orvisonly

Sex is a sport?

That's what she said.

Many on this board confuse elite flyfishermen with elitist fly fishermen. An elite flyfishermen would not have any concern with what form of angling another person was employing. The elitist probably switched to using a fly rod within the past 5 years, is not very proficient with the rod, and somehow feels that using a spinning rod (or bait) provides an advantage in catching fish, which an elite fly fisherman knows it does not. I've never seen an elitist fly-fisherman or woman. I have seen elitist people that use fly rods.

1. What do you mean? I saw this with my own eyes. (Except for the part about the animals and the trailer). 2. Obviously there is no cell phone coverage where I was. How was I supposed to report him? I just knew someone would be critical of my actions here. Ralph is the criminal here, not me. No wonder so many of the really good people don't post on here anymore.

Hello my friends. As you know, I normally have no difficulty in forming and expressing an opinion. I try to balance my views by making an effort to understand the average person's position. However, just as it would be difficult for Leonardo to produce a bad painting, it is sometimes difficult for me to comprehend an average person's thought process. Therefore, I'm asking for your help in answering a question that I have. Let me start by furnishing you with some background information. Earlier this year, I was fishing a stream located in Alberta. The stream was isolated and I was miles from any road. It was a beautiful day, and as usual, I was having an excellent day of fly fishing. As I rounded a corner, I was surprised to see another fisherman. I struck up a conversation and noticed that he wasn't fly fishing: he had two wet flies on his line. I saw that he also had a spinning rod with him, complete with a treble hook rapala and a dropper hook with a worm on it. Over his shoulder he had a creel, and he was quite proud to show me the eight small bull trout inside. "My dog loves these things", he exclaimed. I pointed out to him that he was breaking several regulations. He replied that he was unaware of any such regulations. I suggested that he would have received a copy of the regulations when he purchased his license. He indicated that he was a senior citizen and, therfore, did not have to purchase license. Ralph went on to introduce himself, and when I asked how he'd come to know about the stream, he told me that he flown over it when he was doing some scouting work for a major gas plant many years ago when he was an executive in major oil company. "Later, after I'd cashed in all my stock options and decided to devote myself to public service, I remembered that this stream was within my riding", said Ralph. This was all very interesting. I mentioned that I was surprised to see him this far into the backcountry. Ralph pointed upstream where is jet boat was parked. "I tried to ride my Quad up the middle of the stream but it was just too deep, so I left it back with my fifth wheel trailer that is parked beside the river about a mile downstream". "Being a public servant, I get most of the summer off. So I like to come out here to fish all summer.", said my progressive yet conservatively dressed friend. He continued, "Nice place, but a tad dangerous. I've already had to shoot three grizzlies and a wolf this summer." Ralph began to move on, but as he was leaving, he suggested that I stop by his camp on the way out. He was having trout for dinner and then cake for dessert. Needless to say, I was in total disbelief as to what I'd just seen and heard. Here is my question for you. What is the most relevant reason for me to hate this guy?

You are both right. Perception of quality varies by customer. If you are an unemployed, shiftless, pot smoking bellyacher with no visible means of support, limited skills, and below average intelligence then you would probably think Canada's healthcare system is better. If, on the other hand, you have a job, pay taxes, and feel some degree of responsibility for your own welfare, then you might prefer the system available south of the border. If people spent a fraction of the time they spend complaining about healthcare, exercising and eating nutritiously, there would be no healthcare issues. Hospitals would have the resources to deal with people who have issues despite the lifestyle they lead instead of those who have issues directly resulting from the lifestyle they lead. If you need someone to blame about the state of healthcare in North America, put down the potato chips and look in the mirror. Postscript - Benito. I was not in anyway referring to anyone in the forum with my description, although some may feel strongly that the description matches them perfectly. I can assure you this is a coincidence. No need to remove this post.

Wolfie et al, I sense that you are challenged with respect to understanding the concept of a democracy. Let me take a moment to explain to you and the rest of the Reds on this forum the concept that, in a democracy, the government and the people, that is the majority of the people, are one and the same. When you chastise the government for its policies, the group that you are really at odds with is the majority of people in the province. The government does what it does because that is what the majority of people want. The concept you struggle with is that an individual can be part of the majority on the most of the issues, but find him or herself in the minority on some issues. When one finds oneself in the minority (and in the case of enforcement of fishing regulations anyone who thinks it is important is in the extreme minority), one must accept that if they feel the issue is important they must personally take measures to address it. In the case of Streamwatch, that is what happened.

Look up. Look way up.

The difference is obvious. In the first instance even an idiot wouldn't suggest he or she was fly fishing.

Crappy idea.

Capital Idea! Or is it more like a Capitol Idea? More regulation is just what we all need. This must stem from the huge number of deaths resulting from Guides not having first aid training. Or is it the lack of liability insurance that has prevented untold scores of relatives from cashing in on these deaths? Is there a problem here, besides some anecdotal ramblings about guides who allegedly committed heinous acts? Could this just be a few individuals that are upset at the amount of competition in guiding from non full-time guides? If you look at the history of licensing, it is almost always driven by unions or associations who want to drive out competition. In these cases, it is an organization that forms and manages the accreditation of members. If it were required for fishing, it would happen. As for those who question cost of the program, I agree the estimate of three hundred thousand dollars per year is wrong. The annual cost of anything the government is associated with would be well over a million dollars without including enforcement costs. What happened to caveat emptor? If a guide is good, he'll get business. If not, he'll be just another guy with a boat. If some panty waist felt the need to have a first aid trained guide, he/she would ask for it. If you feel aggrieved enough to sue your guide, it makes no difference whether he has liability insurance - that and waivers are for the guide's protection, not yours. My personal belief is that anyone who uses the services of a guide is missing out on most of the true enjoyment one can get from fishing. There are a few people on here that do seem to be at a higher level of understanding, but they represent the minority. In any event, if people want to degrade their experience by paying someone else show them how and where to fish, that is their perogative. However, when unecessary regulation of the activity starts to waste public funding, then I take issue with it. The gun registry makes no sense whatsoever, and this idea makes that one look inspired.

Mr. Texas, I believe it was clearly established last year that you are not a real flyfisherperson. Please stop using the term "we" when referring to fly fishers. You should be using "they". While it is clear that real fly fishermen and women are elite, it is the pretenders who are elitist. FFF - I'm glad to see you have a solid perspective on what matters in life, and don't have any anger management issues. Illegal acts should not be tolerated, and ripping barbed hooks through someones mouth seems a fitting punishment for this crime. Just out of curiosity, did you happen to spend some time peacekeeping in Somalia in March of 1993?

I agree. However, if you want to see some environmental impact right here in our own province, go to Coordinates 51.043229, -114.062419 and look at the devastaion. This location used to be pristine river landscape and now it has been scraped clean and is almost devoid of vegetation. Very sad. I'm happy to live in a country where there are people who are not intelligent enough to understand that the hypocrisy of their stated convictions is a subconscious effort to assuage their own guilt. I'm even happier that the small minority of rational thinkers are able to prevent these addlepates from having any real influence on policy.

I suppose we shall have to disagree on that, even though you will not care. I submit that laughing and joking about the molestation of children is unfunny. I do, however, find it amazing that a broad group of people can absolutely lambaste a person for how they treat a fish, yet not one indiviudal has denounced the "jokes" that have been posted in this thread as entirely repugnant. Granted the defilement of minors is not nearly as heinous as someone using a net that is too small, placing a brown trout on dry rocks for a picture, or using bait in the Bow River. Notwithstanding, you would expect at least a modicum of outrage from this crowd at the suggestion that humour based on the defilement of minors is fine, provided you add the disclaimer, 'I'm going to hell, but..." Think about what you are saying. My apologies for breaking the forum rules regarding "Vigilante Moderating.

How about just plain ignorance? There are no grey areas in fishing. That's a good one. If I can point out a few grey areas in the Alberta regulations, would that satisfy you? Start with the term 'barbless'. If one bends the barb back is it really barbless? Some officers have developed their own measure of barbless, but what regulation is this based on. Let's say you are fishing in Lower Kananaskis and you hook a large bull trout that pulls your fly well inside the no fishing line. Then you lose the fish. What do you do then? If you try to reel in and get another fish, should you have to book thrown at you? If you crash land in a remote area near a stream or lake that you know is closed to fishing and then catch and eat a fish (using bait and a barbed hook), how many fines should you get? Downstream of the Carseland Weir is closed, upstream is open, what about the stream that is flowing over the weir? What do the regulations say? Regulations say cutthroat must be released but all other trout, limit is 2. You catch a cutt-bow. Can you keep it. I think you will make an excellent police officer.