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

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