Smitty

So occasionally I like to look through my back issues of the AB Fishing Guide in the winter - gets me dreaming, plus some great articles, past and present. Anyways, I came across this article in the 1999 issue called "Alberta Streams: Restoring the Glory" by Kevin Van Tighem. Fascinating article; particularly the differences between bison (evolved for the dry prairie) and cattle (water/riparian lovers, and generally not good for streambanks). Kevin spoke about Callum creek, how it used to be narrow and deep, then, through damage by cows, it generally became wide and shallow. So my question is, is the Cows and Fish program still arouind today? Are there active efforts to restore some of the small creeks in the foothills. I was so intrigued by all the possibilities of these "prairie" creeks that use to hold native cutts. Is that what it was like 100 years ago? All those tiny Oldman, Castle, Crow, Waterton etc etc tribs full of cutts and bulls that, in places, were over, like 8' feet deep. Let me give you an example. When I drive hwy 22, of course, all of us have driven over Willow creek. Now, I just recently noted this year that Willow creek is one bloody long creek (for an AB creek that is). And it looks godawful from the highway. Muddy, wide, and shallow. Was this another one of the creeks Kevin was talking about? Anyways, basically I just want to know if this program is still going on and whether there are any good creeks that would make good candidates for restoration. Smitty

BBTrout and Max: Nice pics. BBtrout will you swear on a stack of bibles that's not from an aquarium? Jaysus... I think someone is messing with me; the vote keeps getting back to 50-50. I think Clive is right, probably won't go wrong buying either one. And that was a great link to that comparison article, - thank-you! Leaning towards the Pentax... Smitty

Well, can't help but chuckle a little bit at the results so far; 50-50! Makes me smile. I'll just have to try both of them out, and pick one. One thing Clive mentioned is that my pentax is definitely not a rapid shoot camera, that's for sure, but otherwise I have been pretty happy with the w10 - so the w60 intrigues me. But I'm still liking the toughness of the Olympus. LK2, small side note; my original post I did mention I searched through the forums here. Cheers for the suggestion though. Keep'r coming guys. Smitty

Hi guys: Family gave me some money for my B-day. Was thinking of upgrading my camera, and based on the research I have done including this forum, I am having a tough time choosing. I have a W10, but I was thinking of trying the Olympus (shockproof feature). Plus, which one shoots better video, IYHO's??? Thanks for voting. If you have other models, go ahead and suggest, but clearly I am looking for a rugged, waterproof, simple point and shoot. Smitty

Pythagoras: Didn't forget a thing. Nothing that you've tried "explaining" address's what I said at all. Whether its #1 or #2, my point is even politicians in a democracy are eventually held accountable by the voters. And then they have to justify their voting record, their deals, etc etc. Or to put it your terms, the CPC trying to do #2 vs the coalition trying to do #1 is not equal measures. The electorate, plus the Gov. General, gave the CPC the mandate to govern; and as far as I'm concerned, the CPC haven't done anything to justify the coalition's existence after backing down from their ridiculously partisan economic update. Now, if the government gets brought down in a non-confidence vote in January on the entire budget, well then, you have a brand new ball game. Smitty

Pythagoras: One problem with the sudden influx of consitutional experts coming out of the closet is glaringly obvious: I haven't heard one single Conservative supporter as of yet - on tv, radio, and internet, claim that this is illegal. And I have been wasting time following this closely. Just because something is allowed, legal, and constitutional doesn't mean its justified. That's my problem. Could go into a whole rant, but its late - maybe tomorrow. Smitty

Why is killing for the sake of killing more immoral than torturing fish for the sake of torturing fish for our own ego and self-gratification? I can hardly think of a more hedonistic 'sport' than C&R angling. I have reconciled my demons; I know its hedonistic and I am ok with that. If I wasn't I'd stop fishing. Perhaps someday years from now I'll get to that moment of "Jack Shaw evolution" where I am completely satisfied with cutting off the point of my hook knowing full well my presentation skills were enough to induce the 'take'. (The "fights" on such "bump and release" fishing last mere seconds...) If diehard C&R flyfishermen think they are closer to supporting PETA than our hunting fraternal brothers, I'll know then that we're that much closer to getting fishing banned completely, in my opinion. And I say that knowing that I'll very likely never fire a rifle at a big game animal. Just some thoughts. Smitty

Matt: Study up on your history...no serious historian would ever claim that the US contribution to WW2 was minimal. Reminds me of the best commercial I ever saw (it was for subscriptions for a newspaper - don't remember which one). The commercial ended with the caption: "Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but is yours informed?" Ask anyone still alive from that era living in Europe if the US's contribution was minimal. Oh, and not to mention they nearly singlehandedly fought the Pacific theatre with Japan by themselves. Mike

Thanks for the compliment. And thank-you for making my point; its nice we agree completely on this issue. Smitty

No doubt. I think its absolutely moronic that someone "needs to be punished" because they hit someone (1) clean (2) fair and square. That a fight would result from that is total cowardice from whichever Flame that was that pounded on Sloan. Its absurd to think that its some sort of "sin" to think that just because you're a "rookie" in your "first" game you suddenly aren't allowed to make a clean hit on an opponent. Utter, total nonsense. If some young kid busted his arse to make it to the big leagues, then he plays how he plays. I don't care who's got the puck, if you have your head down and defenceman lines you up and you get nailed cleanly, suck it up princess, I say. You may think I'm saying this as an Oiler fan. I'm not. I'm saying this as a hockey fan whose seen the beloved game completely pervert the role of enforcer. An enforcer deters people the opponents from taking cheap shot liberties with anyone on the team - but mostly the superstars. This whole "you're not allowed to touch Gretzky/Lemieux" is just wussy silliness. And the stars know that. I remember a game when Gretzky was playing for the Blues, and Buchberger just rocked Gretzky with a thunderous hit. Post-game interview, classy guy that he is, Gretzky acknowledged that Buchberger was a clean player, it was a clean hit, and he (Gretz) should have had his head up. Don't have anything to say about the aftermath or whether it should have been 7 or 9 minutes. Whatever. But good God, if we're all condemned to watch hockey that bans or punishes clean bodychecking, I might as well watch chess. Smitty

Birchy: That. was. simply. awesome. What a way to start my day. I'm still laughing. And I'm an idiot. Smitty

Mvdaog: I think you make some excellent points. As a former classroom teacher, and now doing teaching of a different sort, I sympathize with that. Tough to pay nurses and teachers what they're really worth, when you, say compare that to a pro hockey player. Factually wrong. Many times CEO's are the visionaries, who again, assumed a lot of risk to bring their product or service to the market. You, like many many others believe in the fallacy of media negativity. You hear about the few corrupt, over-paid CEO's that garner a lot of media attention, and people just blanket/impose those qualities right over to the hundreds of CEO's that are well educated, and work hard to grow their companies. You seem sympathetic to small business's but still seem to buy into the notion of the "faceless" "evil" "multinational" corporation. Microsoft was started in a garage by a Harvard dropout. The guy who started Fed-Ex received a failing grade from his professor for his "shortsighted" business plan. This list goes on and on and on of many huge corporations stating out as mom and pop small business's. McDonald's was started by Ray Kroc who sold milkshake machines. . For most "uber" wealthy, its not about need. In fact, for the vast majority of us - families making a few thousand or more over the poverty line, is it really about need? Nay, my friend, it was never about need. That's why - morally or not - we overpay movie stars and athletes. Its about what the market will bear and pay people. Intriguing idea, but I generally disdain any conspiracy theories, be them left or right wing. Again, the major difference between the CEO's and the employee's is that the CEO is the dude who risked all. I know I keep harping on that, but one of the basic and more cherished principles in a market is that the risk-reward trade-off should be balanced. No doubt in certain circumstances, its way out of whack. As I said, most corporations started somewhere small, including the most "evil" of them all, Wal-Mart. Somewhere along the timeline, you'll find the Henry Ford of all corporations. To the person who inherits the position, your point is more valid. This is probably where you and I most fundamentally disagree philisophically. I don't see anyone being stuck for the most part. Its just that most people make choices. Lots - LOTS! - of people come from impoverished backgrounds to make something of themselves. Had the good fortune to meet Chris Gardner (Pursuit of Happyness); boy did that guy ever put to rest all the BS and lame excuses people construct for themselves about their failures. He could of whined "oh me oh my.." but instead he stood up like a man, raised his kid, slept in subway stations and became very successful. People do go to school and generally aren't dumb; no one forced them to accept low-paying jobs and they choose not to self-improve, and we live in an environment and a society where financial success -at least the education for it - is easier than any other previous generation. I can't tell you how many former students I have run into and wished they had studied harder and taken school more seriously, because now they have eliminated for themselves higher paying jobs. Whose fault is that? Themselves? Their permissive parents for having low expectations and not teaching their kids a sense of self-responsibility? My fault as a teacher for not inspiring them enough? Meanwhile, African kids pack classrooms by the dozens with hardly any school supplies to better themselves. Millions of Indian and Chinese kids who have had a glimpse of middle class lifestyles are busting their asses to "move-up" in life. I have very little sympathy for most North Americans. Comparatively speaking we have become bloated, spoiled, and complacent, and now we're crying because we overspent. Hey, guess what, what happens when you drink 4 cases of beer and knock back half a dozen 40 pounders of hard liquor? You get a hangover, and that's what alot of North Americans have - a greed induced financial hangover. I digress. I do have a lot of sympathy for small portion of people, but not a lot. Its better to ensure people are deserving of sympathy and then do your best to help them out. Well, if you don't resent them, I think, at least, you misunderstand them. Well, earn 10 million one year and then give 50% of it to a wasteful, inefficient gov't and watch them blow it. There's a reason our former PM(!) Paul Martin, has his corporation (the ships company) headquarters outside of Canada - high taxes. Again, you make my point, as the rich pay a larger proportion of the taxes too, due to our progressive tax scheme. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm simply saying the rich give alot - both charitably and through taxes. I was part of the public school system, anyone has a chance to accomplish what the CEO does. As a teacher, what pissed me off where the kids were behind the eight-ball from when they were young due to poverty or poor parenting. That's where we should spend money- headstart programs for those less fortunate. But the rest of your point is nonsensical hogwash. We ALL benefit from company's technology; and the companies that pay for them. Research and Development is paid for by these companies. Disgusting prices? Used an Ipod lately? How about thin screen tv? Noticed the prices of those coming down? Innovation and competition. I agree that a system should be in place to regulate medicine, but you can't expect a company to spend millions of dollars of research and then not be compensated. Good debate - I have enjoyed this. Canada is the best country in the world for the very reason that despite our frustrating politics, and our somewhat fractured regionalism, and economy, and politicians that drive us to drink, we've actually muddled through and designed a relatively free market/capitalist system tinged with enough compassion to produce a social net that helps our fellow Canadian out. Imperfect yes, needs improvement yes, but our future is brighter than most. Bottom line is that you couldn't pay me to live in the US or Sweden. I love it right here. Messy at times, but way better than everywhere else, IMHO. Smitty P.S. By the way, speaking of Wal-Mart, did you know that a study was completed and showed - it demonstrated - that Wal-Mart benefits the poorest people by extending the purchasing power of them by 30%? Here lies the fundamental crux; by producing goods cheaply, buying in massive volumes, and not paying their employees alot, the low price benefit is passed down to the people who need low prices the most - the poor. Interesting.

Harps: My bad - I should have explained my point better. I used the word conservatism exactly as I intended to, but it didn't come across that way at all. I am not confusing conservatism with conservatives, nor was I trying to equate the two, or trying to tie in the praise of our banking system in giving free credit to the PC party. Because you're right, our banks being conservative have nothing to do with the political parties. I know that banks operate outside of partisan politics. Albertans that vote conservative is indeed a fact, not a stereotype. The stereotype is there is an association between that factual voting record and then somehow we're all right-wing, ultra conservative rednecks. Which is what a lot of non-Albertans love to cling to as their de-facto view of westerners in general. No doubt there are grains of truth in stereotypes and cliches, but ya know, reasonable, pro-environment people can actually vote conservative without being crammed into those cookie-cutter molds. Smitty

Harps: Well its good that we can discuss this and keep our heads about us. Trotting out stereotypes doesn't make your point more valid. If you want to talk idiots in the PM office, at least include a discussion of Chretien and Trudeau. Some carbon system is likely inevitable and do-able. Liberals don't have the answer though. Principles are nice, but until you get China and the US on board, a Kyoto type accord is just printing on cut-down trees. We live in a global ecosystem and global economy. Any system of regulations that proposes to cap emissions, subsidies, and level the playing field has to be supported and signed on by all the major players and first world economies. Punishing ourselves when we're comprise less than 2% of the world's GHG's is akin loading a shotgun and pointing it at our foot. Its a nice symbolic gesture, you may even argue it demonstrates leadership, but when it affects jobs and families and can potentially - if implemented improperly - can cripple our economy, than we must tread carefully. Someone could easily argue the conservative approach is far too cautious, but the Liberal plan risks far too much in leading this economy to disaster. I find it ironic that Canadians love to dump on Harper, but publications around the world, I cite an article in the London economic times and a Swiss paper that lauds Harper's approach lately. The other party leaders with their blather and panic have just made them look like idiots and completely unprepared to lead our country. Canada's banks - in large part to their conservatism - are now being credited as the foundation as one the strongest financial systems in the world. But, quiet leadership is decidedly unsexy. Far too easy and shortsighted than to blame the Conservatives for the financial crisis that is largely beyond their control. And yeah, Albertans do tend to vote predictably, but is it any different from Ontarioans and Quebecers clinging to their cliches about Westerners in general? There's plenty of typical stereotypes on both sides, Harps. Smitty

Mvdaog: My gut tells me I could probably dig up more credible evidence for my position than some that would support yours. But, I'll be frank, I'm too busy and too lazy. So I'll be content just bat the ball around. But it blows my mind our very "Canadian" attitude toward the wealthy; its like we have some sense of entitlement to ride their coat-tails; its ridiculous. 74% of wealth is created through entreprenuerialship - meaning people/entrepreneurs/small businessmen assume all kinds of risk - including going broke and not being able to make ends meet and support their families, just to try to succeed. And that success should be commensurate to reward. I don't resent wealthy people for the simple fact that - for the most part - they busted their ass to get there, while risking much. Good for them I say. But imagine how they feel now when their fellow Canadian comes up and says: "Well, you've made it, now give us 50 cents for every dollar you earn." How ridiculous is that! Its actually a disincentive to grow your business. You use adjectives like "grotesque" to describe profits. Its a very stereotypical Canadian attitude to bite the hands that feed us. The life blood of this country and the Canadian economy are our resources and the companies that, yes, I'll say it, exploit those resources to our benefit. Restraining ourselves from taxing the crap out of the wealthy and corporations will ensure that shmo's like me have a job. And again, this is the part where I need bold, underline, and italics: You can say all of the above like I did and still be in favor of the environment and regulation. I do not believe in Lassez-faire economics. A capitalist society needs regulations. (financial crisis anyone?). And yes, we could be doing a lot more, and working with these companies a lot more to substantially reduce environmental impact. I believe smart people could devise a regulatory system that generously rewards forward-thinking, progressive, green companies, while penalizing companies that stay stuck in the 20th century. That what drives me nuts about politics; people think its either your for the environment and against companies, or vice versa. Its not black and white, yet our politicians treat the voters like we think in crayons and must choose between the two. Like we couldn't figure out a 3rd, 4th, and 5th way of doing this. Anyways, higher taxes aren't the answer. More efficient spending and less waste first. Go to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation website and learn about the Canadian govt's - Liberal and Conservative - addiction to wasteful spending. And just remember, its real easy to resent the guy making 10 million dollars a year. And real easy to forget that rich people build libraries, museums, art galleries, concert halls, and contribute more to charitable giving than any other subset in Canadian/American society. And before the cynics say "yeah, well, its just a write off for them" consider a man I used to hate - Bill Gates, for making a sh**ty operating system and accumulating billions of dollars of net worth, is now, along with Warren Buffett, the largest philanthropists in the world. Hundreds of thousands of Africans are going to get medication, clean water, and education because of two "rich" "capitalists". Smitty

Mvadog: I am would take up arms to defend your right to free speech; you're entitled to say as you like. But your opinion leaves me staggered, with all its false presumptions. I suggest a basic econ101 type course. Canada has one of the freest, democratic countries in the world. Very few places - very few countries - are like Canada: the opportunity for advancement is unprecedented. As I said elsewhere, people in the world generally love this country for its opportunities to become wealthy, or least a chance to get ahead, perhaps even achieve some level of financial independence. With the amount of free education that is available - check your local library or online -, there little reason or excuse not to better yourself. My point is that taxing the rich and corporations is not the answer; anyone with a solid understanding of business and economics. You generally want a low tax environment - especially for business's - to help stimulate the economy. Saying lower taxes leads to recession is factually wrong. I am generally quite happy to pay taxes for social programs, but clinging to social welfare that embraces the stereotypical "let-the-rich-pay-for-everything" will not, does not, and has not work. The so called "rich" already pay more taxes than everyone else. They already subsidize this wonderful country. I am going to repeat an often quoted line (I myself stole it from Robert Kiyosaki) "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society." So to be clear, before someone assumes that I mean something different, I'll say it again: "(1) I am happy to pay for taxes and the Canadian social net, (2) I am not for, like, eliminating taxes, (3) I am not in favor of a US socio-economic system". I love this country. But you have it completely backwards man, totally. IMHO, of course. Smitty

Jim Rogers with George Soros ran the well respected Quantum Fund. Two years ago I had the privilege of listening to Jim Rogers at a trading seminar. I respect what he says, some damn good insights at that conference. Here's a video of him, talking about what he's buying or will buy: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=s864BubROCQ I am reminded of that famous line from Han Solo in the original Star Wars "One thing's for sure, we're all gonna be a lot thinner". Kinda appropriate for the markets these days... I hate to be a Stehpen Harper mime, but essentially, the Canadian economy is pretty sound, our banks are amongst the most respected in the world right now, and over the next 2 to 4 decades the light will shine even brighter on Canada. We have everything the world needs - the 3 "F's" - Food, Fuel, and Fertilizer, plus oil, plus natural resources, and our country is essentially empty (our pop. density). Mcleans mag. recently quoted some immigrants who referred to Canada as "El Dorado". The whole world essentially has a hangover after years of partying, and Canada is affected too. The rampant panic selling and fear will eventually be mitigated as people calm down. It may take anywhere from the next 3 to 24 months, but market will find a bottom. Markets always do. Smitty

On behalf of all Oiler fans, I want you to imagine the immortal, classic laugh emitted from Bart's bully from the Simpsons: "HA - HA"

Rickr: Haha. lol. Thanks for that. Yes, you now qualify for a beer. And Matt can bring as many witness's as he likes. Smitty (Mike Smith)

On a more serious note: I don't know if what I did during Glenbow's thread counts as vigilante moderating; I was trying - with good intentions (with the possible unintended consequences of leading straight to hell) - to try provide a moderate voice, first by responding to Missin, Pkk, then my little rant about the forum rules being broken. Anyways, the point of this post is not to do a color commentary or play by play of what happened. The point of this post is to publicly apologize to a fellow board member who has blocked me - justifiably so - from accepting my pm's. LoyalEddie, I owe you a sincere apology for that pm I sent you. It was over-the-top, and it crossed the line - by a lot. It was unequivacably (sp?) a disgrace, and I am ashamed to have typed it then sent it. Whatever I had to say, whatever point I was trying to make, was completely lost by my loss of control. Just because I said what I said in a "private" pm doesn't even come close to justifying what I said. For someone like me to point out what rules were being broken in Glenbow's thread, I turned right around and broke them myself. That could easily put me in the running being the biggest hypocrite of all. What else can I say, except I am sorry, and there are times I am as weak as the next human being. I let my temper get the best of me, and for reasons purely idiotic, I decided that you would be my target. Completely unfair to you man. If I could take it back, I would. Including my smarta** reply in the StreamWatch Fundraiser thread. Well, if it makes you feel any better, this morning's breakfast for me consisted, of yogurt, granola, humble pie, and crow. I owe you a beer should we ever meet. Smitty

Well thought we could all use something a little more lighthearted: I remembered this when Dube posted in the One fly debate, and he used the phrase "Fill yer boots"... Sorry if this has been posted before, but what the heck, its funny. Google her, she's got lots more. Click here if the movie does not play.

Bhurt: I think your point is valid. It may not be desirable to spend an entire day with someone you don't like, so no doubt, there are some flaws with my suggestion from that perspective. LoyalE: No, I didn't suggest the drinking. I was merely jumping on the bandwagon, as part of the fun. Oh, and btw, to answer that question in the pm... Yes, I am, if you are. ---- In the end, given a choice, It would be "safer", less risky to go for a purely fun event. No doubt about that. Focus on what's important - $ for StreamWatch. Smitty

Missin: Just wanted to repeat my pm to you and say don't let the negativity stop you from doing something this good. I think that the wisest course for the first time, inaugural event, the focus should be entirely on fun, maybe entirely so. (Especially given the topics lately, eh ) As you've said, the point is moula$ for StreamWatch, so I think its best to spend your time, energy, and effort on that focus. There is a way - I am just throwing this out there - to have a friendly competition that still emphasizes fun first. I think there are 3 critical points: 1) Teams must be random, unquestionably so. If not, then, like golf, some sort of general broad system (like a handicap) of making sure the skilled anglers are not all stacked on one team. 2) One way to reward the "first place" team while still giving everyone a chance to win, is to make sure the prizes are random draw, but you could reward the top teams by having multiple entries, so that they get slightly better odds. They still only get one prize, so if they get drawn multiple times, they can "trade-up" on their prizes, if they choose. 3) Make the prizes fun - if you have expensive prizes that are actually worth something (or alot), then you risk the chance of people getting a little crazy. I have done a few of these events, and the above works fairly well. I hope this goes through, I hope I can participate. Smitty Oh, and a little booze fuelled debauchery as fine with me.

Cdock: Chocolate cake and scotch. Gawd, as they say in poker, I am all in... And, now to more prosaic questions from the universe; with certain person banned, will Taeke change his name back? Will he spell it the same way? My upcoming weekend won't be complete until I know the answer to that one... Smitty

SanJuan et al: I pm’d you SanJuan, but since I think you have some explaining to do, I am posting this publicly. From LoneFisher: Great pics Glen. Oh and as usually Tako your totally clueless From Bigbowtrout: I like Cake!!!!!!! PS Glen SWEET FISH MANG!!!!!!!!!!!! PSS Tako loves sperm. From Loyaleddie: WHO IS THIS? VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV Followed by a highly insensitve pic, which, unless LoyalEddie corrects my impression, was aimed at Tako. From Troutlover: i can't pass this up (sorry tako)............(T+A+K+O)X2= DOUCHE!!!sq From SanJuanWorm: I would never ban anyone for taking the "other side" of the argument. The instant you become disrepectful to another board member, I frown heavily on you and so do the other moderators here. Tako responded like an idiot that he usually is. General Forum Rules 1. Personal Attacks will NOT be tolerated 2. No racist, sexist, hateful, threatening, obscene, or otherwise rude remarks Wow. Time to draw a sword on Tako’s behalf. So let me get this straight: (1) Tako’s inflammatory remarks are deserving of criticism – justifiably so - , because he has on several occasions at the very least bent if not broken the rules of this forum (see rules #1 and #2). (2) But therefore we are justified in breaking the same rules because we let it get to us, we respond emotionally, and therefore its ok to dump on Tako, because, what the hell, “he has it coming?” and "he deserves what he gets"? Do the rules exist for a purpose? And will they be enforced? Lots of times Tako would have been better off not post how he posts. And you could certainly argue on a few occasions he could step up and apologize. But of course, we don’t have to, right? May I respectfully suggest a few of us could do well to grab a dictionary and look up the following terms: (1) “irony” (2) “double standard” and (3) “hypocrisy”. C’mon guys, we can do better than this. Either the forum rules exist for a purpose, or not. What do you think? Am I out in left field? Smitty