maybe NIMBY should also apply to fire suppression (in my backyard), eh? 3) Rickr. Well said. The only problem is at some time the trees have to go because they have a finite life span. Nature's way was fire. As LastBoyScout said (I think this is what he meant), trees need to be harvested responsibly or we stop putting out fires and let fires take their natural course. Fire suppression is ridiculously expensive and damaging, yet when there are houses in the way people get more than a little concerned. One wonders how many house/cabin/cottage owners in the Pass area, Twin Butte, Beauvais Lake, Beaver Mines areas will be out protesting. And then expect tax payers to put out fires that threaten their precious recreational (and permanent) properties? Touchy subject and there is little middle ground here. The answer is not as simple as banning forestry in someone's backyard.