CTownTBoyz
-
Posts
121 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by CTownTBoyz
-
-
Maybe he's not too concerned about the fee because he's one of those annoying high income earners that's going to haggle them down to $5.25?
Maybe.
-
Good point, I wonder how many Canadians will be like "that's it, I'm selling my place in Phoenix because I can't afford the $5.50 twice a year!."
.....and for the extra 5.50... i could care less..
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.....
-
Are you talking Native species or Native waters ?
Simple fact is most of the still waters in Banff that have native fish only have native cutts because they were stocked there. So how far do you want to go with this.
Also when we walk through trails we can kill plants and grass. We use the water for Banff and lake Louise..How far does one go ?
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).
-
I think parks has a pretty good handle on that being that Native Fishes are protected.
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.
-
CTown:
Probably a bad use of quotes on my part - I apologize. When I said 'noble" I actually meant it as a sincere compliment. My position on the matter is more selfish, no two ways about it.
Cheers,
Smitty
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.
-
What is the economic impact in revenue loss for our National Parks if fishing was not allowed?
I believe the revenue gained from it is a large part of the economic dynamic of sustaining its viability.
What gain would there be if fishing was not allowed in our national parks?
Revenue from fishing and tourism generated from this activity helps to feed enforcement of
all the other rules. The parks cannot exist within a vacuum.
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.
-
CTown:
Its incredibly difficult to debate your position, because your position inherently more 'noble' than mine. So my only point in this reply is to say that I am very confident that my fishing activities in the Park have minimal impact and disturb less than many of the folks who choose not to "harass" wildlife.
I think I could pose a successful argument that fishing for fish, may, in some circumstances, may actually be less harmful than the idiots feeding the wildlife, or stopping at every bear and elk sighting to rubberneck and/or stress the animals out - particularly those with young - by their photographing activities.
But I recognize the "red-herringness" of my argument in stating that at the end of the day, no matter what anyone else does, I still am stressing the fish out by catching them. I just wanted someone to recognize that at least many of us do our harassing with far more respect than some people who conduct themselves in a rather ignorant manner.
Smitty
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.
-
sorry ctown have to disagree the reason for the establishment of the parks, is for our enjoyment, had nothing to do with animals.
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.
-
First, a small digression or hijack if you will. I stand firmly opposed to closing down the Parks to fishing. Close the fishing, ok, then make sure no other other consumptive activity, golfing, skiing, hiking, canoeing, and activity that may interfere with the natural expression of animals' lives. That would be great in accomplishing a laudable goal; empty parks with no people. Course, you'll have to turn back over 100 years of policy that clearly state the Parks were meant to be enjoyed. By people. With - yes, wait for it - activities that may be consumptive in nature or have some impact. I just hate that attitude of "lets-ban-it-cause-we're-in-a-federally-mandated-area"...(and its not like the Parks are a free for all or aren't already heavily regulated...)
Smitty
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.
-
......... If the cause is deforestation, loss of habitat, removal of fish, etc, fix those problems by reversing the damage or changing the regulations instead of trying an artificial fix ..................................
Exactly.
-
You outta try bow river brown trout. Just catch em by the sewage outflow by the calf robe bridge.
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.
-
There is no question that you save money tying flies - for sure. And you can make it as expensive as you want with tools etc.
I use a NorVise (I paid $200.00 at the time) , ceramic bobbin ($20.00) and scissors ($25.00).....and occasionally a Bodkin($2.00). And I've tied everything including Classic Atlantic Salmon flies, Bonefish Flies, Bass Flies, Tarpon Flies, and of course trout flies.
If you get a ceramic bobbin it will last forever, the one I use I've had for close to 7 years. I've had my NorVice for 12 years, but I replace my scissors about every two years ($20.00- $30.00).
I have some material from first tying kit that I got when I was 13...I'm 37. I tied commercially for years and I figure I've tied somewhere between 40k and 50k flies (that is a scary thought....but what’s even more scary is I know some people that tie that many every year or two).
The materials that can get expensive are Dry Fly Hackle, and Hooks. That said, Dry Fly Hackle (Saddles) last a long long long time. And lately I don't even use them much....The mayflies I tie are usually Comparaduns (no hackle...and they work the best - even for the toughest fish).
Fly Tying will save you money, but the most valuable thing you’ll get from it is an understanding of the fishes prey, their habits/behaviors etc.
An absolutely essential component of an accomplished Fly Fisher is the ability to tie flies.
-
I once tied one in hot pink.....just to prove to myself that color makes little to no difference with dry flies (in rivers).
I would also use synthetic dubbing (or carpet), and no hackle......but I guess, that's not really an EHC.
-
-More Carp
-Inconnu
-just one Permit
-Steelhead
-Atlantic Salmon (Europe)
-
Bob Popovics, and Tim Borski.
Locally, the best tiers I've seen are Aaron Caldwell, and Kevin Noel.
-
I'm not anti-hunting, but considering the current Grizzly population in this province I agree the Grizzly hunt should be banned- for the time being.
-
I wonder when the first animal dies from the use of this (lethal) weapon, if Taser Int. , law enforcement etc., will blame the fatality on 'excited delirium' or Cocaine.
-
I notice alot of MEC reccomendations, but I remember a few years ago there was talks of MEC supporting anti-hunting groups. Where do they stand on fishing? Just something to note before you choose to support the brand.
? Source....
-
MEC is a good choice, and / or any other manufacturer that makes outdoor wear. Which brings me to my next point; buy rain gear (or any outdoor gear e/ Waders) from reputable companies that make outdoor wear like Arcteryx, MEC, Mountain Hardwear (my fave), North Face, Patagonia, Cloud Veil (RIP), etc.
Fly Rod companies make fly rods for fishing, ...... and jackets for brand whores.
-
Well said Badcaster. I have thought about this many times and "Yes" I consider fishing a sport
and definitely deeper than just a sport.sport (noun) Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)
1. competitive physical activity
an individual or group competitive activity involving physical exertion or skill, governed by rules, and sometimes engaged in professionally
2. pastime
an active pastime participated in for pleasure or exercise
Do you consider fishing competitive?
-
.......... Hunting and the final act of killing is pure, C&R fishing is an abomination of a primal act.
hah, nice one! love it!
Customer Service Out The Window?
in General Chat - Fishing Related
Posted
But it's OK to haggle the small shops for the same price as the big box stores....right Rick?