Smitty

I'm not a guide, nor do I have a vested interest beyond a normal level from the angling public. As for the rest of your comment, some truth there to a large extent, but not entirely. Where do you come up with those numbers? My problem with caveat emptor is based on the anecdotal ramblings that idiot guides can damage the resource to everyone's detriment. Unfortunately a few bad apples can spoil the barrel, BUT! I recongnize I'm basing this on those ancedotal ramblings. In other words, I would need to substantiate this opinion. The first part of your comment reveals the elitist snobbery we've come to associate with you O.O. It may be only a personal belief, but revealing that side of you gives me tacit permission to laugh... As for wasting public funding, I'm not in favor of that either, that's why my mind wasn't made up about this issue; I'm trying to balance off whether any increase in fees in my part to help fund regulate the industry would be justified. Just when I thought you couldn't make a more ridiculous comment then the soapbox about hiring guides, you came up with that one. Comparing this idea to that boondogle only demonstrates you must be sadly misinformed about what a total waste the gun registry was/is. Smitty

Reading throught the posts, I think the correct answer is "all of the above". I'm not convinced this is as simple as picking one, single reason, real or not. But if you're pointing an unlicensed firearm at me, and forcing me to choose, I'd say for the benefit of the resource, because if you improve the quality of the resource, everyone benefits in the long run. Smitty

Sun and Harps, you've both made excellent points. I am swayed by your positions. One reply for Sun: But if the regulation of the industry protects the resource, and hopefully increases the experience for me - i.e., I benefit as a member of the angling public, then shouldn't a small portion of my license fees be used in subsidizing administration costs? Clearly I am playing a little bit of devil's advocate, because, I am not a guide, and essentially I am lobbying for more money to be taken out of my pocket. But I honestly don't mind if the quality of our fisheries improves. If that means x % of my dollars assists in preventing the over-commercialization of the resource, are we not ok with that? I say this from the standpoint to ensure that some small, high quality guiding outfits may not be put out of business by overwhelming overhead. Or am I being too simplistic? As I said, there are lot of knowledgeable people here - including guides. Hopefully more reply, especially about this issue. I'd hate to see high quality, passionate guides look for alternative careers. But, of course, there are costs associated with every business, so c'est la vie. Smitty

Remembering the previous thread that FFairwx posted, I'm glad for the sake of his family he didn't blow another artery causing massive cardiac arrest/stroke. Smitty

Hi Dave: Mike Smith here. Hope you are doing well. I am quite in the dark here about this issue, so let me confirm a few things: 1) The administration costs of the program from the gov't's standpoint will be in the 300K range? Which means the $ obviously come from somewhere, which then opens the possibility of the SRD's budget being stretched even thinner to cover such costs? Have I got that right? 2) If so, the natural question is to ask is why isn't this cost simply an overhead expense to be borne by the guides themselves? Is this where, as you say, "the math doesn't add up", because it will become too cost-prohibitive for the smaller guides to profitably operate? Have I got this right? Assuming for the moment I have the right impression from the above, my opinion would be for a cost-sharing split; say, for the sake of argument, that guides will bear 50% to 66% of the costs, and anglers will supply the rest through an increase in licensing fees. Now some may of course may say "why should any of my money go towards the subsidizing of any guides business to reduce their costs?" The answer, for me, is that I'm in favor of having my $ goes towards protecting the resource. As far as I'm concerned, I'm helping protect the resource by helping regulate the industry that exploits the resource for profit by ensuring that guides are (1) properly trained and insured (2) and their numbers and/or rod days can be capped, if that should be deemed necessary. There are lots of smart people on the board, so if anyone can provide an intelligent argument that counters what I said, I'm all ears. I really haven't made up my mind completely yet, so it will be interesting to hear what others say. But aside from costs, administration, and other practical considerations, in principle I am in favor of (1) regulating the industry (2) having the option to limit guides/rod days if necessary (3) definitely limiting the guides whose residency is not in Alberta. Thoughts? By the way, these costs can also be passed on to the customer, can they not? So guiding will become more expensive. I don't see that necessarily as a bad thing. Smitty P.S. Richmia, your reply leaves a lot to be desired. Why not turn off the all caps, stop 'yelling', and post something a little more rational, a little more productive, and a little less knee-jerk. Or is that beyond your capability?

Just a quick comment. Perhaps I'm cynical, but as far as the term "peer reviewed" is concerned, I have some pretty healthy skepticism. Goes back to my earlier post; numbers of people believing a concept doesn't make it true. Reminds me of the comedian's joke about the difference between a cult and religion; one is a small group and the other has thousands (millions) of followers. What I see is that both sides to GW have agendas; and therefore it increases the likelihood that peer reviews can been tainted, or given the ol' once over before someone signs their name and says "yep, i agree with that guy". Here's the metaphor: I look for a guitar tab on the internet for a song I want to learn to play - poorly . So I look the song up one one site; I play through it, and notice the transcriber got 2 chords wrong. I look for a "different", i.e. correct version elsewhere. What's the bottom line?: literally dozens of websites have littered the internet with the wrong version of the song I want to learn, cause no one can be bothered to pick up a magnifying glass and really review what some other hack is claiming is the right version. But guess what? Once one numbnut has transcribed the song incorrectly, everyone else, does the same on their website, claiming they have the "correct" version. Yeah right. I know damn well a C# minor 7th chord when I hear it. Anyways, I alot of misinformation can get propogated, nearly endlessly in this day and age; numbers of people supporting a set of data doesn't necessarily translate or speak intelligently to how thorough, how meticulously that data has been peer reviewed. SL, I don't hold in high esteem the ivory towers that you seem to do. You seem to think universities are the last bastion of unbiased sources of data. They can be, but I see them more and more these days as serving their agendas. Smitty

Bhurt: Well, if you're going to come back with facts and stats, I can only say, that's...embarrassing. Still hurts eh? Tough getting over that one, must be. Alls I'm saying is that its nice once in awhile to be reminded that the "C" on the jersey stands for choke. Smitty

HAHAHA! That was weak! Trust me reh, I'd rather get 0 pts from tonight's game than 1pt from that embarrassment the Flames disgraced themselves with... Smitty

EXCELLENT! Wasn't too long ago my church (raised Catholic) rejected both the heliocentric theory and, later, evolution. It was commonly accepted that the earth was the center of the universe, and evolution was a just hot air from a guy studying blue footed boobies. Now, funnily enough, papal encyclicals have embraced both scientific positions/theories/facts. I think the greatest tragedy, the most abhorrent outcome of the GW debate is the vast amount of time, energy, money, and resources that are diverted from other, more factual, less sensational, more pressing causes. I don't know, like food supply, water quality, access to basic health services, you know, stuff for the poor people of the world? (Did I just surprise some of you who though I was merely the corporate-defending capitalist pig? ) Frankly, I'm all for cost-effective renewable energy, and I look forward to a day when the world starts to lessen its addiction to carbon based economies. But in the meantime, how about Greenpeace and other organizations spend more time helping people, rather than chaining themselves to smokestacks? I'd have an easier time supporting environmental groups if they weren't so...wasteful. Wasteful of resources and people's time. Smitty

Well done Flames! You'll notice, of course, that we too (Oilers) built up a 5-0 lead, and, you know, managed not to blow it? Stellar defence... - wish I had a copy of tomorrow's Herald. Have to check it out online to see Sutter's reaction. Maybe he'll have the boys milking cows on the farm or something. Its good to make history once in awhile (Blackhawks had never overcome a 5-0 deficit before...) Smitty

Note to mods; I stated publicly several times how much I support your work on the forums. But to edit a single word and not delete the entire post is not right, in my opinion. You think the word idiot is worse than "your not worth my time to educate"??? I can hardly think of a more disrespectful phrase. At the risk of deletion, I say: Grow up Kungfool! Your argument was rebutted (whether you think it was good or not), and that's the best you can do? C'mon! Either debate the issue with respect or go to the Shack Nasties thread at least. Smitty

Frankly, I'm flabbergasted. No Don, we should pay whatever the market will bear, and we'll generally pay for the quality we desire. Want cheap flies, general rule-of-thumb pay $1.00. Want better, local tied flies, pay more. Am I missing something here in terms of basic economics? You generally get what you pay for, naturally with exceptions. I have paid $0.75, and as much as $3.00. Something wrong with the ability to choose, to shop around? I don't know about anyone else, but I don't snivel (a lot ) about fly prices. I say suck it up; if I am in the Crowsnest, and I'm out of a pattern I could have bought cheaper in Edmonton, I have no problem supporting Vic Bergman, no problem at all. Neil, ya make me grin. You've received several replies, some of them fairly thoughtful, but you keep repeating the same basic question. Let me ask you, what's the point of this soapbox you seem to be on? Really - I'm curious. What are you getting at? Were you just waiting for someone to reply like Don's reply. Are you leading a Facebook group or something for the cause of 3rd world fly tiers? Another example. People love - LOVE - slagging the old "trailer trash" Wal-Mart. But their sheer volume supports thousands of employed people - here in the "1st" world countries as well as 3rd world. And a study was published that us capitalist pigs here North America, guess what? Wal-Mart benefited low income people the most, because their dollar's purchasing power went 31% further shopping at Wal Mart because of low prices. And then naturally, the reply is "those low prices come at the expense and exploitation of the 3rd world peoples supporting our lifestyle". And yet, those 3rd world people have jobs manufacturing, which is actually a better alternative to real slavery. What do you want these people to do? Grow opium? Have women work in brothels? This is going to come as a stunning revelation to some, and I hate to be one to break the news, but the plain truth is that not every, single, maunfacturing job in the third world is sweat shop labor. There are countries with regulations. There are some factories that do look after their workers. There are some places in the world that don't resemble early industrial revolution working conditions, where children work 18 hours days inhaling coal dust. And clearly, there are places in the world that are abusive places to work, and do exploit people. You think me paying $5 per fly is going to stop the nonsense. How about I pay $1.25, and with the money I save, I can send the savings to that nobel prize winner that started the micro loan program to women (men too of course). And SLeader before you jump all over me, let me recongize your no brainer points: Here are your no brainers: 1) That anyone on this board doesn't have good enough heart to recognize that exploiting the poor is a bad thing, because you say, that's no good. Of course its not good! No one here explicitly wants to exploit disadvantaged, poor people. 2) That capitalism needs to be regulated, and that there are aspects of socialism that we have embraced. Of course - naturally. We're merely agreeing on facts here, no one on this board would be foolish enough to deny that Canada uses mixed economic approach, and we have received recognition of our sound, conservative, socialist banking industry. Bottom line is that far too many people live on less than $2 per day. Another no brainer - would who disagree with that? Want to know another hidden stat? That, according to the UN, the # of people living on less than $2 a day has decreased. The amount of people living in extreme poverty has decreased. Yeah, I know, no hero cookies or Nobel prizes yet for us gluttonous North Americans. Not yet (or ever). Not while there is so much work to do, and so many people to help. Our problem is our arrogance. We fail to recognize that progress is often slow, unrecognizable, and often goes unreported int the media. We expect - as if it could happen in such short a period of time - that us flawed human animals could somehow magically evolve out of hording (an evolutionary, necessary function since we started to walk erect), within a few generations, a few decades, that economic disparity and the attendent violence would just disappear (aside: a reason I always laugh at Star Trek when a few plot lines explain how man-kind eradicated poverty and disease and the need for money in 50 years, but that's quite a geek comment...) Anyways, that's quite enough from me. Feel free to paint me as the heartless, capitalist, lassez faire SOB Albertan redneck. But as far needing to see a priest to assuage my guilt about buying $1.25 African flies, well, lets just say I think there are worse sins I could confess too. Smitty P.S. SL, kudos for using public transit, walking, and growing your own food. Clearly you're making an effort, trying to set an example, and you constantly are mindful of the world's inequities. I tip my hat.

Neil: Just a quick economics lesson; its not about xxx% mark-up, which, in triple digits, can seen as outrageous, gouging etc. Its about profit margin. As in, why don't you let Russells factor in their overhead, expenses, staffing, lease, etc etc. Shouldn't go there unless you are prepared to calculate all the accounting, rather than a distorted picture. Now you'll lecture me on not addressing your question. Here's my reply; Nike was cited once as being a corporate 'evil doer' in terms of using 3rd world labor. Behind the scenes though, is how people's income relate to the cost of living for their own country. 24 cents would seem outrageous to us, but how much is she making per week? Is she above or below the national income? Does it allow her to feed her family and live better than her peers? Folks in China that worked for Nike were found to have slightly above average living standards and enabled them to afford "luxuries" (bikes for transportation, as an example) that other families weren't. So what's the deal with the eco-weenie obsession? You tell me. All I know that people can whine and complain while wallowing in their hypocrisy (pretending to be advocates of the poor oppressed people in the 3rd world while reaping the benefits of low cost consumerism). Bottom line for me? If the workers are treated fairly and paid a decent wage compared to the country's standard of living, I have no problem with corporations that use cheap labor. Keeps costs low, and frankly I'm keeping it real here folks. Companies are always going to be attracted and migrate to areas where cheap labor - which account for the majority of expenses - exists. Fair trade as it relates to laws, and regulations, and the WTO are a larger issue of course, in that sense, one could say 3rd world countries have been exploited for decades because of the lack of a level playing field, subsidies paid by the rich countries, tariffs etc. Smitty

Bwhahahaha...Yak, sure you don't want to do color commentary for the Maple Laughs? Its quite clairvoyant of you to determine what a team's potential is...after one game. Hilarious! Smitty

Brian: I am in agreement with Rick: I will support a group based on the following principles: 1) Increased enforcement 2) increased regulations if and when necessary 3) But not a blanket, over-reaching, unsupportable ban for 5 years on all activity. I won't waste my time and effort on something so unsustainable. If its just banning quads and random camping in some areas, where demonstrable negative effects are evident (and you don't have to convince me, just setting you up for the gov't officials' standards), then I say that's fine and supportable by me. Smitty

Saltmontes: Had a beautiful reply typed out yesterday and literally the power went out in my house right in the middle. Anyways, the other responses have pretty much covered it, but as someone who has fished out of an 11 foot inflatable for 20 yrs, I'll add; 1) Inflatable boats are stable, you can stand up, and they are beautiful boats to flyfish from. They are, however, incredible wasters of motor power. They are polar opposites of canoes, because canoes track nicely and slice through the water. Inflatables skim over the top. 2) So in light of comment #1, I recommend getting a fairly sizable thrust motor; something in the 40 - 60 lbs thrust range. Make sure, as stated previously, you get a maximizer and infinite (variable) speeds. This will also help with the frequent winds that can crop up. There is a cut-off point where the motor is powerful enough to warrant a rating of 24 volts, requiring 2 batteries. You don't need to go there, unless you are frequent visitor of Maligne Lake (or similar). But I wouldn't get a motor with thrust level below 30, but that's my preference. 3) You want deep cycle marine batteries. Some guys get them from Cdn Tire or Wal-Mart and that's perfectly fine. Three years ago, on the advice of another message baord, I decided to try the blue-top Optima batteries sold at Costco. They're double the price at $190 per battery, and I have loved mine. Just a thought. SMitty

Yeah, I've learned to embrace rain; we generally need it in AB. Less dependency on irrigation, keeps reservoirs full, stream temps down, etc. Smitty

Thanks BBT. Moving. Mike

I always use this site when I get concerned about price disparity. Not sure if its terribly useful for finding out which stations run out or not: http://www.albertagasprices.com/ Smitty

And, we should have a classified system too! Smitty

Thanks for the reply Rusty, I'll be pm'ing you when I have a look at my dad's sage again, I need to dbl check btwn RPL vs RPL+. The answer to the question is no, we don't pay too much. The prices are the prices because people are willing to pay them. I like to keep my economics simple. Just to expand a little, we do not live in a monopolic universe where $800+ Sages are the only choice. Plenty of non-severely addicted fly anglers find plenty of quality, serviceable rods, in the $150 - $350 range made by Redington, TFO, St. Croix, the "lesser models of Sage and Orvis, etc. So with plenty of choices, and fairly wide price ranges to choose from, it seems the clear answer is no. We pay what we want to pay, then try to justify it to the wife. Now, if the "cheap", "entry" level rods started at $800 and prices went up from there, I could see the answer being yes. Smitty

I have a quick question and it is a minor hijack, but its not worthy of its own thread topic. Recently, when I went fishing with my dad, I had a chance to cast his RPL 6wt. I loved it! So anyways, what models replaced the RPL, because I am thinking of saving my money and getting the equivalent? Is it the z-axis? Smitty (Or, if you have any non-sage recommends along the lines of the RPL, I'll hear them too).

Hey guys, was reading an old Canadian Fly Fisher and I started to think about this. My next poll will/would be about favorite brands of hooks, but I would like a serious tier to do it; I haven't tied flies in years, and don't have the familiarity with brand names. Smitty P.S. I voted for the last one.

http://calgary.kijiji.ca/f-pontoon-boat-Cl...701QQminPriceZ0 Just a perspective: Not trying to twist your arm into spending money during a recession, but in case you have the moola, then why not go with a pontoon boat? Lots of used ones, and they are designed for moving waters. I know a few of the posters here have done just fine with a belly boat, but I'm personally in complete agreement with others - far too dangerous for my liking. Plus you'll have something that can be used in lakes and rivers; very versatile. Smitty

Flytyer: That was me! My bad, I saw it near the top, and I didn't even pay attention to the dates; I thought this was happening this year. So I voted, then realized the thread was 2 yrs old. Whoops. Someone else must have voted too though, since it only appeared when I clicked "View New Posts", and there the thread was! This was before I voted. Weird. Anyways, given the topics lately a get together would be good, but we should probably start a new thread. Sure would like to meet some of the Cowtown/S.A. folk. Smitty