Smitty

Well, I am the one always complaining about tone and intent needs to be clear from the author, if something gets mis-construed, its the authors fault. So, just so I am clear, I was kidding. Sorry for not making the appropriate tone clear. Smitty P.S. BBT, please don't regret doing this research. This info is needed, it will come in handy, hopefully in a non-confrontational way, both on the angler and the landowners part. P.P.S. I will say though, unlike the landowner in the Jumpingpound story, I would never carry a shotgun around with me and approach people like that.

Cdock: I tried. I really did. Mike (Smitty)

Or Dave' mom. OK! I'LL STOP NOW! I PROMISE! YOU KNOW THAT COMMENT WAS STOLEN FROM SOMEONE ELSE, ITS NOT MY FAULT!... Whew. Must. resist. smart. a** comments. Must. resist. smart. a** comments. Must. resist. smart. a** comments. ... Smitty

I thought Rickr was going to make me laugh the most today, looks like you stole his crown. Mike (Smitty) Edit: 5:09pm. Rickr just stole it back. This is the funniest day I have had on this board in ages...

Birchy: I wouldn't mind that, I'm kinda already doing that with my handle (Mike Smith). Funny you should mention this, I was toying with the idea of hosting a forum that would talk about Canadian politics, economics, culture, religion, where I would only accept people using real names (verified). The I realized it probably wouldn't fly and I'd end up talking to myself. Anyways, what I am trying to say is that I support the idea, even if it creates a little more work for the mods. Anonymity is always the enemy of thoughtful, intelligent discussion, and anonymity does contribute to the s**t shows some threads turn into. Smitty (By the way, all those great thinkers and writers who taught us the very basic principles of freedom of speech? Not one of them - to my recollection anyways - ever advocated anonymity as being a helpful or necessary component of the exchange of ideas. Indeed, it is the very opposite - to actually know the person with whom you are exchanging/debating/arguing your ideas with.)

Ok, lets all just back down a bit, and breathe in through the nose a bit. Probably not relevant, but Supreme and I have ironed things out via pms. So, since I was part contributor of the s**t show, how about I try to get the thread back on topic? With that in mind: Cdock: Have not idea what the FTR is like north of Cochrane, but north of hwy 11 (not sure you're even thinking of going that far, probably not), the main hazard when I drove it was big a** trucks. Other than that, you seem like an experienced guy, so all the usual hazards I think would apply for any vacationing and camping along the FTR. I don't have any specific info in regards to the condition of the road north of Cochrane. So other than stream temps, forestry fire hazards, I can't think of anything else. For awhile, seems like there were enough regulars on the board that would post bear/cougar sightings/signs, but I haven't heard anything about that section. Maybe try the local F&W office? Smitty

Rickr: I'm game if you are. I'll go first, you hold the camera. Smitty P.S. If we were at all serious, we'd bring Hawgstoppah. He's bigger than me, and sounds like he know these folks.

I wonder how long it will take for me to stop grinning. Thanks Supreme, you made my day. Arrogance is always good for a laugh. Oh wait, you meant that in jest... Smitty

I would assume that you, Supreme, will be taking temps where you are fishing this weekend? Anyways, you've read far too much in the advisory. You first told one person to stay off the ES (in the entirety), when the advisory said from RMH to the Montana border. Damn, there goes my fishing the Mcleod, Berland, etc. The advisory also says you can keep fishing, but bear in mind the factors that may contribute to higher mortality. If SRD is really that concerned, then they should close the streams. Otherwise, I'll let my thermometer and my common sense dictate my actions. While it is certainly that time of the year to keep a sharp eye on temps, you're not going to convince the knowledgable users of this board that some blanket ban from Grande Prairie to Waterton earns you "steward of the year" honors. Temps vary according to latitude, weather, how close to the headwaters you're fishing etc, and you darn well know that. The holier-than-thou attitude is both simultaneously amusing and wearing thin. If you are that concerned about the fish, you shouldn't fish period. Or at least you should stay in Alberta, sacrifice your fishing time, go to the popular spots where you know the advisories will be ignored, and educate the "stewards" out there fishing and ignoring. That would truly be unselfish. Smitty

Big Bow Trout: Your post is an exact example of the very best of what this board offers. Excellent digging, and info, and research! Thank-you! (and I am not even a Crowsnest 'regular'). So, if I am reading your post correctly, all of the land and landowners fronting on the Croswnest have no ownership of banks and streambed? That is, the Crown retains ownership of the banks and streambed for the entire length of the Crow? Anyways, good work, this has been fascinating. Smitty

Sallinger: Wish I could be more help, but I am pretty clueless for that area. Many on this board also may not know that area, looking at a map, it seems to be a bit of a "dead" area, in terms of flowing water containing trout. I think that area - an example would be Medicine river - has warmer, muddier waters containing, pike, the odd walleye, perhaps goldeye. Its probably best to do some exploring. You could try west of Alder Flats, on smaller tribs to the North Sask., you could try trekking north to the Drayton Valley area, there are some grayling waters (I think) in that area. But its very fair to say I am speculating, I really don't know the area at all. If you're determined to fish for trout though, I'd say undoubtedly your best bet would be to head southwest, say for a half to full day trip in the Rocky Mountain House, Caroline, Clearwater areas. Could get really adventurous and try getting into the mountains, but it sounds like to me you don't want to go that far. Be advised on the stream advisory concerning water temps: http://alberta.ca/acn/200907/26590C2C3DCA4...5F31ED1E8.html# Good luck. Besides a Backroads Map Book, try the Alberta Fishing Guide, for spots. Smitty P.S. You could always try the Red Deer river browns, walleyes, and goldeye; all catchable on the fly.

You could also try a Meta engine like Mobissimo and Kayak. I really like Kayak. I know you were asking for just flights, but so you know, Hotwire is an intriguing way to book hotels. You have to pick blind, you only get to select a certain part of a city and the star rating. But I have stayed at 4 star hotels for $60 US using Hotwire. Its particularly great if you are single and don't really care as long as you are in the right part of town with the right star hotel. Smitty

I can understand Landowners getting frustrated, but pulling a gun on someone standing in the middle of a creek? That's way over the line, and the landowner should face charges, whether there was legitimate tresspassing or not. Getting back to the original story (Dustin's), I here's my 2 cents towards landowners. This kind of mis-communication is just about 100% the landowners fault. Why? Because I think this is about common sense and precedents. Its perfectly natural for anglers to assume they're ok if they're below a high water mark. The long time precedent has long been established about this kind of access. How the heck are anglers supposed to know about those tiny exceptions?? Lots of landowners have No Trespassing signs, but have no problems with anglers who obey they law, and access the water legally and stay below the high water mark. So think of it from an anglers point of view; a No Trespassing sign is nearly irrelevant, I don't care how big and bold the sign is. If I accessed the point of water legally as my starting point, and I have been below the high water mark the whole time fishing, I'd say almost all of us on this board would think we're fine, no matter what sign the landowner posted. Now, if the landowner is one of those <1% exceptions in AB that actually does have rights to banks and streambed, then I think the onus is on him to to say so in a sign, with the proof right there (honestly! Its 2009! Is is so hard to get a laminated copy, stick it in a ziploc and show people by nailing it to the sign???). There is no way a landowner with a generic "No Trespassing" sign should have the expectation that people will automatically know that they are in the tiny minority of owners that own the banks and streambed. If the Landowner is that anal or protective, then he should get off his butt and clearly communicate what he owns to the potential trespasser. Life's too short for to do a title search to find out which 3,4,5, or 10 people in AB actually own the streambed and banks. That's just stupid. The point is that if a Landowner belongs to that tiny group, he has no excuse for complaining about trespassing when he's too lazy to get a specific, custom made sign explaining an otherwise pretty unique access situation and issue. I'd have no problem obeying a sign like, if the landowner clearly communicates. Smitty

Rusty: Well, just to protect my fragile ego (as author of the poll), I'd say its rather useful to debate this issue, and therefore say its most definitely not ridiculous. Even for the simple reason that, through debate and discussion, some of us - like me, for instance - may learn that indeed the classified waters thing is not a top priority. I certainly don't regret posting the thread, I know I've learned a lot, particularly from your perspectives having recently fished that region. ---- Taco: Don't mistake my earlier reply that wasn't that well written that I am lumping wild fisheries in with native fisheries; that wasn't my intention, nor am I trying to advocate that regulations for those fisheries should be identical. ---- I can see that the majority of angling pressure comes within Alberta; that's a given, undoubtedly. And although some feel this way, I also don't believe in the "silliness" of reciprocation in regulations, just to get back. Regs have to make sense, of course. Its also obvious that CW is designed as an angler management tool and something that is meant to provide a more satisfying angler experience, and not necessarily anything that does to promote the health of fish per se. ---- Its clear to me that there is a vast difference between a knee-jerk, gut reaction to a hot issue like CW regs versus what's really important. Anyways, I appreciate everyone's replies and votes. Smitty

Quick update: Well, I felt I should remove #5 and #6 due to shenanigans. Too bad some people lack a sense of humor (for those that missed it, some idiot spammed the last answer couple of thousand times). Was just trying to keep the topic somewhat lighthearted. For those that were asking, by voting Yes, I meant that guides would be restricted too. And $ raised would good to improve habitat, fisheries enforcement, etc. Taco has a good point about native fisheries, however in AB we rarely have the luxury. We'd have to be content classifying wild fisheries, which of course aren't necessarily the same thing, if you support the idea of classifying waters to begin with. More and more people come to this province, some of them love to fish, and they love fishing for trout in mountain streams, fly or spin. Access improves, and the speed in which information is "shared" or "spread" (depends how you feel) makes me feel like some sort of changes will come eventually, whether we spearhead them or not. Anyways, keep the votes and the thoughtful replies coming. Smitty P.S. I still like cake.

Acct: Use this site: http://www.animatedknots.com/ I like the double or triple surgeon's knot for joining 2 lines, even if they are different diameter's. Absolutely get your rod tip repaired! If you use tapered leaders, 3x to 4x is plenty light. Ocassionally 5x, seldom 6x for the Bow. That's generaly 8-9 lbs test down to 1-2 lbs. Smitty

An excellent point Headscan. I voted yes, its time (#1). But I wonder if my motivation is purely selfish nolstalgia, based on my perceptions and my longing for the so-called "good-ol days", of when I could reasonably expect some waters to myself, even during mid-week. So you're totally correct, even though I voted the opposite from you, that fisheries managament should be based on sound science and practices, what's best for the fish, and angler management should reflect that, based on empirical evidence. No doubt the basis of me posting this poll - besides curiousity - is my own frustrations of trying to deny the reality that our more productive waters receive a lot of fishing pressure, and whether or not that really has anything to do with justifying putting in special regs. I say all of the above in a detached, matter-of-fact kind of tone. I guess I am just selfishly human. Keep voting folks. Smitty

Well alright guys, I am definitely curious. Like Snapfisher said, we debate and beat dead horses, but the essential thread that binds us is that we are a passionate group that cares about our fishing. So I was wondering, after our beating the dead horse debates, what the results of this poll might be. I left it multiple choice, so you could pick 5 and 6 too. Smitty

mmmm...dead horse. Tastes good. Is there a cake recipe? Well said Rickr. Always amusing when people take observation and anecdotal evidence as statistics when the sample size is small or the results have not been repeated. I am not discounting the powers of observation, but that's far from proving a premise. I don't think Jeremie did this, but I'd like to know next time if he would go up and ask those people how they found out about "his" spot. Also well said Snap. How about this: like many of you, I grew up in this province, now going on 36 years. I can tell you, this is just my experience: 1) If you're favorite place ends in the word "river" it is was known and fished before I was born. And it was written about before the internet. 2) If, in particular, it is a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd stage tributary to the South Saskatchewan river, well, that ship has sailed. And it sailed a long time ago. Alberta is so fascinating in many respects. It has thousands of km of fishable water, yet it feels like it has very little water. I think it should motivate us to explore a little more, etc etc. I will say this; one thing I like is all this explosion in interest for flyfishing for anything with fins. So here is a major spoiler, listen closely, because this a major coming out: Alberta, literally has thousands of km of underfished, underexploited waters for species different than trout. I'm sorry, I can't say the names, but one of the rivers rhymes with Mathabasca, and the other rhymes with Korth Jaskatchewan. 10 pounders too. Just some thoughts. Smitty

Well, I thought I should should contribute something a little on the lighter side. Loved this: http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=...vPzB&ref=nf Smitty

Al: Make sure it has the "Cowcatcher" attachment to save yourself dents when you pluck those pesky fly slinging guys on the Red Deer. Dad and I had a custom made Marathon Marine (edmonton) jetboat, but we went back to a lund deep V for lakes, and we float rivers in an inflatable. Tough to pick an all-round boat in Alberta that can service different scenarios. What will be the boat's primary use? Answering that will help you lean one way or the other. I assume its fishing, but will it be mostly lakes or mostly rivers? After we faced the truth that the vast majority of our boat time is in bigger pike/walleye lakes, we went back to a Lund fishing machine (the inflatable awesome for pot hole lakes and for rivers, we're mostly walk and wade anyways). I'm saying determining those primary needs are best in figuring out which compromises are the best. Smitty.

Hi Everyone: So dad and I are on our way to the Czech nymphing course on Saturday at the Crow. Friday night is a stopover at my Aunt's in Okotoks. So we were thinking of fishing the Bow tomorrow for 3-4 hours. Any hints on places that are relatively easy for walk and wade and have fishy water? Of course, we're talking the Bow, so virtually everywhere there is fish, but I'd like to go somewhere fairly close to the highway (as in no further east than Policeman's). I really can't say I know the Bow that well in the city, but I hear lots of guys fish in Fish Creek Park. Would it be better to go Fish Creek or Policeman's? The zoo? Is there access at the "new" bridge, a la Deerfoot? Any help would be appreciated, without divulging the GPS cooridnates to your favorite run of course. And if you'd like join us Edmontonians, let me know. Pm me or email me smitty9@gmail.com Mike Edit: Just thought of this; how much rain are you guys getting? The river fishable? I'll check the AB gov't website of course...

Hi everyone: Thought I'd post some photos from opening day fishing report. Smitty Dad with nice grayling: Myself with a grayling: A bigger grayling from the day: Logjam where dad caught the only rainbows: Eventually, all things merge into one...

Anyone else having problems changing back to the old skin in Firefox? I keep trying to change it to the old one, the page tries to reload to no avail. Go to the forum index, change it there, it works - temporarily. As soon as I try to navigate through topics, it switches to the new look. Irritating to say the least. Logo is fine, though if you wanted to correct the "duck" impression, you might add the rest of the hook. As for the skin - I think it sucks. Black and white is bland, and I agree with the above it looks unfinished. The old "blue" hue made me think of water, and the blue was a cool, calming color. Thumbs down from me. Smitty

Reply number two - this is for everyone: I think, despite some sidetracking and shacknasties, this has been a really great and productive thread. What comes across between Humblefisherman and Clive are two parties respectfully disagreeing in some aspects, agreeing in others. With Clive sharing is pike handling technique, I think that's great. I understand that people can get frustrated by censorship, but lets face it, we already impose some level of censorship on ourselves. Its just that when you bring together a community of anglers with varying opinions, some level of moderation is required. We agree to it by participating on the forum, and overall, given 1000's of posts, the forum - I think so anyways - is moderated extremely effectively. Photos will always have the potential to ignite controversy, but in the end the educational value of these discussions and having an entire forum dedicated to photos is productive, since it affords opportunities to have discussions like these (notwithstanding some of the negativity). We're human, the moderators are human, lets just take a small dosage of chill pills and realize that the majority of photos are still pretty good and acceptable. Smitty P.S. I like cake. Double chocolate fudge with grandma's brown sugar icing.