Smitty

Jim: Any age restrictions? Years ago when I lived in Calgary, I took kids out to Quirk Creek - Dean Baeyens was helping coordinate this project. He remembers me and the kids well, he fell into the creek demonstrating the proven fish catching techniques! lol Anyways, its unlikely I can pull something this year with so little time left, but this fall and next spring something could be organized. But, its a bit of an undertaking now that I live in Edmonton, so I would need to know first if kids can (i) still participate in Quirk creek, and (ii) get one of these licenses - or would they have to wait until they are 16? The kids in the group I have here in Edmonton range from 11 to 15 (grade 6 to grade 9). This project has always proven to be an excellent, real-life example of the science curriculum when the kids study ecosystems, bio-diversity, etc. I look forward to your - or anyone else who is in the know - reply. Cheers, Smitty P.S. I am really more interested in the Quirk creek project. Almost all the kids would probably never use their licenses, but it never hurts to ask...

What are the dimensions of the sheets?

Might be able to do it the next month for ya - I'll let you know. What a great offer! Thanks! Stay tuned, Smitty P.S. So how come you can't get this stuff from Cowtown?

WOW! AWESOME! I tried sending this pm, but it came back, saying "authorization" mismatch. DOn't know what that means. Here is the pm: My name is Mike Smith and I am a teacher with Edmonton Public Schools. As you can see in the following thread, I am always looking for equipment for kids ranging in age from 11 to 18. http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?showtopic=15133 Especially this year, as I have a couple of girls in grade 6, and I am thinking that my 9', 6wt outfits will overwhelm them a bit. Our club meets every Wednesdays at lunch, and I am trying to get several field trips approved to go out into the "field" and actually catch some fish. So while it may be highly impractical - and I don't want to monopolize Flymart's generosity- to have equipment for the Wednesday lunch meetings, I would be keenly interested in borrowing some equipment for the field trips, particularly the small stream fishing field trips. The dates I would need the equipment would be: June 21, June 23, June 28, July 15,16, and 17. So I'd be particularly interested in those lightweight junior outfits. Please let me know at your earliest convenience! Mike Smith Edmonton

Twins better get their act together. Don't think they can beat either Boston or Tampa Bay without them stepping up their game about 4 notches. And that's a big assumption on my part - that they would even beat the Sharks or Red Wings... Smitty

Well, cross my fingers yes. I used to take kids horseback riding up in the Ram range. Now I hope I can just get them on the community lake and do some overnight car camping trips. So the answer is maybe...I spoke to someone downtown, very helpful, she pointed me in the right direction in terms of paperwork. One set of paperwork for activities deemed "low risk" versus "high risk". Until I mentioned the lake and boat, they were fine with me filling out the stream fishing and sliding it under low risk. But I mentioned the word boat and now its high risk (= more extensive paperwork). I don't care how much paperwork is involved. Some of the best times I ever had as a teacher - or flyfishing - was showing jr high kids how to catch cutts/grayling/athabows out of the small creeks. Smitty

Well I have considered that Tungsten, in fact, I mulled that over in my head a few times. The reason I wanted to stick with the standard leader length is that I wanted to closely mimic actual casting conditions. Perhaps it really doesn't make that much of a difference...I have taught kids before using a regualr 9' leader. Would still appreciate comments on leader formula, because when I actually take the kids out fishing, I was thinking of just using my own pre-tied leaders. The waters I fish near Hinton are not that algae stained, and the fish aren't that fussy, so I'm definitely not worried about any of the standard concerns regarding knotted leaders. Any further thoughts on the questions I posed? Smitty P.S. The tarp idea is great; thanks for the idea!

That's great everyone. I appreciate it. For most of you in Calgary, you don't have to bear the shipping costs; I'm in Calgary often enough to come and pick stuff up. Or, if Rickr is coming to Edmonchuk later this month, we may arrange for stuff to be dropped off at his house. Mike

Hi Everyone: Further to my last post, I would gladly accept any donations of used flyfishing equipment, namely rods, reels, lines, waders and boots (especially smaller/ladies/kids sizes) etc. This equipment would go a long way in assisting me to teach the kids in the flyfishing club. Now that is a lot to ask, so I could pay for these items if you're willing to give a kid-friendly discount. I am trying to get some fund-raising going, including setting something up formally on a non-profit entity type of organization. Thanks with deep gratitude in advance, Smitty

HI Everyone: So since returning to the teaching profession a year ago, I have decided to revive something I used to do with great passion. I have re-started my flyfishing club. First meeting was this past Wed. lunch. Had about 12 kids show up. So I am going to teach them to cast out on the field at lunch recess. And it occurred to me - finally!- that an easy solution to save burning up (with snaps, whips, and wind knots) good, expensive, knotless leaders, well heck! I should just tie my own knotted leaders for grass practice. So I have read that a standard formula would be 60%butt - 20% taper - 20% tippet. So questions: 1) Is the 60-20-20 formula about right? 2) Would you adjust it for beginners? 3) What would that translate in term of pound test? Something like - using a 10 foot leader - about 6 feet of, say, 30lb test, 2 feet of 12 lb test, 2 feet of 6lb test? I will google this...but there are lots of smart people here in the know probably with practical experience as opposed to just theory. Thoughts? Smitty

And I predicted to my buddies Luongo would get a shutout. Darn near! Way to pull it out Vancouver. Its not unusual for strong teams that survive a first round scare to actually go on and win the whole shebang...just sayin'. Smitty

$25 on #27 please. Smitty

That would be very gracious of you! Enjoy the book! Smitty

[Edited] I have worked it out with Rickr, so I am deleting my previous comment, as I no longer dispute this. Congratulations to Kris! Smitty

Going to throw my support for Vancouver, but I'd really like any Canadian team to bring back the Cup to Canada. If its the Habs, I'll just hold my nose and shut my eyes... So far, good start. Is this Luongo's year? Smitty

Sorry buddy. REALLY wanted that book!

#10 Clive's book = $115

#3 Red Deer Trip = $225 #10 Clive's book = $105 Smitty

#3 Red Deer Trip = $210 #10 Clive's book = $90 Smitty

Hey PGK, pull your own head out of your ass. Or read the posts. I already volunteered to help. Plus, I already agree with you about funding first. You're in favor of volunteering to be taxed/and/or "fee-ed" to death. I think the gov't needs to understand they need to cough up more dough in the first place. Then I'll happily vounteer to be charged more. Or maybe accomplish more at the same time. Whatever. But funding is the bottom line. Don't want this to turn ugly, but I already do alot; just don't trumpet it on the boards. Smitty P.S. And the more correct statement would be, we keep missing each others points. Fair enough.

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