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

Man, if there was ever a topic that distinguishes this crowd from the one at AOF, its been this one! Sundance, you REALLY love debating. Christ, you should run for office. 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

Rickr: From your fine example set last year, I'll also declare my participation in this year's event (a fellow teacher from school got me going last week). So I am growing a moustache too, lets raise some awareness and funds for prostrate cancer research! Smitty

Good point. Also, the internet is easier for the lazy (like me. ). I think my point was that the info is still available whether or FFC exists or not, but you're right I don't think I can really say they are equivalent. I think its time to acknowledge that there are some fishers who simply don't feel the same way. Its not like its against the law or immoral to collect some information, do some homework and due diligence before heading out. So is it possible nowadays to find out about spots in 20 minutes that took some gaffers 20 years to find? The answer is yep, sure is. Is it fair? Probably not. Is it going to change? - Are we going to shut down FFC, Flyfish AB, AB Outdoorsmen? Not a chance. What is the solution? At least part of the solution is that with atv access, gps mapping, internet info sharing, it would be very prudent to have pro-active, well funded, science-based (as opposed to politically based) fisheries management practices that recongnizes these 21st century challenges. Like Dave says, we can't turn back the clock. AB will keep attracting people, in-migration will continue to be strong for a good couple of decades, what are we going to do about it? I also think that an angler management program like classified waters will be implemented in my lifetime. Nearly inevitable. See? Now I should have written a letter. Damn hypocrite that I am... BTW and fyi, some of the above was devil's advocate. I am in complete agreement with you in terms of the satisfaction of exploring and also resisting the "liposuction" (great analogy) approach to finding fishing spots. Take the thread where the nice gentleman - Neil - is considering moving to Edmonton. I offered to take him fishing. Think I am going straight to my 30-yr "home" stream containing Athabascan rainbows? Probably not. More like the Little Smoky river, Edmonton's version of the Bow. I jealously guard spots and will not name them under penalty of death. More hypocrisy on my part. Tis the selfish nature of a 25 yr flyfisher clinging to the romantic fantasy of having water to yourself. For some of the waters I fish in the Edson-Robb-Hinton-Grande Cache country, its a fantasy that still comes true often in the summer. Wonder how long it will last... Cheers, Smitty

That's a matter of perception, and I know many many long time Bow fishers who would strongly disagree with that statement. But complaining about it sure is fun, right? Yet, in future posts you do propose solutions (rod days, limiting guides?) So are you a cynic or an optimist? Sure about that? whataniceguy, you seem to think that its some sort of badge of honor to being "flamed". Like you're standing up and defending some time honored principle, like its some sort of heroic act. Actually, 2 things (1) its just your perception (see Dave Jensen reply), and (2) I think you like the attention - if I am wrong then say so - by playing the victim by declaring people are flaming you. Actually, its just that...wait...we disagree. I don't think that qualifies as "flaming" Frankly, I think it would simply foolish not to agree with you here. Of course its quite likely this website has contributed to the attention the Bow gets (and some other waters). The disagreement lies in the matter of degree and blame. For some reason, you seem incredibly fixated on this site and assigning a massively disproportionate amount of the blame on FFC. I think it strikes many of us as...silly. More of the "hero" syndrome, imho. Don't confuse flame with disagreement. Its perfectly reasonable to have an opinion, whether it "agrees" with "majority" or not, but its also reasonable that all opinions can be challenged, especially those that can be attributed to first person bias and confirmation bias. Stated differently, do you have anything resembling fact that would link the "rise" of the FFC to the crowding and/or lack of etiquette on the Bow? No one is infringing on your right to speak your mind. You know its funny how people use the word ignorant. Its either use in a general, vague sense to insult other people, or it can be used correctly, as in not having knowledge towards a particular subject matter. Example: "Smitty is completely ignorant of the skills and techniques required for brain surgery. Completely, totally 100% ignorant". So am I ignorant for seeing the issue in a different light? Are you ignorant for assigning so much blame to one single website? Either we're both guilty of ignorance, or neither. Depends if you correlate ignorance to perception, opinion, and bias. The major context of this reply is to say that I disagree with your perception of flaming, I think most people can agree to disagree without the fights and letting it get personal, and if it stays impersonal then no problem, yes? Cheers, Smitty

[self-edited; mods have edited the original post, I should tone done my ranting...] Question for you: "How is this website any different from picking up the phone and phoning one of the 6 fly shops in the city for a fishing report?" Hmmmmmm... What you and the other guy - whataniceguy or something - are missing is an acknowledgement of the Bow's geographical location. Its in a city of a million people. A million. You don't think its was going to get noticed sooner or later, regardless of whether the FFC exists or not? And my other point here is that many river systems in the US handle much more traffic than the Bow and survive quite nicely. Bow's had etiquette issues for years. YEARS. Russell Thornberry and Barry M. used to complain too. And that was when I was in grade school. Smitty