Smitty

And a nice shout out to Hanson's Outfitters for their support in supplying 10 rod-reel-line combos at a ridiculously low price for a good cause. Smitty P.S. Mods: I felt it important to recognize them; if I have broken rule 10, understand my recognition is simple gratitude and not an effort to advertise for them; I've never been to their store even!

Just got the rods delivered; AWWWWEEEESSSSOOOOOMMMMEEEE! Now my ratio of rods-to-kids won't be like 1:4. Every student will have a rod. Thanks again to Chris and Murray. Can't wait to start up flyfishing club again next week! Cheers! Smitty

Thanks for the offer Rickr, we do have a plan in place! Cheers, Mike

No Rickr! Please don't delete, lol. Seriously, you make an excellent point. For the most part, you're absolutely correct, the system does run itself. Changes in a stable democracy are incremental. Yet change does happen, especially when it occurs at the leadership level. As a US example, there is still kowtowing to Wall street, and all the rampant partisanship, yet, this president still managed to get universal health care passed for the first time in the country's history. And yep, looks like the Supreme Court is going to shoot it down (or at least some provisions). Change is often frustratingly slow, and the changes - when they do come - by the time they filter down to the public level, many many people end up thinking "ya know, that really didn't impact my life on a day to day basis". But it does, even just a little bit, sometimes we have trouble noticing. Seemingly, the changes are somewhat invisible. Take the relatively simple example of Edmonton finally getting out of the stone age and getting an LRT all the way down to the southside. That actually has impacted me; I can go to Eskimo, Oiler, Teacher's Convention, Sportsmen show, etc etc without having to pay for $12 parking at Northlands. Also, the arena debate; its gone on forever (like the airport debate), but decisions made by people we elected will have a direct impact on the future - good or bad - of downtown Edmonton. Yours and Clives comments do ring true about alot of the parties having alot in common, and what does it matter who runs the show? Our political spectrum consists of parties "smushed" up in mostly in center, center-right, and center-left leanings. Occassionally, you get parties like the Wildrose and former Reform party that, socially speaking (an issue like gay marriage for instance), do separate themselves by being more "right-wing". Its tough gig selling democracy sometimes; I know this, because for the first time in my 15 yrs of teaching, I am actually teaching junior high Social Studies (instead of math). Trying to fire up 13 yr olds about an election is...ah,...a little difficult. But c'est la vie; its the natural by-product of living in a great, stable, first-world country, where, relatively speaking, the livin' is pretty easy. We take alot for granted, including the incredible gift of voting; depsite it flaws, its frustrations, its messiness. My solution (for the students) is somehow try and incorporate lessons about democracy using "software" like Minecraft or Call of Duty, lol. That will engage them! Smitty

Clive: Yeah, mandatory does offend some and for sure is controversial. But - if I may be melodramatic for moment - people have fought wars to protect our freedom and have died to preserve our right/duty/privilege to vote. You think people would consider it their duty - the least they could do. But I see what you're saying about forcing people to assume their duty; it is un-authentic at best and at worst does infringe on their rights to be lazy arses. Yes, we are in complete agreement about the comments on the forum versus votes; it just doesn't jive, especially when I asked people to focus only on how the SRD and our wildlife would be treated. I don't think Wildrose is the answer at all. Anyhoo, I have no problem stating publicly that I am voting Alberta Party; I know they are small, and my vote probably won't "count", but I have been impressed by their energy and earnestness in trying to listen to Albertan's and draw up sensible policies. Smitty

I disagree. The stat is useful, for example, in framing an argument favoring mandatory voting, so its much more than a non-starter. Mandatory voting is something I think this country/province should consider. It is true that even if more people voted, the results would likely stay the same. No argument here. And yes Clive, frankly, your "quality of vote" argument does sound...bad. I absolutely disagree about having too many parties. Instead of risking gridlock and hyper-partisanship that a 2 party system produces - i.e. the United States, I rather risk coalition fragility than the nonsense that goes on down south. Its seems incredibly out-dated to think you can label everyone under one of two labels. Its incredibly short-sighted actually. As far as alternatives, your argument is too cynical for me; for God's sakes, we figured out how to send a person to the moon, we figured out to put a world of information on an ipod; surely we can figure out methods to improve our democratic system. Its a matter of vision and creativity, and goes far beyond the overly-simplistic constitutional monarchy vs republican system debate. Lots of alternative hybrid democracy theories out there... Proportional representation, or proportional representation with a weighted seat/vote system, there are lots of alternatives that adhere to democratic principles. There are plenty of principles we could look at in terms of reforming the system. In other words, we don't have to abandon democracy to consider improving it; you are offering a false choice there Clive; its like you are saying "this is absolutely 100% the best manifestation of democratic principles and it can't be improved so we're stuck with it". Do I mis-interpret? The bottom line is AB is the poster child for looking at reform; literally hundreds of thousands of votes have been cast, and who they've been cast for and what they stand for have been unheard because of first-past-the-post. Its a gross distortion of reality. Smitty

I thought I'd share my Facebook status (just posted):

Well, this was all started unbeknownst to me by BBT's initiative, so kudos and a great big thanks to him for getting the outfits. So a grateful shout out to him on behalf of all the kids and now, to Murray also for doing this. Cheers, Smitty

Holy Cow! Murray, if you could do this, that would be terrific. I - and the kids - would really appreciate this! Let me know - reply here or pm me, and see if this can actually happen. Cheers! Mike 'Smitty'

And yet, if the unscientific poll above is to be believed, the Wildrose would win handily. Interesting. Smitty

Ok, I will ask some serious questions: How many of us are or were PC supporters? (I would guess...probably lots.) How many of us, self labelled as conservatives, have been happy with the way the province has gutted SRD (starting with Getty)? (I would guess...few of us). So here's my request: set aside - just for the moment - from the endless debate AB citizens love having over, say, health, education and the province's economy. This forum is about fishing, so my question is, all the support that seems to be flocking towards the Wildrose, I ask you: "Do you really think the Wildrose will enact policies favorable to fish and wildlife, and the protection of their habitat?" Because on one hand, I understand their support; If you are a "conservative" disaffected with the PC's, its the simple and seemingly logical alternative to just find a conservative alternative. On the other hand, I don't understand how outdoorsy types would even think of supporting the Wildrose. Have a I missed something? Has Danielle Smith made some scintillating promises in regards to the SRD budget, fish, wildlife, and habitat for this province? So, keeping in mind that those specific "outdoorsy" perspectives, my challenge to you: Wildrose Party supporters, defend your position. Smitty

Because this debate has truly split into 2 separate tracks, I'll say, I completely agree with Rickr. And I don't think that contradicts any of the points that I made earlier. Smitty

1400 posts. Fourteen-Hundred. 1-4-0-0. Ya damn rule-breaker. Oops... Smitty

I was going to add choices like: 6. "I don't give a damn Party" 7. "I don't vote Party" 8. "Trout Party" 9. "Native, non-introduced, non-exotic Trout Party, aka founded by Taco, aka WTF Party" 10. "Screw 9, its all about Brook, Tigers, and Cutbow Party" But I thought I'd keep it half-serious for now. Cheers, Smitty

Well, I for one am looking at the Alberta Party. http://www.albertaparty.ca/ What about you? Smitty

Well, I sure beat that last topic to death. Chalk it up to Spring Break for teachers. How about this? In the interest of more sharing, how about some of you "lurkers" come out of the closet and say hi? Introduce yourself, what you like to catch, how long you've been fishing...etc. Note: this thread is for newbies or long-time lurkers. In order to reply, you must have less than 10 posts. Naturally, I can't enforce this, so we'll just see if this plays out. Come-on people! Treat it like a radio talk show and you're a long time listener but have never called in. Isn't it about time? Surely we can do more than the usual 3 dozen or so regulars... Any takers? I have a goal of 24 replies from people with less than 10 posts... Anyone? Smitty

Well, I know I've come full circle and so I apologize for my repititiveness and/or circular argument. But,... I honestly don't know where you are coming from Junior. I guess if the price I pay to keep certain, fragile spots a secret, is to become an elitist, then, so be it. But your stance is almost gun-to-the-head like. Perhaps an exaggeration, but where is the mandate to "must" share information? Is that a condition of becoming an FFC member? Obviously no is the answer. Again, everything you've said is irrelevant to the original point of why I started this thread. Many members - besides myself, in fact more often than me, because the community is based in Calgary - many members take other people out fishing. Many members have mentored other people, in terms of hand-on, direct instructional help. That dad with kids could find plenty of help - PLENTY, I tell ya! lol of people willing to point a family in the right direction. Plus the local fly-shops, plus the AB Fishing Guide, plus numerous books (I count 4 that specifically cover Alberta), dvd's, and video's. Where's the lack of help here? Where's the lack of info? The truth is, with a little bit of effort, isn't there really a glut of information overload? And what's all that got to do with any member of the FFC not mentioning a 3rd stage, delicate tributary that can't handle either the crowds and/or people of ill-intent? Even if the premise is wrong, isn't it better to err on the side of caution and hold back some spots, just in case? Look, I acknowledge I have a selfish motive; like many here, small stream fishing in solitude or with close buddy family member is a real treat. But I don't think its elitist just because you are willing to share when you fished, how you caught fish, what the conditions are like, but you hold back on a favorite spot. Or, that you don't mention to an internet audience of 4000+ every single spot you fished. Let me tell ya, that's way more sharing than it used to be when I was growing up, pre-internet. Anyhoo, your entitled to see things the way you see them, but I'm pretty ok with what I share and what I don't. I guess I find your definition of elitism...weird. Smitty

Excellent reply. Bang on. And Junior, I'm happy to take kids from school fishing; and I also don't mind divulging spots as I mentor them either. Mentorship has nothing to do with the points I made. You might be right about this forum not contributing to poaching. But I'd rather not take that chance, again, given what I know what's happened (ok, I am not scientifically certain, but the cause and effect seems obvious to me) to perch spots due to internet postings here in northern AB. Smitty

I disagree completely Gaffer. While Lornce is indeed spot on with his point, and I agree with it, I still have come full circle (use to be more of a sharer) and see it from Harps point of view. Lornce's point doesn't address the separate issue that out of an audience numbering in 1000's, they are lurkers and leeches - I'm not talking about people who just want info for personal use - but the small subset of lurkers and leeches who will use the info for more malevolent purposes (i.e. poaching). I think we've established pretty solidly that the internet is a completely different beast when it comes to sharing info from the perspective of both anonymity and size of the audience. You're not just sharing the info with a core group of "good guys" and "regular posters". It just takes a few idiots to impact a fragile stream. For a more northern Alberta example, just look at when a perch honey-hole comes out (ie other forum). Doesn't take long to remove a sizable portion of 9" to 13"+ perch once the word gets out. Its irrelevant if people boast or stretch the truth, and all the esoteric philosophy doesn't help once the word is out. For a better flyfishing example, say you were on the coast or on the Island; think people would be as forgiving if someone outed your favorite steelhead honey-hole, especially given the numerous, troubled steelhead returns of late? Anyways, good discussion (once you're past some of the nonsense a page back). I use to be the guy, that, as a teen in the 80's, read about the great fishing on the Crow, and how sad it was they were going to build a dam, and how rivers need friends (It was a Bob Scammell article in Western Sportsman). I completely bought into that philosophy; share-share-share; after all rivers need friends. Rivers do need friends, but clearly the past 10 years of posting on the internet has taught me to be pretty judicious on what type of friends I want for which type of stream. Changed my mind I guess. Last thing; I noticed that recently, on an episode of the New Fly Fisher, one of the best episodes I've seen featuring Phil R., Tom R., and Dave J, hunting brown trout in the "Red Deer" region pointedly did not mention the watershed where the browns were caught. Darn good thing. Love the guessing/exploration/discovery... Smitty

Stunning photos Max. What camera did you use?

Lol. Check your pm...sometime, in the near,...future. Tell you what, make a commitment to make a trip out here in the summer, I'll show them to you personally. How's that? Smitty

Yeah. I get that sense too. Perhaps the issue is pre-mature in coming in terms of people caring enough or wanting to do something or whether its even serious enough to go another step. There was fair amount of the silly shack nasty stuff you have to wade through on this thread to get how people really feel. I brought it up because a lot of this is culture. I believe it was one of Dave Jensen's posts where hot-spotting is really really frowned upon in New Zealand. I know - different ecosystem, different approach, etc. But there was also the spat awhile ago here on FFC on a certain flowing water near Nordegg that some people really got their backs up about (somewhat justified, I thought). Yep - I'll carry on as usual - not specifically mentioning anything north of highway 11 and I'll pm someone if I think its out of line (but that actually is pretty rare). Its definitely a personal bias for me - I absolutely hate seeing any flowing water that you could call a creek (defined by, say, you could jump across it or its less than 10 yards in width, to be completely and totally arbitrary) being named on the forum. But most of the water is pretty public, and frankly, not much mentioning from us northerner-deadmonton types. Smitty

With all due respect, I don't a viable solution or cure to this issue is to simply have more than one "secret" spot. Very band-aid approach, imho. And cherry picking the Bow is the easiest example possible. Of course we're grateful for the reports and updates; and, as Brian said, smaller water can remain anonymous. Ok, this discussion has come full circle pretty much and a lot of opinions have been heard. The bottom line is, are we just talking or is this forum headed towards an actual official policy? Do we need one? Will it help at all? What say you FFC community? What say you moderators? For example, we could propose any or all of the following; 1. Anyone in the FFC community that objects to a location being named can pm the moderators with a respectful, politely worded request to have the name of the waterbody removed, cc'd to the original poster writing the report. The person objecting should obviously state why they feel the way they do. The mods could make a decision then. Yes, of course, we can already do this, but perhaps we could/should actively or pro-actively encourage it. 2. That would also mean that major rivers like the Bow and Crow are accepted unilaterally and the reports will stay (no one can object to report from major rivers). 3. The FFC community empowers the mods to remove the name even without waiting for a request. This would be in the case of a 3rd stage creek that is tiny and/or critical spawning habitat or something. Or, we can just let this issue die and pretty much cap the discussion and we'll carry on as always. Smitty

On a separate, yet still-related note, is there any update or new info in regards to Trans Alta and the use of the entire K-lake/river system for power generation? The last piece for this fishery is the cherry-on-top of retiring the power generation plants that wreak havoc with the littoral zones of the lakes and the screw the river. The potential is still untapped until the waters levels - both still and flowing - are stabilized. Not to mention, the shoreline areas are - aesthetically speaking - downright ugly. Imagine the fishing then! And heck, if we're going to screw with the system, why not fertilize with phosphates/nitrogen and really kick up the aquatic invertebrate habitat? Take it to the next level folks; just an idea. Was just wondering, Smitty

Part of the reason I started this topic because my thinking has come almost 360 degrees. When I got into fishing as a teen in the mid-80's, I remember reading an article by Scammell about the Crow. Part of the reason he wrote the article was to create awareness about the 3 rivers dam. He, like other writers at the time, felt that "rivers that have friends are protected; those that don't have any friends die". I think that's a basic truism, and flowing waters in particular do need friends. But I agree with Harps now; the spread of information is different in rate and audience. Someone who buys an outdoor magazine I think is more likely to become (or already is) the "Steward" type of angler. But the internet, as we all know, has both "lurkers" and "leechers". People who, in combination, contribute very little to discussions AND use/take advantage of the info presented. With the speed of info these days, who knows where the info regarding hot-spots ultimately ends up. Is there any proof beyond my strong suspicion that poachers have benefited from the internet? Not sure about proof, but I'm pretty convinced. I see what Rickr is saying, the whole point of the community is to share, but I think we must be quite prudent about what info we share. Frankly, I'd like to see more discussions or sub-forums dedicated to techniques and the "how to" as opposed to the "where to". Anyways, I'm incredibly leery about putting "where I was" or "where to go" info on the internet. When you think about it, posting the "where" info really doesn't add alot to the telling of your trip's success (or lack thereof). Does it really detract so much by simply generalizing by saying "hey I fished this watershed this past weekend" Conversely, you have a lot to gain by being a steward by protecting a stream's anonymity. I think about alot of streams in that Hinton-Edson region that are hammered badly by resource extraction and industrial development, they don't need any more attention by anglers, some of which choose their ignorance by not reading the regs or simply, malevolently, ignore them. Either way, some of those people are on the 'net, getting the info on which of those creeks still have half-decent populations of fish. On a somewhat side note comment; I wonder how many anglers will make themselves aware and compliant of the new regs protecting rainbows in the Athabasca watershed? Smitty