Smitty

pkk: I feel I must emphasize this very - very(!) - strongly. 1. Overall, this is a great board. 2. Divergent opinions are always welcome, the moderators are extremely skilled at welcoming hot topics while maintaining some order and civility. 3. Therefore, your opinion is welcome too, and you have grossly mis-interpreted whats going on here- so much so, that is why I am posting. Take the time to re-read the last few posts. Pay particular attention to how you expressed your opinion as opposed to Tako's. Unless I have been hit over the head with an anvil, no one here would ever ban you for taking the other side of the debate - certainly not the moderators. It's all about how you say it, not what you say . Your saying the equation works likes this: "Posting a contrary opinion = being banned". It's like saying 2+2 = 5 Everyone on this board loves freedom of speech and will protect your right to express an opinion. How the opinion is expressed, the thought behind it, how tactfully its expressed, whether its tinged with personal attacks or insults makes all the difference in demonstrating how responsible your using that freedom. And believe it or not, I agree with the basic premise of what you're saying. We ought be careful and consider how our angling practices may impact spawning success and the viability of future fish populations. What's unfair to Glenbow - and to a lot of others who post pics - is that people make a lot of presumptions/assumptions based on a 2 dimensional photo and then make judgments of angling circumstances when they weren't even there. There's a lot I don't know about how that fish was caught, I only know that it was caught legally, and my impression - undoubtedly I could be wrong - is that the fish was released safely. Therefore, nice fish! Good Fishing, Smitty

LoyalEddie: Lightsabers! Cool! OrvisOnly: I love snobbery. God, please tell me your English, fish with a tweed jacket, smoke a pipe, and only a single malt at least 12 years old will do. Please tell me that. Though I don't think the smile can get bigger on my face. Also, please tell me that the only acceptable cast is the quarter upstream. Me? I cast with my left arm (the wrong one), fish with 3 wet flies on a high-d line, and where allowed, a maggot on each. Then, again where allowed, I catch my first fish, I break its neck, and make sure the flies are blood soaked (someone actually taught me to troll flies in a lake for brookies with this method). Oh, I also troll crankbaits and flatfish at the end of my sinking line in lakes. All of the above as challenging as hell. Love the debate. I hope someone will draw the obvious connection between fishing with only one dry fly and the contribution that makes to global warming, because that would definitely not be an absurd debate. Thanks for making my day better. Smitty

Missin: I am only going to point out that if Tako has the power to "bring down boards like this" its because we choose to give him the power to. I'd caution you granting him this power by allowing yourself to get sucked in by posting such an inflammatory response. I am not passing judgment on whether its justified, because that's hardly the point. If you feel better, than so be it, but we're giving far too much weight to him, in my opinion. The point is Tako has as much or as little power as he's given. Or stated differently, don't you think people know and take Tako's judgmentalism for what it is? I have Pm'd Tako a few times on this, about leadership, judgmentalism, and maturity. He's either smart enough to grow and learn, or not, he either cares enough, or not; it won't affect me. What he doesn't realize, those people who truly have something valuable to contribute are often the architect's of their own "downfall", because they choose a tactless, inflammatory, attention-seeking, and ultimately immature responses that reveal far more about their own character than they probably realize, and anything substantive and valuable that they might have contributed is utterly lost in their way of grabbing attention. I think, in my opinion, you just gave that kind of attention to him. Tako, in weird, albeit backhanded way, I am trying to defend your right to be who exactly who you want to be - or better yet - how you obviously want to be perceived. You're a decent guy enough in our personal correspondence, you can do better than this. But surely you're smart enough to know what kind of response you might get after the board went 15 rounds over Lorney's pictures. Here's my challenge; why don't you post your thoughtful, lucid, and passionate letters that you've written to BC/AB fisheries departments pleading the case to have small creeks closed during bull trout spawning season?? Is it because that might get you some respect, in albeit less attention grabbing way?? Have you - have WE ALL not learned that trying to impose our own set of moral and ethical standards across a relatively anonymous and faceless internet forum is an exercise in utter foolish, futile folliness? But by all means, Tako (and all of us too), feel free to keep diggin with that shovel. Your just diggin yourself a hole, setting yourself on fire and inviting others to watch. I am an honest and selfish enough person to admit there is some entertainment value in that. Smitty (Mike Smith) P.S. Oh, and by the way, nice fish, really nice fish.

Here you go: http://www.mls.ca/PropertyDetails.aspx?vd=...pertyID=7027638 Have at 'er. Smitty

Time for my 1.95 cents: Agree with those congratulating on a beautiful fish caught. What gets me is that people would rather impose their own morality on someone else than really do something about it. Lazy and arrogant. Nothing constructive came from that criticism; if people feel that strongly about it, they should write letters and lobby to have the regs changed, rather than dump on someone who caught a fish legally, during the open season. And for the poster who felt the "fish-on-the-rocks" issue has been beaten like a dead horse, you don't think this issue hasn't been covered before? Get over it. Can't wait for the annual debate on staging fish at the Highwood mouth. T minus, what, 7.5 months away from the start of that sling fest? Giddee-up! Didn't someone previously say that if we are always worried about spawning fish, the Bow would have an open season, of what, 2 weeks? Our sport is a blood sport - either you're ok with it or not. And remember, we flyfishers the worst kind - we harass fish just for the fun of it. How do we even sleep at night? Awesome fish. Just a tad envious... Smitty P.S. People really ought to try and remember the lesson Barry M tried teaching us in is Trunk book; "Though shall not pass judgement on any other anglers method of angling, as long as its legal" Something like that, and I'm sure its meant also for catching fish fairly and squarely while the watershed is open to angling. Like I said, write a damn letter!!!!

Rehsifylf: Can't say I sympathize at all with what you're saying. The article is 4 years old, and if you feel that strongly about it on principle, then do indeed cancel your trip. Whether it was done for (1) the fish and conservation reasons (2) limit crowding (3) a combo of both reasons, what's done is done. The bottom line is that Albertans (and Canadians in general) are more than happy to pay $20+ to go to the movies (including snacks), $50+ to attend Oilers/Flames games, $50+ for an afternoon of golf, $50+ for a day of skiing. The list goes on. We're a consumerist society. Bottom line is $20/day is a hell of deal to fish world class waters. I have no problem with the fee, AS LONG AS the fee goes towards conservation/preservation/enhancement of the resource I am paying for. What I do agree with is that our government is shamefully lacking in terms of implementing the same kind of policies. Seems like we're stuck in the previous century when it comes to charging the appropriate fees to non-Albertans. Life's to short Rehsifylf for you to spend that much time feeling that upset about it, and/or potentially guilty if you do go, and/or potentially regretful if you do cancel. Why not go and enjoy the spectacular scenery and fishing? In my opinion, there are larger issues, fishing and non-fishing, to draw your sword and choose the hill in which to battle. But more power to you... Good fishing, Smitty

Better question: What are my chances of snagging trout if I have a streamer with a nymph dropper and the third fly tied to the tippet tag end? Careful boys. As Barry Mitchell once stated "I got no problem with your method as long as its legal". There's a difference between discussing potentially confusing regs vs invoking good old fashioned stereotypes. Well, unless we're content to be branded as the typical elitist snobs. As for me, I fish with two trebles at most; I usually remove the third one if it comes on a crankbait. My understanding is that the treble hook counts as one, because of common shaft. Should be clearer in the regs though, I agree. Smitty

Hey Max: ummmm....I pride myself as a former teacher knowing all the cool, hip, lingo from the younger generations,...but was what you said...is that a compliment? ;) Smitty

Hey Bloom: Consumer reports likes the civic a little better in terms of (1) gas mileage and (2) frequency of repairs needed (low). Smitty

Mvdaog: Careful. Once you start treading down the path of "blame my genes" and "I'm not a bad person for doing drugs", and moral relativism, then you're inviting yourself and others to live in a society that really no longer has any useful function or meaning for people. Its called anarchy. Perhaps the person doing heroin for 18 years isn't bad. But the decisions to use drugs have bad consequences, don't you agree? Using drugs keeps criminals in business, and no one can dispute the fact that the illegal drug trade has lead to evil consequences, murder being the most obvious. So whether directly or indirectly, most hard core drug users contribute to the decay of an orderly and lawful society. I think part of your argument that I have a problem with touches on the very things the Sun was talking about. The decay of moral and self responsibility; that there is something else always to blame life's problem's on, whether its your genes or parents. That kind of blameless ideology is not just dangerous, its incredibly disrespectful. Here's how its disrespectful; it says nothing to all the people who overcame their own personal circumstances to become better people for themselves. Its disrespectful of people, who, despite their "genes", despite their "s*&tty upbringing" and "bad parents", despite the system of "corrupt cops" (and you're wrong to paint the majority of cops as bad), and despite the "man" out to get them, they triumph, they become their own success stories, they transcend all the reasons or excuses - whatever label you think applies - and they become successful, happy, contributing members of society. Chris Gardner (Pursuit of Happyness) is someone I saw recently in person at our conference. Inspiring story, to say the least. A guy who has all the excuses and reasons to wallow in misery, but instead makes decisions and choices to pull himself up from his bootstraps, to make the best of his circumstances, and he ends up becoming a "winner". I am not talking about materially, but his spirit. But Mvdaog, you would have us believe he had no free will in the matter? That his direct actions and decisions didn't lead to his success? When we excuse people's poor behavior, we've got no choice but to excuse their good behavior too. You can't have it both ways. No, thankfully, that's not how it works. People are brought into this world under good circumstances and bad circumstances. It's not nature vs nuture, its both. Both have their place, you've weighted your argument far too much into the "helpless nuture its-my-genes" camp. I might as well not even try to teach kids about responsible decision making. Is that what you're saying?? If I am wrong - God I hope I am - , let me know. Back to the original thread for a sec. That kid lived in the 21st century; he's saw enough tv, movies, and pop-culture to be perfectly aware of consequences of his decisions. Besides that, there was a point when he was sober, had a clear head and he made a decision to do drugs or not. He made a decision to carry a weapon, and then made another decision to brandish it at the police. The police made a decision to, and what we have is an unfortunate tragedy. Investigate the cops and punish them if it was warranted, but the sad fact is that at some point along the timeline, that kid made a choice to put himself there in the first place. Smitty P.S. RedWiggler; no doubt if it was my own kid or if it was Sun's kid, I be on the warpath for the cops. I'd want an investigation that would make the Warren commission and Watergate look like a card game. But I'd also be feeling fairly guilty, leaving myself wondering "was there anything I could have done better as a parent??" I think that's the way most people would feel...

Sun: Yeah - you summarized everything I said very well. Just a comment about the - my impression anyways - your blanket generalization about kids and them doing drugs. Don't mistake me; I am not one to excuse their behavior. But teach enough kids and have a thousand or so come through your classes in 10 years made me realize one thing; a kid can and ought to be forgiven for many a thing (I agree - to a point; it can only go so far before enough rope is given to hang themselves). What I am saying is a lot of kids "screw-up" while "growing-up" and what always frustrated me a little were fellow teachers who were happy to slap the "bad apple/seed" label and that's that - permanent. No consideration for a kid trying to change or do better. We all know the cliche of life being a journey whose arc is traced out by our choices. Lots of good ones, lots of bad ones. Nor am I advocating mutual exclusivity; in other words its possible to teach kids to be responsible for their actions, step up and take the consequences for their actions, and forgive them. I am talking about "relatively" "small stuff" like pot and underage drinking. Lots of good parents out there too, and know what? Its not always the parents fault; sometimes teenagers are just teenagers. I had plenty of friends whose parents I thought had excellent parenting skills, but my friends, ah, still..."experimented". It only gets to me when they (some kids and parents) have a sense of full entitlement and a zero sense of responsibility and obligation to their community and country at large. And yeah, there are lots them like that. I do believe that attitude is much more prevalent in the last 1-2 generations. I get that I probably won't convince you (or you me for that matter). I guess the point of the reply is to say I hope there are enough open minded adults out there who realize their "label's" for teens need not be applied with permanent adhesive. I hope there's enough out there to at least let kids have the chance to prove themselves to do better when they do stupid things. Well,... that was a good thread hi-jack. Smitty

Rickr: Tend to agree with you, I too have a case of "rose-colored-glasses" syndrome. It's sort of intentional naivety. I think people are shortsighted if they think police shouldn't be second guessed. Every authoritative body needs oversight, but I recognize that there is no one saying there shouldn't be. People should also be careful about their broad generalizations and painting kids with too wide a paint brush. I taught for ten years in junior/senior high, not every kid who smoked pot is a "bad" kid, as Sundance would have you believe (Do I misquote you here Sun? If so, then clarify...) Bottom line is the vast majority of cops and kids are decent, and everyone has some shades of gray in their personality. Not everything is black and white, unlike the pundits on Fox news would have you believe. The world - or more specifically people - are far too nuanced. No one's gonna convince in the entire history of cop beatings, cop shooting suspects, and cops tasering people, the cops have been entirely right 100% of the time and everything is righteous. Its a good thing - when its done and it works - that when a cop uses force, there's paperwork and an investigation. At least that way it ought to be, so at least the good cops then can get cleared and carry on without a guilty conscience. Sun, I see you're point too. Plenty of kids whining about why "I" am failing "them" in math class, yet they or their parents don't want to discuss (or they get their hackles raised in a hurry) about (1) no homework done (2) non-existent study habits, and (3) absence rates over 30%. And then they question me and wonder why they're getting 25%. I feel like those penguins from the movie Madagascar..."just smile and nod boys, smile and nod..." So, like most people here, I too see both sides of it. But really, if we categorized every kid that has done pot and/or underage drinking as "bad", well, lets just say then there are a lot of "bad" kids out there... Cheers, Mike

Keith: I think you maybe got your apples with your oranges. I think - perhaps I'm mistaken - that Tako was specifically referring to catching Grayling on streamers while fishing the Athabasca mainstem, as an incidental catch to Bullies. Thanks for the tips though - I've been fishing the area for 20 yrs - mostly north of Hinton - and my favorite rainbow stream is now a lost cause due to habitat degradation. Been looking for new spots. Smitty

Playdoh: I have a solution to your boredom. In conjunction with your points made, have you done anything about how you feel? I have you even tried approaching the owner of the Carseland store and asked him if he/she wouldn't mind putting up your sign (you made it right, good ol' MS Word) on his bait fridge, reminding that if anglers are fishing the Bow, that bait is prohibited? Just a thought. I understand that you feel its a "proximity" thing (the only 1 km away), but you have nothing to support your argument other than suppositions and conjecture to guess the % of that store's bait is going in the river. It's the owner's right to sell bait and he, like the rest of us, is trying to make a living. I know you understand that. Smitty P.S. Now, if the owner of the store called his store "Your one stop shop for all your Bow river bait needs..." well, that'd be different.

Well: I recommend you pick up Barry Mitchell's Alberta Fishing Guide. It's fairly comprehensive. Driving from Calgary, correct? I'd second Bloom's choice; Bullshead offers decent fishing, from what I have seen from the reports from members here. (Never been there myself). To offer alternatives, just a cursory glance through the aformentioned guide, here are some locations - some nearer, perhaps some further from Bullshead -, the following lakes fit your criteria of electric motors only: Fyten Reservoir, Rainbows to 1lb, south of Three Hills, Gooseberry Park Pond, Rainbows to 4 lbs, north of Consort, Huber Reservoir, Rainbows to 2 lbs, east of Stettler, Michichi Reservoir, Rainbows to 2 lbs, north and east of Drumheller, Mirror Reservoir, Rainbows to 5lbs, east of Lacombe Severn Reservoir, Rainbows (no "poundage" listed) SW of Drumheller. That's just a sample. Didn't feel like copying word for word in terms of directions, but that's generally the idea. Never fished any of them, can't vouch for the fishing, can't vouch for winterkill or last stockings, and my impression the majority of them have paved roads at least 80% - 90% of the way, if my map reading skills are to be believed. That should give you enough choices, like I said, spend the $12 and pick up the guide. Or, search for Bullshead in this forum and get lots of tips on how to fish that lake, and go! Blood Indian is good, but I heard its big, therefore wind gets at it, and I think power boats are allowed. But the fishing can be incredible - so I have heard. Tons of tiddlers with the odd big one. I like Upper Kananaskis lake - have fished there more than a few times, but again, can be very windy, and power boats are allowed. Just thought I'd point the above out, because for many of us - me included - tend to forget the stillwater rainbow trout fisheries often found east of highway 2 (other than the "famous" Bullshead). Good luck. Smitty

Lance: I misled you - my post at the part about the ban was written poorly, perhaps you can shed some light though. It was my understanding that they banned quads along the upper South Ram, did they not? I thought that once you hit the Hummingbird equestrian staging area, you are only allowed to quad on Onion, Hummingbird and Canary (my post would have led you to believe otherwise). I was told that only horses allowed to access the South Ram trail to the ranger confluence and that way, and that atv's had been prohibited. Is that correct? I will try to look up on gov't website. Sorry for the hi-jack. To the other poster (forgot your name): I wasn't out this weekend, so naturally, I don't have any pics. I hope Nick's meeting with his MLA is productive. Mike

Guys: Absolutely agree with the notion of sustainability. $250 Billion dollars of investment is coming to this province in the next 2 decades. In the next few years year, if "only 10,000" people move here per year, it will be an anomaly. More likely the average will be around 20K net in migration. Lance, I think you've made some excellent points, and whether you intended to or not, your point about "change" completely provides the final nail in the coffin about regulations. We need regulations, some sort of ethic, that reflects the 2008 reality. And that reality is that our modern day society fosters more of a disposable mentality rather than a "stewardship" mentality. The reality is not all activities are the same in impact. Some activities - like quadding - have much more impact than hiking. Its that simple. For example, that if you had 20,000 die hard hikers in the province and 20,000 die hard quadders, and in each group you found that 5% were uncaring, polluting, "don't-care-about-their-impact" yahoo/jerks, which of those groups " 5% yahoos" would cause more damage? There's a reason that hiking is allowed pretty much anywhere you go. Its not elitism, its about impact. Some times the stereotype fits, unfortunately, that's how stereotypes are made. My bet is the "average" "tree hugging granola eating hiker" has both (1) less impact and (2) a more responsible attitude than the "average" "mud-bog lovin', beer swillin' atv'er". Sorry, but that's my first hand experience with my family and wandering around Alberta's forests for 22 years. The more impact an activity has by the "average" user, the more it deserves to be regulated. The reality is that we already have pristine areas where activities are banned: Willmore = no motors, Ghost, Siffleur, (what's the 3rd one?) = no motors, no fishing, no hunting. Hikers, photography, bird/animal watching only. List goes on. Its completely reasonable and acceptable to ban certain activities in certain areas. We've done it for quite awhile in the national parks - whether you agree/disagree is irrelevant. I am simply pointing out the reality. Lance, I have been exactly where you've been; my father and I co-owned a beautiful Polaris atv (until it was stolen) and we used to frequently go up the upper Ram area/Hummingbird/Onion creek. We had a blast, and I was very responsible, like you. Kept the atv in the water for the absolute minimum amount of time. But I also got tired of seeing and picking near fights with guys washing they're atv's in the Ram and splashing around like it was their own backyard playpool. It was abhorrent. Now atv's are banned in that area. Was a disappointed? Yeah, I was. Surprised? No. Glad? Absolutely - the insidious part of owning an atv is knowing you and 96% of the other people can act responsibly and appropriately, and the 1-2-3-4% can really! wreck it. The only compromise I can see is the government ban nearly all "random" quadding in the east slopes, that atv'ers must stick to designated trails with bridged creek crossings, and have a fee structure perhaps tacked on to the sticker price of the quad, to help pay for enforcement. And in those areas without packed trails and bridges? Ban the atv's until responsible OHV groups decide they want to build and maintain them. Some people want to make this debate about whether atv's should even be allowed anywhere in the eastern slope foothills/mountains. I don't agree with a blanket ban, but I sympathize with the position. Without a compromise between the "free for all" mentality and the "total ban" mentality, if I were forced to choose, I go with the total ban. Better to err on the side of protection in my opinion. Hopefully it won't come to that, but something has to be done. Well, that was a rather long winded way to say that we have to deal with the reality of sustainability means. I do believe in balance and fairness Lance, but in a democracy to achieve equality automatically means you cannot treat every group equitably. Smitty

Lynn: I am so sorry for your loss of a member of your family, for truly surely that's what our dogs become. I know that you feel this pain for a while, but I'll take the chance here that you may find some consolation and an outlet for your grief by recommending the following book: "Marley and Me", if you haven't already read it. You'll laugh, you'll cry. Almost my entirely family has read it. Movie is out this fall. I recommend to anyone who has or does own a dog. Smitty

Well: I have a simple, perhaps dumb question: Aren't there laws in place to prevent this, a la similar to border crossing issues? Or, put it differently, surely Costco had to get permission and fill out reams of red-tape paperwork to get approval to sell exotic insects in our country, yes? Just curious. Smitty

Maxwell: Where is "htat creek? Are there cutties? I seriously thought you were naming a spot there for a sec. Smitty

Jim and Don: That's exactly what I was going to ask: If the front 30' of the DT and the WF lines are exactly the same, why would we say that DT has an advantage in presentation? Let me get this straight: 1) There's no difference in the first 30', which comprises over 75% of my casting, 2) For longer distances, the WF is easier to cast, 3) Takes up less room on the reel. Why would anyone use a DT? If you're only using 30' would there really be a significant difference in roll casting ability? And we haven't even touched A) the caster's casting ability - doesn't that play a far larger role in delicate presentation and underlining or overlining a rod's recommended rating. Thoughts? Anyone? Smitty

Hi Everyone: I don't know anything about fishing in the Maritimes. We're hitting all the eastern provinces in this summer's "Ultimate Road Trip". So between PEI, NB, NS, and NFLD, and you could fish a maximum of 3 days total choosing from those 4 provinces, where would you fish? To let you gauge the season, we're going from July 28 - August 20. I don't mind hiring a guide for one of the days. Do I care what I catch? Not really, but is there a shot during this time of the year at Atlantic Salmon? Brookies? Oh, I guess if it was really worth it, I'd consider a day in Quebec. Thanks in Advance! Smitty

You know Bloom, I just don't know. I just thought Scotch would be something thoughtful. Perhaps this might not be a good idea, if they aren't experienced or have sophisticated taste? But he's from my dad's generation, so it's hard to to imagine that after of 65 yrs on this planet, he hasn't developed a taste for scotch. I don't know... Thanks Gordon, realize I am in Edmonton actually, but I appreciate your reply. And thanks to everyone who replied; clearly this is quite a personal issue in terms of developing a taste that suits you. I wonder if there is something that is just considered a "mainstream" "classic" and is not too terribly obscure that someone will likely favor? Or is probably a case of its just a unique thing suited to an individual's taste? Or, put it another way, if you were setting up a bar for a social occasion, what would you offer your guests (other than beer! ), if you knew nothing else? This is has been a fun topic - glad I thought to post it here. Smitty

Well: Ummm....yeah...hmmm. I do appreciate my JV partner, but I think perhaps, just maybe, that last recommend is a little pricey. Thanks Everyone! Keep them coming if you can think of a "you must consider..." Smitty

Hi all: Contrary to my partial Irish heritage (and trust me, given my family tree, the stereotype fits! ), I am not too knowledgeable about fine spirits. I wish to reward a patient JV partner with a fine bottle of scotch or whiskey or something really good. Looking to spend $40 to $100. Recommendations are appreciated! Certainly someone out there is more knowledeable than me... Thanks in Advance! Mike Smith "Smitty"