Smitty

How about we do this instead? and I'll start, (after I'm done with this posting): How about we make a voluntary rule that, instead of just resurrecting this old thread and gibbering on and on...AND ON about it, and before the thread reaches its 10th page, why don't we try this: If you agree that something is to be done, then you are NOT allowed to post on this thread until you have written your letter and can attach it for everyone to see? Anyone else in? Who else will do this? Can you even write an opening paragraph before replying? At least get a letter started? Or do you just want to sit there in your comfy chair and be one of thousands wasting work time (hey I'm guilty too) doing zilch? Lest I become my own worst hypocrite, this will be my last post until I have a letter written, since I am one of those people that believes something should be done. There. Lets see if anyone bites on that. Smitty

Botangles: Do these chipmunks take their clothes off for you? Oh...Chip 'n' Dale...I get it...from the old Bugs Bunny cartoons... Smitty (Sorry, I couldn't help myself...I read your post and started to picture stripper Chipmunks, and that made me think of the old SNL skit of Patrick Swayze vs Chris Farley Chippendale auditions, and by that point I was choking on my coffee...yeah, my brain is pretty weird...) http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...ideoid=32172165

Great tip! Thanks Terry!

Fry: Is it so hard to believe that flyrodders poach too? Sounds like you're a...well... let's just say its starts with "e" and rhymes with falitist... Smitty

Boblaw: Great story! Even better, the way you told it. Nice. Smitty P.S. Hopefully, I'll be writing a story up tonight with a happy ending; so far, not so good...

Saw this on the Colbert Report. He not only lived, but walked off the "pitch" or whatever you call it. The replay at about 14 seconds in shows the injury.

Sundance: How's that book coming along? Smitty

Yeah, I've seen that one before. Brilliant. Its now in a Word document should I ever need to plagiarize it. Smitty

Oh Uber...that ship sailed long ago, from the moment I put down the bass clarinet to pick up a baton to conduct the band geeks, then, geekily enough, switching to teach math. lol The kids have keen detectors; they know I am geek within the 1st 10 minutes of class. What I try to do is to teach them to wear their geek crowns proudly. P.S. Am I behind on the club dues??? Smitty

Ahhhh...see how knowledgeable people and google maps can help out?! So, I can clearly see now how the Kootenay dips into the US and then comes back. Cool. I had this whole bias thing, that once you reach a certain point in Southern BC, all water just flows south. Never occurred to me that it flows back north into the province again. And then looking at the Valemount - Albreda area, that also looks neat because you've got 3 divides within a very short distance: water flowing into the Fraser system, water flowing into the N. Thompson (which ends up in the Fraser anyways), and then water flowing into Kinbasket lake in the Columbia system. Coolx2! Always been fascinated by this stuff since I was like 15. Thanks for the help! Smitty

Hey all: Was looking through my Backroads Mapbooks last night. So let me get this straight, or someone set me straight: 1) There is a Kootenay river that rises in Kootenay National Park, goes past Canal Flats, pretty much head straight south, and eventually becomes Lake Koocanusa. 2) Then, on Kootenay Lake, you get 2 more. One leaves the west arm, and joins the Columbia near Castlegar. 3) The 2nd Kootenay river leaves the lake, headed basically south past Creston to the US border. Have I got this right? Don't even get me started on the Columbia river, which leaves said lake, flows for awhile, becomes the massive Kinbasket Lake (which confusingly, seems to feed 2 rivers; the North Thompson and the Columbia, someone explain that hydrological trick), then morhps into Lake Revelstoke, Then Upper Arrow Lake and then Lower Arrow lake, and, in between, sometimes resembles a river. Yeesh; its more lake than river! (it seems). Anyways, us Albertans have it way easier: River starts, river gets dammed, river flows from tailwater. Simple. And, of course, we're the only province that, via canoe/portage, you can reach 3 vastly different places on 2 oceans. Neat. Smitty

Oh. Didn't know PCR was a waterbody with a merc problem. Wonder if its severe enough to warrant completely avoiding fish, or whether a consumption advisory is enough. I have eaten walleye out of Moose lake by Bonneyville with a merc warning, so far, no 3rd arm sprouting out my head yet. Smitty [Edit: oh wow: http://www.albertaregulations.ca/fishingregs/ That is alot of "Avoid"s for one waterbody...to find the link, use the heading "Helpful Information", then the link for "Fish Consumption Advisory" in the sub-menu]

PCR really needs those 'eyes to be thinned out. If not a daily limit, at least some tags. Helps the catch&keep crowd eat some fish (me included). And walleye are fantastic eating. Smitty

My dad and I love the blue top Optima AGM batteries they sell at Costco. Solid batteries. If you don't want to spend that much, you might try the regular Kirkland 12V marines. Smitty

Birchy: That ticks me off. When I purchased my crown to be "King of all Jack@sses" I was assured not once, not twice, but three times by the salesman I'd have exclusive rights and domain to that title and name. Guess I got ripped off... Smitty

Frypan: You pointed out that using the analogy of comparing hockey games, skiing, and golf, and comparing it to a public resource like fishing is both inappropriate and incorrect. I think you make a good point there. But! Lets not delude ourselves. Even public resources are not "free". We should not exaggerate our sense of entitlement here. Our "free" public trust resources like fisheries cost money. In fact, one might argue that there is a level of unfairness in the public resources. The reason being is that ALL taxpayers subsidize the public resources, whether they use them or not. SRD, enforcement, regulations, research is all supported by general revenue coffers (with some subsidies from license sales). So, using your reasoning, someone who doesn't like to hike, fish, camp, hunt paddle, etc may validly complain about paying for our recreational use. So knowing that, the public funded agencies in charge of managing said public resources may feel it is appropriate to levy surcharges to help support specific fisheries. This, of course, is all in theory, and may be corrupted by bureaucratic bumbling (i.e. your $20 does not go towards enhancement of the Elk watershed, but helps stock perch in pond outside of Prince George - I exaggerate). I my opinion, its not SO wrong on SO many levels. Gov't departments such as SRD are empowered to do these things like daily fees, or walleye tags. While it behooves us to be on guard for slippery slope European style privatization of fisheries, with the current climate of the gov't gutting budgets, not caring about the environment in general, its expected that a user fee style approach might be employed. BTW, reading my post carefully please note I am sidestepping the issue of whether the BC or AB approach of discriminating against "non-resident Canadians" is appropriate. But, I can say from my perspective, I would support AB adapting a model like BC's (to distinguish between provincial residents). Yeah, I realize that might be unpopular, but c'est la vie. Bottom line is that everyone should pay more for licenses, and those fees should be specifically targeted towards fisheries enhancement. Smitty

Didn't read the rest of the posts. Just yours. So my basic response would be: And? You have a point here to make? Smitty

Whoops....saw the title of this thread...thought it was about the Flames. Smitty

Would any of these qualify?: http://ouchoutrageousobnoxiousandodd.blogs...uotes-that.html

Totally disagree. Whether you agree with is ideology, the only thing that went too far was the human rights commission. I guess people don't really care whether or not gov't org.'s are overstepping their bounds, eh, Hydro? Smitty

Riley: "This is a flyfishing board"??? And? So? There is a reason they have a NFR forum - have you scrolled through and see what gets discussed here? Anyways, relax buddy, I didn't call you a fascist. My link to fascism was based on the singular comparison that if there's one thing fascists love, its censorship, something you appeared to support in your post (and since have clarified, somewhat, yet you're still into censorship of public functions?? Why?? Its MORE important to have NO censorship in public functions). I'm saying if you support censorship, then, you do have something in common with that ideology. Freedom of speech clauses aren't there to protect positive encouraging inspiring words from those like, say, Dr. King, its to protect those whose views we find abhorrent - like Ms. Coulter's. But I too wish society - particularly the media, would focus more on true leadership than what the latest potty mouth pundit can say in terms of selling their product. Smitty

Sundance: I'm soooooo disappointed. And here I thought you were going to give us 7 pages of Global Warming and the conspiracy by Palin/Coulter crowd to shut it up. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....pizza. Anyone know of places that serve pizza...and cake? Smitty

From a fellow socialist, I can tell you the bold part from your comment is far scarier than anything Coulter is saying. At least I know up front that she is either (1) an idiot (2) a fairly brilliant comedienne. "does not alienate"? Sorry Riley, but that doesn't even pass the smell test. Lots of things are said every day that run the risk of "alienating" people; surely you can't mean the word "alienate" as a proposed litmus test? Forget socialism, you want fascism, where the state likes their role in the Orwellian Big Brother. As for "impinging on the rights of others", thanks but no thanks; that phrase is as nearly nonsensical and vague as "alienate". Freedom of speech, means all speech. Now having said that, I'll switch sides and agree that in certain, unique circumstances, hate speech could be criminal. For instance, inciting a riot, inciting violence: as in Rwanda, where the evil was partly spread by hate speech broadcast across radio. Hang those guys, I say! (Or at least put them in jail). But for the lunacy that is Anne Coulter? Show me where she actually has used her speech to promote violence, and I'll line up for the citizen's arrest. In the meantime, we should be far - FAR - more wary of so-called human rights commission that actually give a voice to people who whine about Mcleans magazine publishing an excerpt from a book they don't like, or taking a publisher to court, for the re-print of the Danish cartoons. Ever see that video. Ezra Levant is brilliant in tearing the AB Human Rights Commission a new one!: (more parts in the sidebar). Smitty

Rickr: The 2 systems is very very different, especially philisophically. The population of US citizens that are uninsured + ineffective (their claims get turned down, aka "sh***y insurance") is greater than the entire population of this country. Our system is flawed, undoubtedly, but I'll take our flawed, socialist system any day over one that exposes me to risk of (1) being uninsured (2) the treatment I need is not covered, costing me thousands. So yeah, I have no problem helping my fellow Canadian out and paying for their problems, because, inevitably, he pays for mine. On a separate note, I've heard many many complaints about this bill, so I have no idea if this ends up being a net positive for Americans. Smitty

Murray: I belong to a real estate investment group called REIN. In the forums, there's a section to recommend contractors. Here's what I found: Lynnwood Roofing (Roger Cote) - 403-217-4114 - Calgary 5% discount for REIN members. Now the discount applies only to REIN members. But, the more important part, is that they are not supposed to be on the forum unless they do good work. Having said that, I'm from Edmonton, and have no idea who those guys are, so caveat emptor. Smitty