Smitty

Clearly I disagree: One, not all the regulations are crappy, and I wouldn't characterize them as such using such a massive blanket generalization. Two, no matter what the regulations, compliance and poaching are issues, and if you want people to follow a new set of rules, why not start and show anglers you're serious by enforcing the "old" ones. Three, the money issue is EXACTLY my point. I think we should stop sending the message to the gov't that says to them "hey, don't worry about funding SRD properly, we'll just outsource it for you by private initiatives like Streamwatch." This is a big sticking point for me. I think before we convince a gov't official that we need to raise fees, we should first pick the fight that increased funding is needed now, and needed from the gov't, not us. Doesn't matter - and in fact, completely irrelevant - no matter how high we raise licensing and other fees, we need to bang on the gov'ts thick skull that we won't stand for the continued decline of the SRD and the gutting of its budget. Sure, I'll pony up to pay for more for my angling, but you know something? Its high time the gov't bloody well stepped up and quit treating SRD as a mere afterthought. Smitty

I don't mind helping out if you need some mtbrk. I can volunteer communication skills. May I suggest something? Clearly there are lots of issues that need attention... So at this point I'll interrupt that point and tell a story from a tv show I loved. You've probably heard of it; The West Wing. So the new president is trying to decide which issues to tackle in his first 100 days in office, and he and the staff they're going to tackle lobbying reform. And its because, as the president says, "because if we can reform lobbying, everything else we want will be that much easier to get." My point I was starting is that maybe - only maybe, I'm open to counter arguments - we should focus on one issue. And I'd say that issue is enforcement. I think if we're going to spend time and energy, political capital, momentum, and get people to care about something, better to pick a single issue. Am I wrong to suggest it be enforcement? Is not logical to think that, if - and yeah, I know, its a rather massively huge if - we are going to try and get the gov'ts attention for more than 5 minutes in caring about our fisheries, maybe lets not waste it. I say enforcement - doesn't everything come from enforcement? Is it not true that nothing makes a law or regulation more useless than no enforcement? My final argument for enforcement is the year's edition of the regs. It clearly states in the regs this year that (a) not much has changed for 2011 and yet ( significant changes will/may be coming to the management of our fisheries. Clearly the bios, SRD, whomever is already paying attention to proper management - or not - debatable. But they are doing something. Which means why not spend our time on something actually less on the radar? So I think we should spend time on lobbying the government for more enforcement of whatever changes are coming. Thoughts? Smitty

Wasn't intending my comments to be brash or harsh. Was meaning to clarify, that's all. No need to say your sorry...you're not disturbing me either. Have a good week. Smitty P.S. Taco, I caught a cutt near the confluence with the highwood. Nothing upstream of where the campground is.

Well, Taco can certainly correct me here: 1. Clearly you don't know Taco; he doesn't want to eliminate ALL brook trout in AB. He is particularly passionate about protecting the sliver of watersheds we have left that contain native cutthroat and bull trout, especially in flowing water. 2. As I've clearly explained, there is no chance - mathematically the probability is zero percent - of brook trout going "way of the dodo". Accept this as fact or not, but it needs no further clarification. 3. There is more than "one or two disconcerting opinion voicers". I, and more than a few others in this province, would like to see brook trout numbers at the least controlled or better, reduced (please read that also to imply "not eliminated necessarily") again, especially in habitat that historically had bountiful populations of cutt-bull-whitefish classic flowing water fisheries. Smitty P.S. And I've been fishing since the early 80's in my mid-teens. Its literally been decades since I've heard any of that "bull-trout-is-less-sporting-so-lets-kill-them" nonsense. No sense in re-visiting past attitudes that the majority of anglers have left to the confines of history...

Respectfully, there is a lot of false logic here. Just because you target one non-native species doesn't mean you need to target all non-native species. Brook trout breed like rabbits, extirpate cutthroat and bull trout in streams - an example, Quirk - and generally, their stream populations are prolific and stunted. If there is a so-called slippery slope here, there is one easily mitigated by thoughtful management, regulation, and cooperation from anglers. Regarding the side note, no, I do not think the attitudes are eerily similar. in fact, quite the opposite. (1) Bull trout are native, that is the major difference. Can't you see that? (2) Liberal limits, poaching, whatever factors you want to include in the pie chart of reasons for their decline, was largely done out of biased attitudes and/or ignorance. Times have changed and we've learned lots - by we've I mean the angling public in general - in terms of fish biology, the concerns of native vs non-native fish, the wider-spread adoption of C&R and other management practices. Far more anglers are aware of how important management practices are, I think. So I reject your thesis outright. Not scary or eerie, I am not going to succumb to an argument based on fear mongering. My bottom line is that brook trout - particularly in streams - are here to stay. Going to be pretty difficult to get them out of the province. By the way, I like it like that! I love brook trout; in fact, after 25 years of reading regulations, just last week I have found some creeks available in the early season. Can't wait to try some new water for spring fishing! The point is that we can do a lot in terms of management to assist native populations like cutts and bulls and that includes some harvest of brook trout. Fish aren't created equal, obviously. There's a reason you are allowed more perch than either pike and walleye: spawning, recruitment, survival and overall populations dynamics aren't the same. Similarly, you can harvest far more brook trout than most other trout/char species in the province. You guys tell me (there more than a few of you with degrees in this area and just plain, knowledgeable people); in terms of flowing waters management, would we not say that brook trout are the #1 trout/char species most able to withstand liberal harvest limits? I participated in the Quirk creek project for a few years, it would seem we hardly made a dent. Year after year, people catch dozens and dozens of brookies out of Cataract creek, etc. There's no reason at all to continue experimenting like we have with Quirk creek. I think SRD has done a poor job overall in enlisting the help of anglers in formulating fisheries management practices that do give some priority to native fish. Smitty

I mis-read the article in wiki. My bad. I saw the term "semi-final", and assumed they won a round. I guess the Flames suck more than I thought... Smitty P.S. And, as I alluded to in a pm to yak, Big BowTrout's post encapsulates both teams' records since the early 90's. That pic is PERFECT!

The statement above, of course, may also refer to the Sutter-Sutter show; an old team bursting with no trade clauses, have now missed the playoffs 2 years in a row, with one of the the worst draft positions of a non-playoff team. Excluding 2004, have never made it past the first round since 1992-1993, including 7 years in a row of not making the playoffs! Woo-hoo! Yeah, you're setting quite the standard! Ask any knowledgeable fan - or better, GM on any team in the league right and ask them to choose between 2 teams - the Oilers or the Flames - would they rather be managing from this day forward (and wow, can I just say, for someone who accuses other teams fans living in the past, you sure have your PhD in using the past when it suits you, lol). Betcha 20+ votes for the Oilers and maximum of of 10 votes for Flames. Anyone want to dispute this? Ok, but remember to use the teams as they currently exist right now, rather than trot out the past as I and Yak have done, or rely on your crystal ball gazing (you should work in the stock market Yak). Its not even close. The Oilers may actually take 2, maybe 3 more years to become serious contenders. I am fine with that: we're similar to the Blackhawks from a few years ago. Better to miss the playoffs and then build for future cup contender strength, rather than place your team in a position to float between in a semi permanent spot between 7th and 10th in the conference. A plan the Oilers were certainly guilty of in previous years, and a model successfully adopted by the Sutters. Well done! Smitty P.S. Anyways, I'll drop it for now; round and round we go...and I should get back to work. Last word (for now) to you yak...

I consider the bet accepted then. And yeah, if you want to talk about mis-management, just listen to your fellow Flames fans. Plenty to say about the Sutter mafia... The Oilers have done an excellent job with changing the culture of the team and organization. I believe we're headed for much better days in terms of attractiveness and keeping players here. I do appreciate how you've lowered the bar for your team though; making the playoffs 5 years in a row! Decent winning percentages! Did they hang a banner in the Saddledome for that? lol (I know there's lots of space up there!) Smitty

And the Flames have what exactly? lol Let's talk about the truth. That's all all Canadians teams have...history. Since the last team to actually win was the Habs in '93. Canada is riding an 18 year drought. Keep them coming yak! That was an excellent effort of wishful conjecture, btw. Care to put your money where your mouth is? I bet you the Oilers win a cup sooner than the Flames, and has a better decade from 2010 to 2020 (meaning I'll even give you this season). I know - its a difficult bet to track. Loser eats some humble pie AND provides informal guided trip to some selected fishing waters in the province AND donates money to some conservation organization or charity. Bring it! Smitty P.S. I really would like the Cup back in Canada...so here it goes; holding my nose, averting my eyes, and cheering on the Canucks!

Bwahahahahaha If that's not post of the year, it sure is the most hilarious. Honestly, besides a fluke run in 2004 to the finals (matched by the Oilers fluke run in 2006, so I consider that a wash), what the hell have the Flames done in 22 years since 1989? If you think you've only been dealing with it for the last 2 years, I suggest you try flyfishing for perch along the river "De-nial" Too funny! You made my Friday Yak! Smittyl

Well that was close; no crow or humble pie for me! More seriously, what do you Flames fans think? Salvage this team's roster, build from what you have and give it another go, or blow it up like the Oilers and start over? Smitty P.S. I'll also congratulate the Flame-outs for taking my advice for finishing in the worst possible non-playoff draft position. Well done!

Well I was - very obscurely - trying to allude to the economic spinoff argument by mentioning the Manitoba Parkland. Anyways, I sent the letter as written. I know it could have been a simple one liner - but I thought its a little more compelling to have an argument. Plus, I like doing that. Bottom line is that Clive is right - whether you just drop a quick one liner or write a novel like me, be a Nike fan and: JUST DO IT!

Just wanted to chip in here with a teacher comment. I completely disagree with this argument; I reject it utterly. I'm not trying to dismiss the reality of poverty; for a rich country, we have far too much poverty, especially child poverty. Funny thing is, even at some of our neediest schools, kids still manage to come to class with cell phones, and whatever flavor of the day Apple product they have in their hoody pockets. It is absolutely unquestionable that we grossly undervalue our fisheries. $30 for an annual license is laughable. Thousands - literally thousands of people blow that money once or twice a month just going to the movies. $30 for an annual license is a steal. Need I trot out the comparisons to other activities; skiing, golf, putting your kids through hockey etc etc. No person - ok, very very very very few - people could rightfully and credibly claim that doubling the license to $60 per year would be far too much of a financial burden. And I won't needlessly repeat PGK's points about privatization; he nailed it. Smitty

Just typed this now, haven't sent it in yet. Any thoughts or basic proofreading?: Dear Terry: My name is Mike Smith and I have been fishing AB waters since I was thirteen (over 30 years ago...). My intention for this email is to let you know that you can add my voice to the chorus of anglers asking for more quality fisheries like Muir and Bullshead (to name two). My father and I enjoy catching different species with differing methods, but we really enjoy flyfishing for trout. Living in Edmonton means when we're limited to day trips, we often choose the convenience of the stocked "pothole" lakes located close to the city. We've been monitoring the implementation of regulations that create quality fisheries closely, and have been very impressed with the results with Muir. We'Ve also heard about the terrific fishing in Bullshead; we're hoping to make it down there in the near future. My dad and I both support the initiatives taken by SRD in the recent past and would support future efforts to create more quality fisheries. We understand that the creation of the fisheries are not without challenges particularly when a lake like Police Outpost is selected, which has a long history of put and take type of approach (bait allowed, 5 fish per day). Given these challenges, we feel its important voice both our support for quality fisheries and voice our concern about the proposals to change Police Outpost back to its original management practices. We understand that change is difficult for many, yet we feel a balanced approach to managing AB's stillwater trout fisheries is called for, as the growing trend - just look at the demand and pressure these lakes face - is for more quality fisheries. While it is understandable - and we support this approach too - that SRD would first seek "dead" or "fishless" or "underutilized" habitat first, its also important to recognize that the most suitable lakes aren't always readily available or ideal or aren't currently being used with traditional regulations. Therefore, we must reiterate that the future of these fisheries must be based on a philosophy of balance and sharing. We're not advocating that all - or even the majority - of these lakes with existing, viable fisheries be changed to reflect a quality management approach, but we do think its fair to ask that AB anglers support that more than a few could cater to this type of fishing. It would makes sense because the demand is there. Certainly, I think a credible argument could be made in favor of creating another quality fishery close to Edmonton. In closing, we urge the SRD to go through in keeping the quality regulations in place for Police Outpost. Two final points to make: (1) look at the stunning success of the much-lauded Manitoba Parkland. I'm sure you are well aware that this type of fisheries has attracted anglers from well across North America (2) our rivers and creeks have faced more and more pressure this last decade - factors like the increased popularity of stream angling, drought, industry impact on riparian habitat - we think it would make much sense to create more quality lake fisheries that may assist in alleviating pressure on our more fragile flowing watersheds. Thank-your for your time. Mike and Austin Smith Edmonton.

Sweet mother of God. Not for the faint of heart or claustrophobic.

DAMN! Ah well. Guess I'll leave it to you then. Smitty

OH! OH! Can I try? How about: "elitist, tweed-wearin', scotch-drinkin', cane-castin', brook trout-hatin', catch n' release, quality fisheries lovin', anti-bait and ice fishin', crowd-despisin', gobal warming debatin', single barbless fly freaks?" What da ya think Giovanne? Do I win a prize? Smitty

Where the heck is the option to vote to have even ONE fly shop in Edmonton? Smitty

Thoughts and prayers for you and your family, Lynn.

I too have heard this straight from a MEC employee - admittedly that was years ago. MEC advocates "self-propelled wilderness travel" and experiences, and I will say, from my experiences in talking to them, they do not support fishing or hunting, tacitly or otherwise. Or, stated differently, I think - more like a gut suspicion and a well-educated guess - that a significant number of people that help organize and run MEC are not fans of hunting and fishing. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that MEC's hypocrisy surely runs deep. They'll take money from fishermen and hunters, but don't support their activities? If they were truly committed to their brand of environmental policies, they would require a litmus test from every member of the public before selling them a membership, and prevent hunters and fisherman from shopping there. Naturally, this is only my point of view, and if any "higher-ups" from MEC wish to correct me on my perceptions, please do so. Smitty P.S. So I've been tempted - purely as a pointed protest - to take up big game hunting, get a tag and fill it, pose for picture consisting of 100% MEC apparel and equipment - and my bloodied animal carcass -, and then sending it to the catalogue people asking them to "include my story" for their next catalogue...

A Valiant effort, very valiant indeed FNG. But I've given up the ghost on trying to convince these ostriches -oops, I meant Flames fans - who is responsible for the Flames current place in the standings. Best you quit before Hawgstoppah weighs in. For example, I just glossed over the recent comments, but it would appear no one is willing to point a finger at the goaltending that let in 3 goals in the 1st 5 minutes. Smitty

What's forking? I'm tempted to google it, but I'm not in the mood for 17,000,000 hits and 99% of are porn. Just a suspicion. Enlighten me. Smitty [EDIT 7 hours later: hahaha...lol. I really was actually asking. And then the 4 brain cells I have decided to work and then I figured out it was a creative way to swear. And then it just got funnier. I really thought forking was some wader cleaning method...ah shoot...I'd better stop]

Completely disagree with your approach Jayhad. Did you pm the admins to find out why first before posting your rant? If so, then accept their reasons or not or compromise or try work it out first. Since you did not mention whether you had done the pm'ing first, I am assuming you did not give them the benefit of your doubt. Correct me if I am wrong. So if you didn't pm them first before going public, I definitely have no sympathy for you. Frankly, its a post like yours that dilute the quality of the forum. Mods/Admins have a thankless job, and we should appreciate what they do. Bottom line is always address your concerns about the way the forum is run privately first before ranting about it. Smitty

To just add 2 cents to the old topic of the Penner trade: Its screamingly obvious that this is a "wait-and-see" trade for the Oilers. Only way this pans out in the Oilers favor is if Tuebert and the draft pick work out. I mean c'mon, you trade away a 25 goal scorer and get zero in terms of immediate return for your lineup (for right now in the present I'm talking about). So unquestionably, LA wins this trade for the short term. The rest of this is short and sweet; very frustrating to see the team wracked with injuries, but, on the other hand, it supports my original thesis that the best thing that could happen is that we finish dead last again. We could use that defenceman or the big forward. Plus, having - now - 3 first rounders gives us incredible trading leverage. So I am all good with the position the Oilers are in right now with 2 caveats: (1) the last 16 games are a near complete write-off (I suppose we see some farmhands we usually wouldn't) (2) getting concerned that Hemsky has officially earned the label "chronically injured". Smitty

Yak, you don't understand - so I'll correct you - I was referencing an earlier post to this from Jan. 16th when Flames were like 13th or 14th place in the conference; they most certainly were not "knocking" on the door. As for getting carried away, I'll let the 3 recent losses speak for themselves. Still in 8th, but which direction are the Flames headed for? Smitty