SupremeLeader

Rickr, You should go up to the U of C and say what you just said to me; you have certainly mastered the art of passive /aggressiveness. If we were discussing any other issue; diabetes research for instance; would you question the results? Would it be bias? Acid rain apparently is a different matter however, because the source is from something your livelihood depends on; therefore the research is bias. This discussion has been shifted from acid rain in Saskatchewan to how people are bias; doesn't surprise me. This is the typical corporate spin doctoring I would expect from people in the oil industry. There is another article on the GF board someone posted concerning Sockeye returns to the Fraser; must be bias research...it came from the Globe and Mail. At least that’s what a lot of the commercial fisherman might say....... Rubbish.

One more note about CBC. They sensationalize the news, absolutely, but they are not bias. Rutherford, CNN, and FOX news are bias.

This statement pisses me off - bias is bias regardless of the motivation you think is behind it. Do you realize that you're posting topics here not for discussion but simply to hear yourself speak? If you don't go back and read a couple of your posts, it should become pretty evident. Pack up your soapbox and head home. Don't worry, school will soon be back in and you can spout your crap at the kids - thank god for Charter Schools. Where is the article specifically bias? Acid rain is falling into lakes and forest areas in northern Saskatchewan; it is coming from Alberta. It is amazing how many people in this community seem to continually question and doubt impartial scientific research. The research non-profit environmental groups most often use in their assessments come from Universities. University research is publicly funded, and free for anyone to use. If you really understood the scientific community in these institutions you would know that they stand nothing to gain by slanting their research. Scientists taking water and rain samples from northern Saskatchewan will (unless he/she wants to destroy their career) publish the truth in their journals; there is simply no point or necessity to be bias on either side. The only type of research that is bias is one that sets out to prove something; like the research done in The Great Global Warming Swindle. Just because the news or impartial research reports something you don't agree with does not mean it is bias. Apparently your own bias gustuphson seems to extend on this board; only I like to hear myself speak. Just an FYI people, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society obtained their information from the Saskatchewan Environment Ministry which is a branch of the Saskatchewan Government; the ministry obtained their information through publicly funded impartial educational institutions in Saskatchewan.

Comparing the bias of a non-profit environmental society’s research to big-oil and their own slanted research is ridiculous. One side is based on preservation and sustainability; the other is based on multi billion dollar profits and exploitation. The studies oil companies do on their own practices brings to mind other similar studies that have somehow proven the exact opposite of what logic (and sound research) indicates. For example, TELUS did a study that said that using a cell-phone while operating a motor vehicle is safe; we all know that is nonsense. The same oil companies that are involved in the sites you posted BigBowTrout are the same companies that funded documentaries and research in The Great Global Warming Swindle. The 'scientists' these companies (Exxon aka Esso) used for their research are the same guys the tobacco companies hired to 'prove' that smoking doesn't cause cancer. The truth about this (Oil Sands )and similar issues (Global Warming) is that the truth, is a threat to peoples jobs; hence the defensiveness expressed by so many people. I wouldn't worry though, as long as multi-billion dollar oil companies keep making money, destroying the environment, and making deceitful documentaries and web-sites, the CBC and environmental groups that have nothing to gain (except the preservation of the wilderness, clean air, and water) don't stand a chance.

You do have to admit those sources are bias.

As I have posted before, and to reiterate; the topic is about pollution from Alberta oil sands projects destroying forest / lake areas in another province. It is not about me. Ya, I'm sitting at a board of education station starting fights...... It's hooked on phonics.....not 'phontics'. I never started a thread about this issue in the past.....it is totally new. If you would like to personally attack me, pm me.

You are correct, we should not discuss the news and new information regarding industrial environmental impacts on our forests and fisheries........everything on the news is full of half truths (interesting comment coming from someone who does "not watch the news or read the newspaper"). This article on CBC was new, and deserved a new thread. It is unfortunate that for you it's "hard to shift through everything and read everything when it is scattered all over the place"........

Awareness and discussion is the first and most important step in change and progess.

Get banned...for what? Talking about the atrocities of industry? Indeed Lynn, 'our lives are more important than anything', however, that contradicts supporting the oil sands as they contribute to the detriment of all living species on the planet. I think what you meant to say is 'our money is more important than anything'. We don't all work or depend on the oil patch to live; that is just more corporate oil propaganda. I discuss these issues in hope that those who believe and support the oil sands will change their mind or reconsider their support for that atrocious eye sore on our planet.; and it is hardly beating a dead horse.....some people will see past greed, and find the truth.

You bet wrong Lynn. To reiterate; please focus on the article and not me.

There is acid rain in Saskatchewan; a fact based on a study relayed via the article. The acid rain is the result of pollutants from Alberta. Rickr and Jayhad; the article is pointing out that facts indicate that pollution from our province is destroying sensitive areas of Saskatchewan. Your response: I'm against the oil sands. The CBC is one-sided. Saskatchewan produces more air pollutants. I am unsure why you both can't see the real issues in this article. The article clearly indicates that the data concerning this issue was "obtained by the [saskatchewan Environmental Society] from the Saskatchewan environment ministry" Rivers and forests will be severely damaged because of the corporate interests of our province. Jayhad, it is likely that coal plants in Saskatchewan do damage the atmosphere as well; perhaps there pollution goes to Manitoba? Does this make the pollution we create ok? Interesting how so many Albertans have such little foresight, and such excessive amounts of greed that seem to consistently cloud their common sense. Ya, you're both right.....the Saskatchewan Environment Society / Ministry are lying, they pollute more than we do, and the CBC is involved in a conspiracy to publish outright lies about Alberta........

Another proud moment for Alberta. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...t-oilsands.html

There are mountains of reputable / journal reviewed science concerning Global Warming / Climate Change. There are different opinions of how to deal with it; a recent opinion I heard was to accept that the change cannot be stopped, and we must learn how to deal with it. It is a fact that there is more C02 in the atmosphere now than there ever has been during the last several hundred million years and it will be detrimental to several life forms; there are several reliable geological methods to prove facts such as this. The best the GW deniers have come up with is bunk docs like 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' etc. Come on! What bugs me most about the topic is that the deniers only think with their wallets; it is all about the economy, oil companies, and their rights; it is not about the world they will leave to future generations. I really find it quite despicable. Renewable energy, and even Nuclear energy is a better option. A Nuclear plant produces considerable more energy than a coal plant with about as much waste per year to fill a large truck. A coal plant produces enough C02 in one year that if compressed into a solid would be bigger than Mt. Everest. And C02 in the amounts industry is producing IS toxic to our environment. Nobody has ever denied temperatures rise and fall; of course they do, however, they are rising at an unprecedented rate. Large sections of perma-frost on Baffin Island have melted this year; this is not normal....perma meaning 'permanent'. Some interesting views on Climate Change and our planet as a whole can be read in some of James Lovelocks works (Gaia). I don't think the world will end, but the changes that we will make because of the climate change threat will do a lot of good. We need to have a society based on renewable resources, not oil. We need to do this for future generations. I personally don't care about peoples greed and denial based solely on their oil company corporate jobs. It is a real joke. They deny climate change, drive huge vehicles, live in houses big enough for a small village, and when it comes down to it, care only about themselves and their money.

There is a shortage of bee's in the world; use the back door.

Sage do build their rods in Washington; their reels however, are another matter. The first 2000 and 3000 series reels were made in the states and retailed for around $400 to $600. Sage then off-shored them to Korea. The reels were the same quality, but obviously the labor cost had gone down. The new retail price.........$400 to $600. Sage and most rod companies gouge all of us. Have a look at some of the most technical spin fishing equipment one day and see what you have to pay to get the best; considerably less than fly gear. The technology you pay for is complete BS; the same rod / technology that costs $600 this year will be half that price in three years. And anyone who thinks rod companies are developing new ground breaking technologies at the rate they claim needs their head examined. One of the best things I saw Sage do was come out with the TCR.......hilarious! The 8 wt. was a 10 wt. XP; yes, you need to be a 'technical' caster to cast an 8 wt. line on a 10 wt. rod. I have purchased some very expensive equipment in the past, but I don't think I'll ever spend more than $400 on a rod ever again......, and spending that much would require something very special.

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/08...e-hot-july.html I don't think anyone is spinning this issue; there are countless examples that anthropogenic climate change is a real problem.

Indeed.

Sometimes I really hate rain. I just wanted to mention that.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...ducks-shot.html Here's a few morons we can make fun of.

Post removed by Mod BBT http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?showtopic=1784

Smitty, that was the only part of my post you could respond to? Seems I hit a nerve (the truth hurts).

Indeed, I should have been more specific regarding the exact location of the advisory. You and I both know most people will continue to fish when the water temperature reaches a critical level. I also mentioned the methods used in Montana when they have been in similar situations. The government here, however, does not move towards protecting a resource to that necessary point; a closure of a stream with dangerous water temperatures. Montana closed the 'Mo' a few years back after 12 noon (because of high temps.); and it was only open to resident anglers on certain days / times. As I mentioned, guides and outfitters continued to run their businesses a few years back on the Bow despite the high mortality rate; and these are the people who in many ways lead the sport / industry? Guides, Outfitters, and Recreational anglers saw fish dying and responded by continuing to fish? I won't go and drive the FTR and sacrifice my time, I am selfish about my free time; I have no problem admitting that. I am that concerned about the fish, but it doesn't mean I shouldn't fish? It is why I'm concerned. I fish for very different reasons than you may think. If you need some lessons let me know; I'm sure I could teach you a lot.

Nice one!

? You lost me on that one.

6:30 am.....indeed, it will likely be fine, but you and both know it won't be later on, and that is when most people will be on the streams. I've seen this happen in the past; people choose to ignore the advisories because their leisure or business interests are more important than the health of the fishery. A few years back on the Bow the water temperature near the shore was in the low 70's. Did people stop fishing it? Hardly. Guides and Outfitters still ran their trips; there were dead fish all over the place. Fish were being caught in the centre of the river and being released near the shore; it was atrocious. Amazing that people would knowingly damage their source of income? Many people are generally selfish, and don't care about what is the right thing to do if it means they have to make adjustments to their lifestyle, or it affects their wallets. I will be away this weekend fishing in another province, but if I was here I would suggest we meet at 2 or 3 in the afternoon; that way I could skip rocks into the warm water where people will inevitably choose to ignore our biologist’s recommendations. SL