Smitty

Well, a beat-up Oiler team beat a beat-up Red Wings team. Good for the good guys! You know, I think with players like Stone and Jacques, we should be the type of team that plays as gritty as possible. I its think the only way we can salvage a season with lots of challenges. Smitty

Well, if the thread was a boxing match based solely on # of punches thrown, Sun would have been awarded a rather large, gaudy belt right by now. And my new passion is tuxedo chocolate truffle cake. Save-on Foods or M&M meat shops. So gooooooooood.... Smitty

It would indeed be cheating. After all, your bed just isn't capable anymore SL; must be the rampant 'global' cooling. Smitty

I am reading "Stones into Schools"; the follow-up to "Three Cups of Tea" by Greg Mortenson. Totally riveting and fascinating... This guy should win the Nobel Peace Prize. I honestly can't think of a better way to truly "fight" poverty, strife, terrorism. This guy figured it out. Smitty Apparently if you buy the book through Amazon, you'll be helping girls get educated in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Local retailers may also have the same commitment in terms of donating profits, so ask before you buy.

And the cheap shot artist strikes once more! Tell me SL, do you have a framed jersey of Todd Bertuzzi or Chris Simon? (Or both?) Really, if you played in the NHL, surely you would have served a couple of games by now (That's if you could stand yourself by making those huge sums of money...) Must be nice to have a smaller ecological footprint than the rest of us. Fact is, your house must be smaller, because who needs a toilet when your own poop doesn't stink? Sorry, SL, couldn't resist... Double Sheesh. Smitty So 2 add my 0.4 cents, I agree that its somewhat sad. Somehow, I also had the naivety that, for some silly reason, golf players existed on a higher plane than players from the MLB, NBA, NFL or NHL. I'm not saying Tiger's going to burn in hell, I'm just surprised, just as surprised as if I'd found out Gretzky had behaved the same. Also, from a guy's perspective, who the hell would want to cheat on Elin? Kinda like Hugh Grant cheating on Elizabeth Hurley! Are you stupid or something?!?!

adc: I am playing devil's advocate here: But there does exist in liberal democracies a right to gather and peacefully protest. And, additionally, some civilians choose civil disobedience to get their point across. From St. Augustine: "An unjust law is no law at all". And in keeping with the full spirit of such protest, those that break the unjust laws still accept punishment. Its easy to pick on Greenpeacers hanging from smoke stacks; but I think the vast majority of us support non-violent civil disobedient protest where laws are deliberately broken to bring attention to something that is unjust when other methods fail. Think Apartheid, etc. In fact, we know that we even justify violence in taking a stand against something grossly unjust, evil, immoral; that was called WW2. Sorry if this aside counts as a highjack, now back to regular programming. Smitty

Guess I spoke to soon...sigh. Smitty

x1. Anyways Kris, good of you to approach things like the way you are from a personal standpoint. I really can't add anymore to what I've said either, lest this argument go in so many circles that I'd get dizzy. What I'm happy about is that the discussion was salvaged after things went sideways there for awhile. Smitty

NO WAY! Really and Truly? THANK-YOU! This makes my December! THANKS!!!!!!!! Smitty

Kris, I don't have an exact answer. But if - and its an if, because I don't see the straight line connecting all the dots from A thru C - closing the Parks to fishing is whats needed to save these species, then I am with Taco; I'll support it and make the sacrifice. I remember reading the "cream in the coffee" comment in Barry Mitchell's book. Come up with a plan! Make some recommendations based on practicality and science and I can be convinced. Otherwise, we all know how very hard it is to eradicate 'invasives'. I am not advocating a "throw my hands up and give up" approach, but lets get creative and do something that has a chance of working. As an example of practicality, contrast lakes versus rivers. I honestly don't see how you can eradicate a species once it "infects" a river system. Again, my point about enlisting the help of anglers. I mean really, just how the heck are you going to remove brookies from the Athabasca watershed? Lakes, on the other hand, can be, especially if the geography/biological characteristics cooperate, somewhat easier. I'm all for the temporary closures for some lakes in some circumstances if the goals are achievable. I'd love to turn the clock back 200 years and get Banff back to the days of common 5lb cutts and 20lb bulls, but I don't see it happening. And I remain skeptical that a mere blanket ban on fishing in the parks is going to assist my federal fisheries biologist trying to do something worthy, but, in many instances, ultimately fruitless. I really don't think this is the best help I could do; now explore a Quirk creek type of approach, and maybe there's something there... I don't consider myself to be an especially selfish angler, but I admit, I do so enjoy my Maligne Lake forays... Smitty

Well, I definitely addressed this, but I understand if you missed it, or didn't bother to read the 5 pages (Its alot to wade through). The answer is simple; we have some sizable tracts of land where it is illegal to fish with permanent closures. Its about balance and providing a variety of recreational opportunities to many different types of users with various opinions. So still, no compelling reason to close the fishing in the parks. Parks were meant to be used. Yes, people are users. Clearly, you may feel there are not enough places in Alberta with permanent closures. Fair enough, I disagree. Just saying those places do exist right now where fish aren't targets. Smitty

Hey Sundance: Let me just say that in the alternate, parallel universe where I'm 13 and hopelessly lost in the woods, I hope you're the bloodhound they send to find me...cause you would. Take that for the compliment I intended it to be. As for this debate, despite all the murkiness and the ping pong, I feel very strongly about this: if there is to be a plan and money to be spent, we simply cannot do this without the other big emitters. So count me as voting for a big fat no for spending one cent until I know at least China, India, and the US are going to feel as much pain as us, from a consumer point of view. A costly carbon pan/tax for some emitters and not others will just be totally useless and a waste. Even with everyone on board, it still may be a waste. Like I said, isn't there mouths to feed and clean water to provide to 3rd world countries?... As usual, waiting for the environmental movement to get a just a tad more real and practical...my tree hugger wannabe heart awaits their inspiration... Smitty

Hemsky = out for the season. Smitty = hopin' for a high draft pick. :$*%&:

HEY! DIDN'T YOU USED TO SPIN RECORDS FOR WKRP IN CINCINNATI?

So I grew up being the most massive, hugest Star Wars fan ever. Naturally, I just about pissed myself laughing when I saw this: http://www.collegehumor.com/article:1794889 Smitty

Taco: Again, all fair points what you said, and I admire your ability to look at the whole picture. But I am curious if you have a comment directly about what I said in terms of Park Policy and if fishing is eliminated the privilege won't be given back. If your position is that's a chance your willing to take (no great grandchildren fishing in the Park allowed), then I respect that. Just want to know how far you're willing to take it. I always like Barry Mitchell's comment about trying to get cream out of the coffee. Unless there is a closed system, impassable falls, some sort of mitigation, aren't some of these approaches costly in a doomed effort to fail? I like the Quirk creek project; and I like its approach. It seems like a workable compromise (won't eliminate the brookies, but you can curtail their numbers, and you actually preserve an opportunity to fish). I'll tell you something else; the kids in my flyfishing club loved the outings at Quirk creek, and were very educational. They enjoyed the ID test. And I've got more than a few young flyfishing addicts because of that project. Makes sense. My arm is generally rubber when it comes to protecting native species. I'm all for it, as long as there is some tangible goal that really provides the basis for permanent progress/solution. Blowing up lakes with dynamite or poisoning them in a system where the invasives could come back is not productive. Smitty

x1 Smitty

What is the most destructive thing in this debate - by quite a large margin - is the lack of integrity, coherence, and data fudging - on both sides. Never, in the history of humans, has science been so untrustworthy. Because of the scientists - on both sides. I think I am like many Canadians who just want to give the finger to proponents - on both sides. The debate just pisses me off in the end, because, for an issue so important, no one on both sides is willing to keep an open mind long enough to get to the point where a few people - on either side - might actually say "you know, you might have a point there. You might be right". Not going to happen though is it? If it did, I better check my meds, I might have accidentally swallowed the red pill. Sad. Smitty

Taco: Nice sentiment, and I have sympathy for what you are saying. Unfortunately, its very, very dangerous in my opinion. Dangerous in terms of opportunity and accessibility. I'm only talking about the feds. Here's what I mean; suppose we all feel that way and give it up. Lets say we are also moderately to pretty damn successful. Then what? You think your great grandchildren will be able to fish the parks because of yours/our 'sacrifice'? I highly doubt it! Once the fishing is taken away, I can't see it coming back. The culture of Parks Canada is such they would be happy to see it go under whatever pretence, and your great grandchildren would stuck fishing the province. Now I grant you, that's still a lot of water, but to lose the heritage/tradition of fishing in the Nat'l parks is too much - without a benefit to future generations, in my opinion. Smitty

Don: Thank God for font control. I was getting tired of reading glasses... Smitty

Aren't we already there? Golfing, skiing, all the outdoors activities to fill yer boots, there is a playground/amusement park aspect to it. That's what I like about our parks. As for internal politics and bureaucracy, well same old same old. You know what to do; write letters, raise awareness. People always fear of losing funding when they start supporting something that the hand that feeds you doesn't. Every level of government works this way. By the way, what does selling our headwaters, a legitimate - if somewhat rhetorically exaggerated concern - have to do with fishing being allowed? You're comparing "newly" approved amusement park stuff to an activity - fishing - that has been allowed for over a 100 years? I do see where you are coming from, in the sense the public has to be on guard for the pendulum to swing far too much in terms of the "amusement" park model you suggest. I don't see that yet, but I am not exactly in the loop or up to date on what's going on. I think the vast majority of silent, apathetic Canadians/Albertans who rarely speak up, write letters, heck, even bother to vote, would stand for the "disneyfication" or "rampant commercialization" of our national parks. At the risk of starting a whole new thread - - where do you get the "selling our headwaters" stuff? Yeah, I guess I am just not as worried or as worked up yet. Like the guide licensing issue, the gov't (provincial or federal) only has so much time, $, and attention from health, education, and the rotten state of Denmark (aka "economy") to spend on these types of things. I just want to ensure that when I do get the gov't's attention, its with big enough fish to be bothered frying. Perhaps I'm a little cynical in this regard. Still waiting to see what the big deal is, and I'm seriously not trying to be daft or difficult. Smitty P.S. Would like to see more environmental education for the public though...

Fair enough, but is the activity stupid because you don't like it, or is it stupid for another reason? Do you see what I am driving at? What's does a zip line area encompass? A couple of acres? Are Parks going to put in an ultra sensitive zone where a rare species has habitat? I'm ignorant here; is there some massive impact of zip lines we should be aware of? Like it or not, Parks policy is subject to public whims and response. That puts policy making on a bit of a pendulum. Its not reason to completely suspend common sense, but if the parks want more people, its completely unsurprising to me that they would devise and approve an activity; especially one that might appeal to younger types... PGK, you work in this field (yes?). Is it a safe assumption on my part that would include assisting policy makers in implementing programs, even if you don't agree with them? Outside the park, would you have a province wide ban on atv's. Some support here on this board for that position, but does that policy make sense, and even more to the point, would you be able to shunt aside your personal, emotional bias to assist in the implementation and enforcement of the policies on issues you don't like? I'm just asking the question... Smitty

The answer is yes and no. I'm human. Yes, I can appreciate them remotely, like I can many of the wonderful parks in northern Canada, but, I'd probably be a stronger advocate for them if I ever saw/used them. So , no, I can't appreciate them in many ways until I use them. This is why its so important to get kids outdoors and why I use to enjoy running a flyfishing club so much. It was deeply gratifying to see kids in areas where they might not ever see again. but here's the crux; fishing was my method of madness. That's my - and virtually everyone else's - method of appreciating the outdoors. We all know the endless debate about C&R cruelty, fish harassment, PETA nonsense, etc etc. But in the end, without being a little subserviant to that human/hunter bloodlust instinct, my interaction for the outdoors lessens. For me, its about the experience of fishing and what it does to my soul. I think everyone knows this when they're fishing with their buddies, their children, or even those necessary moments of solitude. Rock climbing doesn't do it for me, canoeing doesn't, nor biking. Its about fishing, and some of my best memories, like many here, come from fishing the mountain parks. PGK, I have very little to no fear of over-use; why? Because, right now, the culture of Parks Canada seems to be very sensitive to this and have taken steps to ensure protection. Even over-protection (Shall I open the can of worms labelled "Harlequin Ducks? ) It ain't broke don't fix it. On a moral scale, many PETA types wonder at the exception (re:hyposcrisy) granted to fishing. I don't care about that. Fishing fosters that desire to protect what I love, including watersheds. Many things in society work in compromisal basis, where exceptions are made. This is one of them. And I can't help but shrug my shoulders. Smitty

Monger...yes...this is the heart of the issue. Take Jasper for instance; golfing, skiing, fishing (swap in Banff if you like, I picked Jasper because I'm from Edmonchuk). What do you think the % is, by the way? Anyone? The % I'm referring to is the amount of tourists who venture beyond the Athabasca and Maligne Valleys. I'll bet 90% - I really don't know - but I'll bet its around 90% of people never get beyond those 2 watersheds. Add a little bit for Marmot Basin, Edith Cavell, and Sunwapta as you near the icefields. But basically the park is empty. How many people see the northern boundary and explore the trails. Not a heck of a lot. What I'm saying is that right now, I don't see what the federal, compelling case is here...is our parks system broke? If it isn't, does it need "fixing"? Aren't there vast swaths of pretty, relatively pristine areas people can choose to interact with (or not)? Again, I'm for preservation, conservation, refuges, all to a degree. But as said earlier, without the human interaction, you risk losing much, in my opinion. Many families go to Banff, Jasper, (and Kananskis, yes, not a Nat'l Park), and many kids first positive experiences include fishing in those areas. PGK, nice thing about a forum is that you can check a person's history of posts. I wouldn't be so quick to judge the tone of the forum if I were you...anyways, I've tried to keep my reply on topic here. Smitty

Well, somewhere between losing 11 of the last 14 , or winning 2 of the last 3 (can really spin this...), between getting smoked by Chicago and beating up on the half-assed Coyotes, and leading the league in man games lost to injury and illness, there is a real team. So I'm not convinced we're really a 12th place team, but unless there is some momentum built with a healthy team, I can't see the Oilers doing better than 7th to 9th, especially given the western conference... Not to mention that the team at some point will have to embrace a defensive scheme that will help curtail shots allowed and one of the worst goals allowed. Deslauriers looked pretty good though! Smitty