CTownTBoyz

But it's OK to haggle the small shops for the same price as the big box stores....right Rick?

Maybe.

The government loves people like you guys, you just brush off the $5.50, and the fact that you and the every other Canadian are paying for Wall Street’s bad bets, GM's shite management/cars, Bernanke's Yacht, Geintner's holiday homes, etc. etc. It's not the amount, it's the principle (and by principle I am referring to both the monetary and ethical meanings.) Taxing everyone, and installing hidden (or not) fees to cover the bad bets of the global business sector based in the US- on US dollars, is the biggest fraud robbery in economic history. That said, judging by all of the bush fires occuring and spreading throughout the Middle East, it won't be long.....

Native species specifically in their native waters. Nevermind the grass; that's why you are supposed to remain on marked trails; and there is a cap on development in the park. So , if they reintroduce Buffalo at some point, seeing how they would be introduced - should we have a hunting draw. It's funny how mushrooms have more protection than native fish (in their native waters).

How are native fishes protected if you are allowed to fish for them (taking into account mortality from C&R)? Certainly, from a national park/conservation perspective wouldn’t it make more sense for there to be no fishing for native species in park boundaries? There are lots of places in the park with introduced species.

No apology necessary, and again this is just debate. In fact, I hiked Bourgeau Lake last July and kicked myself for not buying a license, and packing in a rod.

There are National Parks in some of the remotest places in Canada. Some receive less than a thousand visitors a year. How do these places sustain their viability without restaurants, hotels, golf courses, and....fishing. Are you suggesting that BNP would collapse without fishing? Monod's has practically closed their fishing section of the store in Banff, and save Minnewanka, most of the fishing guides in the area guide outside the park.

I don't mean it to be noble or righteous-not at all. I'm just discussing the whole concept of the National Park. It was just a branch off the idea of reestablishing the upper-upper Bow to what it was 100 or so years ago.

Source? You are incorrect, in fact, the intial development of Banff National Park was under the Rocky Mountain Parks Act in 1887 which was intended to balance development and conservation. Can you see the irony in what you just said....parks have nothing to do with animals and are there for our enjoyment? Doesn't the enjoyment involved in the development of National Parks have to do with the interconnective habitat that is created for animals- and people?

And my last response..... The thing I can't understand about fishing in the national parks is it seems to contradict every 'comparable' activity that is illegal i.e. hunting, removing fauna, rocks etc. And it seems to go against established park rules. Park Rules *It is unlawful to collect or remove any natural objects or historical artifacts (this includes berries, wildflowers, mushrooms, antlers, wood, interesting rocks along the river, etc.). *It is unlawful to feed, entice or harass wildlife (this includes feeding them ‘natural’ food; it also includes what may look like tame wildlife such as birds or squirrels). *Pets must be leashed at all times. For their protection, never leave your pet unattended. Bears, coyotes, and even elk and deer may present a danger to your pet. *All food (even food in coolers) must be stored inside vehicle trunks or in tear-proof containers. You may camp only in designated areas The parks were "meant to be enjoyed", but they were also established for conservation, animal and environmental protection and intended to be restricted from most development. Certainly this is the direction Banff NP is going with the current caps on building throughout the park, increased wildlife fencing throughout, etc. The Golf Course at Banff Springs, the Hot Springs and the Chateau were really the products of CP Rail, and key factors in the development of the areas national park status, but do you think it would be possible to build another Golf Course, or Ski hill in the park? In regards to fixing streams via nutrient replacement, the Banff Park section of the Bow is great example of human influence, and the potential to repair a fishery by 'closing it' - where is should be closed. IMHO.

Hijack cont. The thing I can't understand about fishing in the national parks is it seems to contradict every 'comparable' activity that is illegal i.e. hunting, removing fauna, rocks etc. And it seems to go against established park rules. Park Rules *It is unlawful to collect or remove any natural objects or historical artifacts (this includes berries, wildflowers, mushrooms, antlers, wood, interesting rocks along the river, etc.). *It is unlawful to feed, entice or harass wildlife (this includes feeding them ‘natural’ food; it also includes what may look like tame wildlife such as birds or squirrels). *Pets must be leashed at all times. For their protection, never leave your pet unattended. Bears, coyotes, and even elk and deer may present a danger to your pet. *All food (even food in coolers) must be stored inside vehicle trunks or in tear-proof containers. You may camp only in designated areas The parks were "meant to be enjoyed", but they were also established for conservation, animal and environmental protection and intended to be restricted from most development. Certainly this is the direction Banff NP is going with the current caps on building throughout the park, increased wildlife fencing throughout, etc. The Golf Course at Banff Springs, the Hot Springs and the Chateau were really the products of CP Rail, and key factors in the development of the areas national park status, but do you think it would be possible to build another Golf Course, or Ski hill in the park? In regards to fixing streams via nutrient replacement, the Banff Park section of the Bow is great example of human influence, and the potential to repair a fishery by 'closing it' - where is should be closed. IMHO.

Is nutrient replacement really about 'fixing' the stream(s), or about creating fisheries that produce large® fish so that recreational anglers can catch (and release) more quality fish? Restoring riparian areas and eliminating our impact is really the solution. Nutrient replacement is just creating an artificial fishery (and one has to wonder...is the intention of replacing nutrients to 'fix' the fishery for us, or the fish). Monger, you mentioned Dogpound Creek; great example of 'restoration.' And the idea of closing fisheries every second year of so; that would help immensely, and it is only a matter of time before that is exactly what will happen- out of necessity. So how would you restore the upper Bow (in the park; above Bow falls)? It has been a protected area for over 100 years; except for angling. If anything, we have increased the nutrients in that section of the river, in particular from sewage runoff from Lake Louise. There are pictures of the first visitors to the Banff area with stringers of dozens of very large bull trout. What would happen to the fishery if it was permanently closed (it probably should be; it is in a National Park). When it comes down to it people are the problem, and habitat restoration/ protection is really the way to counter act the problem (if any exist). Sundance, something you would know about, the idea of nutrient replacement sounds a lot like dumping iron into the ocean to counteract C02, which you and I both know is a hare-brained scheme to continue to do the same thing, create the same problems, and use Band-Aids instead of stitches to close a massive wound that we ourselves created.

Exactly.

I had one from Policeman's once. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad.....it tasted like 'river'. Before everyone's stomach turn, do some research into all of those Thai shrimp we all eat, and were they come from....makes the Bow water look drinkable. At least here, we treat the sewage.

Brookies taste great; definately one of my favorite fish to eat. That said, where it is legal to keep Cutts, I eat those too- whenever possible. And when and if Bullies ever come back on the menu.....it'll be a great day, and a great shore lunch.