Smitty

Well, I'm already there; using the pump wasn't solely about catch rates, although it does play a factor. Its also about satisfying my selfish, rubbernecking curiosity about actually seeing the food the fish eats. No apologies here for using it; I think I have a good handle on safely using it, and will try to do more so in the upcoming season. I will say I am not interested in using it while stream fishing; too many fish handling variables to the contend with. Fishing lakes for 20 years has given me a confidence that I can keep a fish fairly calm and respectfully handled in stillwaters. Smitty

I have heard - unconfirmed - that disposal of the electric/hybrid cars at the end of their lives is becoming more and more green friendly. Clive: It was this thread and my experience at Teacher's Convention that led me to revive the thread on Climate Change. So what's the answer then? Because there are disposal issues, because there is higher initial cost, is that it? Should we just give up on hybrid and electric car technology? Is that what we should teach the kids in our classroom? Lets just keep the 100% gasoline burning cars, and forget all this "eco-weenie" stuff? Shall we gloss over that the cars are the single largest source of emissions? Seriously, isn't there a middle ground to occupy here? Can't we support green technologies and say to them "you still have a long way to go here" (citing the disposal issue). Don's asking a question about reducing impact, and yes, it is fair to say that the technology may be "full of crap". Ok, so what's next? What's are the challenges/barriers that need to be overcome so that truly green technologies have widespread adoption. Obviously price point is one. Yet Clive, you frustrate me because you've got experience and knowledge in an industry that needs your contribution, and yet you cling to the notion that "forget the trendy eco stuff. Just buy a gasoline car and be done with it". Ok, but what's next? It doesn't always have to be about false piety and superior attitudes. What if someone like Don's wife wants to genuinely make a difference? Hopefully, I say, we get to a point that we would reach a financial and political tipping point to favor something that has less impact on the environment. In other words, plenty of reasons given on this thread to not buy an electric car or hybrid. Any reasons in favor of buying an electric or hybrid? Just wondering, Smitty

I'm "reviving" this thread, might as well keep all my thoughts together. So I am at Teacher's Convention last week, and one of the seminars available to us is called "The Role of Teachers in the Climate Change Debate". The speaker was a fellow by the name of Dr. Mark Jaccard (see the P.S. for bio, if you care). Anyways, I found his presentation compelling. Did he try to sway me to one "side" of the argument? No, he did not. Did he try to prove human caused global warming? No, he did not. What he did convince me of, or better yet, reinforce, is something I have believed/suspected all along: This debate about human-caused global warming is largely irrelevant to the side you are on. I make this point from the point of view of mitigating risk. A point I think I made earlier in this thread, but bears reinforcing. If the demographic scientists are correct, and the predictions, using fact based birth versus death rates are correct, we're going to be adding 2 billion more people to this planet between now and 2050. Doesn't it behoove all of us to embrace policies that are based on minimizing our impact? Reducing our footprint? Would that not include policies regarding the emissions resulting from the burning of non-renewable fossil fuels? Are these questions I am asking - aren't they the mother of all no-brainers? Simply for two reasons: (1) common sense, based on reducing waste and pollution as much as possible, leaving the planet in decent shape for future generations and (2) as a risk-mitigation strategy to address several "what-if" scenarios, not necessarily based on chicken-little, doomsday, sky-is-falling hysteria, but rather "uh, hey, several billion members of an intelligent species is kind of burning stuff, cutting forests, overfishing oceans, etc etc etc pick your trendy environmental "problem-of-the-day". You see Dr. Jaccard woke me up a bit; because I believe his predictions are firmly based on a history we're doomed to repeat; that namely, humans will rarely change their behaviours that produce short term results (high standard of living) whether or not there are long term effects passed down to the next generation. We all know, politically, elections and results and polling are far too short of a time-line to expect much political leadership here. Now I "only" teach "math" largely, but it got me thinking; is there enough environmentalism in our classrooms? Enough in the Social Studies and Science classes? Should we have more discussions with our kids along the lines of Jared Diamond's illuminating book "Collapse: the Fate of Human Societies". You see, personally, I have come full circle; I was a passionate environmentalist in my early 20's, became somewhat dis-illusioned (stopped donating to CPAW, WWF, and Suzuki), and have reached the point where I became firmly in the "anti" camp in my 30's regarding this GW debate, because I felt the science was corrupt. I don't care any longer about that. The fact that science can be corrupted can't become my excuse to be lazy. So, I think I will become more engaged, and say, tell me why we should not have a pricing system (still a free market type of guy) on any emissions - but particularly fossil fuels - that involve a cap and trade system, hard target reduction, and carbon tax? Dr. Jaccard provided one answer to that, and its on the scarier side; because all countries are basically oriented to self-interest regionalism ("I don't care if my actions affect your standard of living") it will take a few catastrophes and a complete downward spiral to "wake" the planet up. In other words, we keep going along our merry burning and polluting ways until we experience "pain". A lot of "pain". I had and have no rebuttal to that. Do we really need to go to hell in handbasket to enact policies that are less impactful? Is that too sky-is-falling type attitude for most of us here? Really, we've started wars for less. Do we not think that the future will be any less conflicted given the scarcity-abundance imbalance of basic resources like food and water? How many of us have predicted in our social circles that the "next war" will be fought over water? Part of me says "I guess I am just glad I live in Canada", and we'll still be one of the better-off countries, but holy crap: hang on, this ride is going to get bumpy in the next 4 decades. (Hell, just look at the riots based on food production of the last 5 years, never mind political unrest). But in the meantime, I think I should step up my game a bit, try not to act so insulated, and find a way to get more kids in involved in their futures, especially when it comes to the health of their world. Thoughts? [sundance, if you're going to reply, I would rather hear your thoughts on what it means to bring up children and their attitudes towards the environment, and the appropriateness of the discussion in the classroom, rather than 10 pages shooting down the science or 5 pages of why Dr. Mark Jaccard is full of it. That wasn't my point. Just sayin' ] Smitty From the GETCA website: "Mark has been professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, since 1986. His PhD is from the Energy Economics and Policy Institute at the University of Grenoble. Internationally, Mark is known for his work since the 1990's on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Nobel Peace Prize 2007), the China Council for International Cooperation on Environment and Development, and the Global Energy Assessment." Also, the co-author of The Cost of Climate Policy (Sustainability and the Environment), Hot Air: Meeting Canada's Climate Change Challenge, Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy.

Well, I'll add my 2 cents. After being guided by Phil Rowley last year, and seeing one used "live". I went out and bought one. Can't wait to try it. I reject the earlier argument about negating the thrill of the hunt. Hogwash, imho. Just another tool, and it behooves me to learn to use it properly. Really don't see what the big deal is. Smitty

Well, one thing is that I won't be the "Flames hater" that cowers if I am wrong. So I am shopping right now for a 2 course meal consisting of crow flambe and banana cream humble pie. You can (1) make me eat the latter or (2) just throw it at me. So it looks like the Flames have muscled their way into contention; good for them I say. Sucks being a massive underachiever. Having said that, I will stick one of my earlier posts. It will be dangerous for this team to make the playoffs and get bounced in the 1st round. That would mean (1) their draft pick still sucks relatively to the top 5 (2) the weren't able to capitalize on very much extra playoff revenue and (3) a playoff run may delude management that a rebuild is unnecessary: they're an old team; they better win sooner than later. BTW, congratulations on what looks to have been a very successful Heritage Classic! I taped the game; looks like it was a lot of fun, and unlike the Oiler's version, the home team won. The league should have a Heritage Classic every year or two years at the most. They're quite an awesome spectacle. But please, dear God, someone tell the Flames management to incinerate those God-awful Ronald McDonald costumes posing as uniforms. I was aghast for you guys! Smitty

-7??? Pffffffffft! Suck it up princess! I was at the original one in Edmonton. That was frickin' cold. Still drank a beer though. Should of guessed a Canadiens fan could be so wimpy. At least the Calgarians are used to the ridiculous wind tunnel otherwise known as Mcmahon... Smitty

Rickr: In light of your admittance to having never fished inside a Park, plus I did get the chance to use your condo, I hereby invite you for a weekend of fishing Maligne Lake in JNP. If you only knew what you're missing. Yes, I recognize that's a long drive for you. Suck it up! Smitty

Well done. And Thanks! Your pro-activeness increases the probability - however slight - that something will be done. And that can only benefit everyone! Cheers, Smitty

CTown: Probably a bad use of quotes on my part - I apologize. When I said 'noble" I actually meant it as a sincere compliment. My position on the matter is more selfish, no two ways about it. Cheers, Smitty

CTown: Its incredibly difficult to debate your position, because your position inherently more 'noble' than mine. So my only point in this reply is to say that I am very confident that my fishing activities in the Park have minimal impact and disturb less than many of the folks who choose not to "harass" wildlife. I think I could pose a successful argument that fishing for fish, may, in some circumstances, may actually be less harmful than the idiots feeding the wildlife, or stopping at every bear and elk sighting to rubberneck and/or stress the animals out - particularly those with young - by their photographing activities. But I recognize the "red-herringness" of my argument in stating that at the end of the day, no matter what anyone else does, I still am stressing the fish out by catching them. I just wanted someone to recognize that at least many of us do our harassing with far more respect than some people who conduct themselves in a rather ignorant manner. Smitty

Fishinghogdaddy: Of course, I agree you did nothing wrong. The guy should be charged for his clearly criminal / negligent behaviour. Full stop. Unfortunately, we live in a world where people can be further harmed beyond the original action victimizing them just for standing up for themselves. So you'll probably in the future question whether you want to get out of the car or not, because who knows, maybe the next road rage idiot has a knife. There isn't much justice in the world for incidents like this; I do hope he's caught and punished. Smitty

I know if I did a search, this topic has been visited before. But I am starting a new one, at risk of offending the mods. Copy and pasted below ais my last response from the nutrient-in-streams debate: Sorry to continue hijack. If we'd like to continue, I suggest starting another thread. In fact, I should do it, since I am responsible for the original hijack. What you are pointing out is the apparent hypocrisy in the Parks policy; that, C&R fishing is, de-facto, harassing wildlife. And, in fact, you'd be 100% correct. Fishing does fly in the face of that particular policy. Know what? I don't care. Yep, I am selfish enough to live comfortably within that hypocrisy. I am honoring a centuries old tradition of harassing the wildlife, and I am ok with it. At some point, a choice must be made, and I choose fishing. I choose to have tradition trump an individual policy point. Fishing is THE activity I primarily enjoy in the parks. I can go elsewhere for my skiing and golfing, but in the summertime, if I am in Park, its to fish. Perhaps that's one-dimensional of me, so be it. Fishing is my way of appreciating nature, and I try to be mindful and respectful of that as I slam a barbed wire into the fish's mouth. All of my other outdoor activities, hiking, camping, boating, and photography stem from my passion to fish. Some of my best and earliest memories come from fishing the parks, and this past summer, I introduced my nephews to flyfishing in a National park. Fishing motivates me to care about the Parks in general as a whole, without that activity, I would care less about the Parks, and turn my attention and passions to other causes. What can I say? - I am a flawed human being. No point in trying to defend my position without acknowledging the contradictions abound in it. Fishing is THE exceptional, hypocritical activity allowed right now that does allow direct interaction with wildlife. And that's the way it should be, and left alone for future generations, IMHO. Smitty

Well said JasonVilly. Let me add, in defence of Sun's position, I think its credible to discuss a pilot program. Some folks get entrenched in their position to the point of near-hysteria, that they're somehow afraid that testing an idea out automatically translates into province-wide policy. Its simply not true. An example: look at the study on Quirk creek. Back when I lived in Calgary, I took out a regular group of kids, who passed the ID test, and we'd help Dean Baeyens harvest some - sometimes hundreds - of brook trout. That was ten years ago. I now live in Edmonton, and haven't participated in the project for years. Don't know the current status (last heard the angling was having mixed results. Anyone clarify?). The bottom line is that when Quirk started, some notable fishing guru's started talking about a brook trout "holocaust" in this province and really got all excited and their britches in a knot about harvesting Brook trout. All for nothing. 10 years later and its still a pilot project (assuming its still going on...?) The teacher in me is attracted to new ideas, testing them out under specific controlled conditions, and this is where this idea has the most merit and chance of succeeding. I don't think anyone on this board is in favor of sweeping, new, blanket policy for fisheries management in the province that would favor widespread fertilization, yet I get the sense that some who are opposed to this are thinking that will happen, or that's the crux of Sun's argument. Not a chance. not a chance in h-e-double hockey sticks. Smitty

Ditto on Ricinus comment. I enjoyed talking to at least 2 of the fellows there. But I haven't seen them lately. I used to rent to a couple of there employees, don't think they were treated that well. I too am looking forward to Cabela's. They do carry some stuff I have never seen in Canada. Yet, I will ask, Bigtoad, aside from posting on the internet, are you going to bring these concerns to the attention of management? Can I assume you are alright if I were to print your post out and bring next time with me (I live very close to South Common). Management should know about these things; a time honored principle in business "if you're happy with our service today tell 10 people; if not, tell us". Smitty P.S. Wanted to say the last part before the thread to turns into "lets-slam-a-business" game show...

First, a small digression or hijack if you will. I stand firmly opposed to closing down the Parks to fishing. Close the fishing, ok, then make sure no other other consumptive activity, golfing, skiing, hiking, canoeing, and activity that may interfere with the natural expression of animals' lives. That would be great in accomplishing a laudable goal; empty parks with no people. Course, you'll have to turn back over 100 years of policy that clearly state the Parks were meant to be enjoyed. By people. With - yes, wait for it - activities that may be consumptive in nature or have some impact. I just hate that attitude of "lets-ban-it-cause-we're-in-a-federally-mandated-area"...(and its not like the Parks are a free for all or aren't already heavily regulated...) Ok, back to topic. Ctown and others do make a good point about whether this is for us or for the fish, and the band-aid analogy. We must be careful about letting the government/others delude ourselves by ignoring the larger problem of riparian damage and loss, and mitigating it with something that doesn't address the real issue. Having said that, I suggest a pilot program for an area that hasn't suffered significantly from industrial/human activity. In other words, make it an incentive for ourselves; make sure the habitat is protected/improved, see how that enhances the fisheries first, then perhaps consider a fertilization. One area that is relatively unscathed from industry/humans and is also nutrient poor is the Upper Ram system (above Hummingbird creek confluence). I am curious to see the impact of a fertilization program working there. As for stream closures, there are pros and cons, but I can tell you one thing: can you imagine how much this forum would heat up in the summer due to all the b**ching and whining about how crowded streams are, if half of them are closed?? It would make the shack nasties from winter-time look like a gathering of bridge players, served with tea and cake. Smitty

What does that mean - "deeper than just a sport"? Ask some rabid soccer / football / hockey fans about passion or depth. Ask a professional athlete - or better, an Olympic athlete, training for an event that really has no professional paid league - how "deep" their commitment is. Having said that comment, I can see from yours or my point of view about depth. But its entirely subjective, naturally. Smitty P.S. To answer the question, I'd say it is not a sport. Badcaster's points can be refuted easily. Or, stated differently, as Flyfisher says, its a "bloodsport".

Can I just say I think LK2's avatar is brilliant. For movies, I like many types, but I am sucker for beautiful cinematography. So, amongst the dozens I could add, I'll narrow it down to 2: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and I loved Pan's Labrynth. Smitty

Oh wow. Really? Even a "shot of the playoffs"? Lets do the math. Most analysts are pegging the playoff cutoff point at 95 points. Right now the Flames have 45 points. They have 37 games left. That is a maximum 74 points up for grabs. The Flames need 50 of those points. That's basically a winning percentage of 65%. AND leapfrog 6 teams for 8th spot. It ain't happening. Best thing Flames can do is tank the season, have an asset sale - assuming they can get a bunch of no trade clauses waived - and go for the number 1 pick for a few years (unless they've traded them away??) Unlike the Oilers, who actually have the BEST circumstances right now. With top players like Horcoff, Eberle, and Whitney out, the Oilers record is worse than it really would, could, or should be. And yet, we suck so bad that we have a legitimate shot at a top 2 pick. So I hope those 3 players stay on the shelf for the season, we can grab another top prospect, and then have an explosion of improvement over the next few years. Like McDonald's, I'm lovin' it! Worst thing we could do is try some valiant, hopeless effort to get respectable this season. Yay for 29th or 30th! Sorry, I digress. Back to the Flames. Yeah, they still suck. Smitty

Actually, you are making all the arguments for the proposed regulation changes. Kananaskis Country was always designed as an "outdoor playgorund". Hence the 2 lovely golf courses, just to cite one example. I hope the fisheries are used more; they are underutilized and untapped in terms of the potential. I hope the lakes and the K. river levels are water levels are stabilized; imagine what a productive littoral zone would do for the lakes and the river. We need more of these fisheries. I hope the crowding increases with the attendent problems of parking and litter, etc etc. I hope for all that, because generally speaking, stillwater fisheries are more productive - sometimes vastly so - than flowing water. By trout standards (not pike, perch, walleye, whitefish standards) K-lakes are massive. Big water, that, managed properly, can sustain a lot of pressure - or I hope so anyways - and can provide outstanding fishing close to a major center like Calgary. Because I am looking at the big picture. This could be a win-win-win thing; more people at K-lakes hopefully may mean less people ripping lips in smaller, flowing water like the Livingstone, upper Oldman, and all of the 3-rivers watershed and especially the tiny, fragile tributaries. Maybe the Livingstone and the Gap won't look like the WEM parking lot on some weekends, because now, some guys might be fishing for 4-5lb trout in K country, with a reasonable shot at a 10 fish day. And yet, the catch and keep crowd get a chance to catch and eat a nice big fish. Plus, fingers crossed, if the K river could have decent fishing, it would spread more anglers out. I want these regs because we simply need more productive stillwater fisheries. Flyfishing is popular and having an attraction like that may give some of our flowing waters a break. Perhaps I am dreaming here in terms of cause and effect, but its worth a shot in my opinion. I don't see a single downside to this. You can always change the regs back if the experiment turns into a "failure". Smitty

So Flames fans, is this a good move? Is Feaster a suitable replacement? Some advice to the Flames organization: try finishing dead last. Having the opportunity to pick talent like Taylor Hall has done wonders for the Oiler organization. With him, Eberle, Paajarvi, and Omark, this city is completely re-energized about the Oilers. I can tell you for the first time in a long time, a lot of long time Oiler fans don't care what our record is right now, because there is so much hope on the horizon: we're like the Blackhawks from 4 years ago. Worst thing Flames - and the Oilers - could do is try to salvage the season and finish 9th in the conference. That doesn't do any good. Either make the playoffs or finish dead last. Smitty

1.Yes 2.Pretty much 3A.No-Flames fans on this board complaining about reffing are approaching the level of "pathetic-ness" as Leafs fans are in general just by association with Toronto. 3B. What playoffs? You meant the draft lottery, right? Smitty

It was really cool!

Well, I won't be showing that in tomorrow's grade 2 music class, lol. But the jr high's would probably think its hilarious. Smitty

Well, in keeping with Weedys theme of "rubbing it in" I thought I'd bump this thread. Nothing else to say; the mere bump rubs it in enough. Smitty

Here is my entry: I call it the "sad, unemployed Frenchman look". Actually, its just sad. Smitty