CTownTBoyz

Or maybe one of those guys you see nymphing the Racehorse at 12 noon on July 7. I watched 5 guys walk up Racehorse a couple years back on the second weekend of July. They were geared up with every gadget imaginable....including bobbers on every rod. It was weird.......seeing a bobber in that place at that time is like seeing a flasher. At first it shocks the hell out of ya, and then all you can do is laugh.

The ironic part about nymphing cutties is that it is not as productive as the dry fly (or streamer). So really.....why??

and, did he continue bobber fishing?

Nymphing for cutties? What's next...indicator fishing for Steelhead..scented flies for permit?

Agreed.

I don't know about this website specifically increasing traffic on the Bow. The million people adjacent the river, not to mention the 4 or 5 (?) fly shops and 100+ guides promoting and selling the Bow are probably the main culprits.... I do however; believe this website and the internet in general has had a huge impact on lesser known waters. I could fish The Gap ten years ago on a weekend and find seclusion. This summer I've never seen it so busy. It was a bummer, but I'm lucky I got to fish it ten and twenty years ago when nobody was around.... Smitty wrote: Question for you: "How is this website any different from picking up the phone and phoning one of the 6 fly shops in the city for a fishing report?" Hmmmmmm... It is much different. In a fly shop there is a certain amount of discreetness when discussing locations. Some waters are never mentioned because they are too delicate or metaphorically ‘sacred’ to be shared en masse. A website allows anyone to post and share anything; plus, it is way easier to scroll through dozens of reports. And again, to reiterate, websites have taken the discreet out of what should be earned knowledge or information proper one should be prudent in discussing. I love that when I learned to fish I had to explore…websites and the internet in general have taken that away from most people. I think a lot of anglers never explore which is really too bad. And is it a surprise…we live in a world where people expect results immediately…..why work out and diet when you can get liposuction? Myself, I still explore….it’s the best part about the sport (for me). But as far as the Bow goes……there are no secrets. The Bow of the 70s and 80s is gone. Geez, there was less traffic on the Missouri when I was down there in August than on the Bow. I counted 50+ trailers at Mac one day this year…..enjoy.

1:52 PM 24 votes for Nenshi. I'm impressed.

You are incorrect, in fact, organic food production can equal or better the yield of non-organic. Yield has more to to do with effective nutrient delivery - which can be done without the use of chemicals/pesticide/herbicide. You can even grow organic produce with hydroponics.

Interesting use of logic, too bad you can't apply it to climate change.

Off shore drilling is necessary, it is totally safe. There is no pollution downstream of the oil sands, that is a lie made up by greedy university researchers....one microscope is not enough for them. 2/3's of the spill in the Gulf has been contained and there has been little damage. Global warming is a myth. Scientists make up problems so they can get money. Now keep on stirrin' the pot, i'm goin fishin and I'm driving my Hummer right down to the river's edge!

A little background info..... Waste dumping Following the Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004, there have emerged allegations that after the outbreak of the Somali Civil War in the late 1991s, Somalia's long, remote shoreline was used as a dump site for the disposal of toxic waste. The huge waves which battered northern Somalia after the tsunami are believed to have stirred up tonnes of nuclear and toxic waste that was illegally dumped in Somali waters by several European firms. The European Green Party followed up these revelations by presenting before the press and the European Parliament in Strasbourg copies of contracts signed by two European companies—the Italian Swiss firm, Achair Partners, and an Italian waste broker, Progresso—and representatives of the warlords then in power, to accept 10 million tonnes of toxic waste in exchange for $80 million (then about £60 million). According to a report by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) assessment mission, there are far higher than normal cases of respiratory infections, mouth ulcers and bleeding, abdominal haemorrhages and unusual skin infections among many inhabitants of the areas around the northeastern towns of Hobbio and Benadir on the Indian Ocean coast—diseases consistent with radiation sickness. UNEP continues that the current situation along the Somali coastline poses a very serious environmental hazard not only in Somalia but also in the eastern Africa sub-region.[59][60] Under Article 9(1)(d) of the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, it is illegal for "any transboundary movement of hazardous wastes or other wastes: that results in deliberate disposal (e.g. dumping) of hazardous wastes or other wastes in contravention of this Convention and of general principles of international law".[61] According to Nick Nuttall of the United Nations Environmental Programme, "Somalia has been used as a dumping ground for hazardous waste starting in the early 1990s, and continuing through the civil war there," and "European companies found it to be very cheap to get rid of the waste, costing as little as $2.50 a tonne, where waste disposal costs in Europe are something like $1000 a tonne." [56][62] [edit] Illegal fishing At the same time, illegal trawlers began fishing Somalia's seas with an estimated $300 million of tuna, shrimp, and lobster being taken each year depleting stocks previously available to local fishermen. Through interception with speedboats, Somali fishermen tried to either dissuade the dumpers and trawlers or levy a "tax" on them as compensation. In an interview, Sugule Ali, one of the pirate leaders explained "We don't consider ourselves sea bandits. We consider sea bandits (to be) those who illegally fish and dump in our seas." Peter Lehr, a Somalia piracy expert at the University of St. Andrews says "It's almost like a resource swap, Somalis collect up to $100 million a year from pirate ransoms off their coasts and the Europeans and Asians poach around $300 million a year in fish from Somali waters."[22][63] According to Roger Middleton of Chatham House, "The problem of overfishing and illegal fishing in Somali waters, is a very serious one, and does affect the livelihoods of people inside Somalia […] the dumping of toxic waste on Somalia’s shores is a very serious issue, which will continue to affect people in Somalia long after the war has ended, and piracy is resolved."[64] To lure fish to their traps, foreign trawlers reportedly also use fishing equipment under prohibition such as nets with very small mesh sizes and sophisticated underwater lighting systems.[55] Under Article 56 of the Law of the Sea Convention: "In the exclusive economic zone, the coastal State has jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this Convention with regard to the protection and preservation of the marine environment". Article 57 of the Convention in turn outlines the limit of that jurisdiction: "The exclusive economic zone shall not extend beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured".[65]

Chris, you did engage me on the issue when you said: "Who are you (aside from out to lunch)..." There is no counterproductive filler in my post. I pointed out the truth in regards to blindsided opinions regarding an issue that I know most people know nothing about; rhetoric is hardly counterproductive filler. Furthermore, if you think for a second that the opinions on one side of this issue are not racist you're mistaken. If you've been to Somalia (not the Seychelles or Egypt) you would know this. There is a huge difference when people steal to survive than when people steal for personal gain. The attitude of vigilante justice to deal with a complex and socially marginalized indigent group of people is both morally distasteful and ignorant. I believe in standing up to the status quo in regards to social justice - even if I ostracize or isolate myself (which seems unfortunately to be common place in this province....judging by the votes). Chris, you wrote "This board is made up of thousands of different kinds of people who all have at least two things in common. The first is that we are looking to be a part of a unique fly fishing community where we can hang our hat and the second would be that not one of us would agree with your above quote. I don't know everyone on this board, but I think that is a safe bet." Again, do some research…. If you think racism doesn't exist you are 'out to lunch'. And if you think it is 'safe bet' that everyone on this board is not racist you're wrong; the statistics don't support it. Racism is more complex than segregation, or sitting at the back of the bus. The idea that one race (the Russians and rest of the West) can exploit, damage and implore their mighty hand on another culture (the Somalians) and their resources is racism. Furthermore the idea and approval that they {the Russians / West} can deal with any rebellion towards their actions by dropping people out in the middle of the ocean is both racist and despicable. I think the news article says it best; in Russia they capture 'pirates' and dump them out at sea in a dingy. I like to think that Canadians are above a beyond this type of archaic behavior; apparently I am mistaken according to at the present 15 to 4 votes. I'm proud of my opinions, and I'll stand up to anyone that says different.

C'mon Chris, the whole debate is about whether or not it's justifiable to dump people off in the middle of the ocean. More specifically it's about vigilante justice by western nations towards African nations (a complex but inherently racist issue). This isn't about Fly Fishing. Look inside the opinions; they're racist and ignorant with little understanding of the issue. The only thing being discussed is why it's ok to dump people in the middle of the ocean. If I offended you, too bad. I find it offensive to have a discussion about justified vigilantism towards people from one of the most war-torn poorest nations in the world - by people sitting at desks from one of the richest places in the world. To put it in perspective - most people in Somalia have experienced an immediate family member murdered, have no healthcare, and are malnourished. Sorry, but the discussion is in poor taste and racist. rac·ism   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled[rey-siz-uhm] Show IPA –noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

Not sure why this post was deleted.

From Nasa http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/cli...ow/?src=eoa-ann If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now? May 4, 2010 The first piece of evidence that the warming over the past few decades isn’t part of a natural cycle is how fast the change is happening. The biggest temperature swings our planet has experienced in the past million years are the ice ages. Based on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius. In the past century alone, the temperature has climbed about 0.7 degrees Celsius, which is roughly eight times faster than previous warming. The second reason that scientists think the current warming is not from natural influences is that, over the past century, scientists from all over the world have been collecting data on natural factors that influence climate—things like changes in the Sun’s brightness, major volcanic eruptions, and cycles such as El Niño and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. These observations have failed to show any long-term changes that could fully account for the recent, rapid warming of Earth’s temperature. Reconstructions of global temperature that include greenhouse gas increases and other human influences (red line, based on many models) closely match measured temperatures (dashed line). Those that only include natural influences (blue line, based on many models) show a slight cooling, which has not occurred. The ability of models to generate reasonable histories of global temperature is verified by their response to four 20th-century volcanic eruptions: each eruption caused brief cooling that appeared in observed as well as modeled records. (Graph adapted from Hegerl and Zwiers et al., 2007.) Finally, scientists know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that it is released into the air when coal and other fossil fuels burn. Paleoclimate data show that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are higher than they have been in the past 800,000 years. There is no plausible explanation for why such high levels of carbon dioxide would not cause the planet to warm. Air bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice preserve an 800,000-year record of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which naturally varied from about 180 to about 280 parts per million. Once humans began burning large quantities of coal and oil in the 19th century, concentrations rose to 315 parts per million by 1958 (when direct measurements of carbon dioxide in the Antarctic atmosphere began) to 380 parts per million in 2007. (NASA graph by Robert Simmon, based on data from Keeling et al., 2008.) References Hegerl, G. C., Zwiers, F. W., Braconnot, P., Gillett, N. P., Luo, Y., Orsini, J. A., Nicholls, N., et al. (2007). Chapter 9: Understanding and attributing climate change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B. , Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.)] Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Jansen, E., Overpeck, J., Briffa, K.R. , Duplessy, J.-C , Joos, F., Masson-Delmotte, V., Olgao, D., et al. (2007). Chapter 6: Paleoclimate. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [solomon, S., Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B. , Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.)] Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Lean, J. L., & Rind, D. H. (2008). How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006. Geophysical Research Letters, 35(18). Lockwood, M., & Fröhlich, C. (2008). Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. II. Different reconstructions of the total solar irradiance variation and dependence on response time scale. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 464(2094), 1367-1385. Lüthi, D., Le Floch, M., Bereiter, B., Blunier, T., Barnola, J., Siegenthaler, U., Raynaud, D., et al. (2008). High-resolution carbon dioxide concentration record 650,000–800,000 years before present. Nature, 453(7193), 379-382. [Download 800,000-Year CO2 Data] Steele, L. P., Krummel, P. B., & Langenfelds, R. L. (2007). Atmospheric CO2 concentrations from sites in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research GASLAB air sampling network (August 2007 version). In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

Climate change science sound: researchers Last Updated: Thursday, May 6, 2010 | 4:07 PM ET Comments264Recommend102CBC News The journal Science has published a letter defending the integrity of climate science, signed by 255 members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. "We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular," the letter reads. The letter, signed by leading scientists, including 11 Nobel laureates, confirms that the conclusions of climate science — that human behaviour is changing the planet's climate — are based on the work of thousands of scientists. "There is compelling, comprehensive and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend," the letter says. In particular, the letter says, the evidence shows that, "the planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere," and "most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities." "A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact." The letter was signed by scientists from 53 different disciplines, from environmental science to geophysics, to microbial biology. "Society has two choices: we can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively," the letter reads. The letter comes in response to growing political pressure on climate scientists, particularly in the wake of the release of more than 1,000 emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit. Letter calls for end of 'McCarthy-like threats' Critics of climate science said the emails showed that researchers had been fudging data and suppressing findings that did not agree with the conclusion that climate change is occurring and is the result of human activity. The incident was dubbed "climategate" by various commentators. The letter called "for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them." In April, an independent panel of experts recommended by the Royal Society found that the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia did not engage in "scientific malpractice." The panel did not analyze whether the researchers' conclusions were correct but investigated the scientific process at the research unit and found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/05...l#ixzz0nHD9c3iS

Although I agree with you, one has to ask the question why someone with mobilty problems or heart and lung conditions need special parking so they can go for a hike through the mall? One can't deny there is some abuse (see Lynn's comment above).

You shouldn't have any problem finding a University research group who is studying and developing alternative energy sources; there's a whole division at U of C Engineering devoted to solar power. Are your philanthropic notions serious?

Indeed, there's no alternatives to oil and gas....I mean look at the foot-print wind and sun power would make if people were to start putting these things up on their homes! The impact would be equivilant to a massive oil spill in the Gulf! And just think if one of those wind turbines busted! Think of all the wind that would leak everywhere, and all the hydrocarbon's they'd produce; we'd be heading to another ice-age in no time!! I actually looked into putting two wind generators on our home in Calgary through a company called Windterra. The quote I got was 16k for two generators capable of producing 4000 watts /hr. with only a light wind. At 16k it's really nothing, less that most people's second, third or fourth car. You can even have them hooked up to the grid (for no additional cost), and legally in Canada; electric companies have to buy any excess power you produce. The generators are only 6 feet tall and designed to work at low wind speeds (they are stationary and require no adjusting for wind direction). They're also almost silent. Too bad it's illegal to have a wind generator in Calgary. That said, I'm thinking of breaking the law kind of like CLUCK. You just gotta wonder why they're illegal?

Prices will go up in desirable locations; I'd say with the above logic Deer Run, Deer Ridge etc. would probably go the same way. I guess if the is a massive transition (and development) towards alternative energy sources then maybe the cost of travel won't be so great. Or the other option is to by a less expensive house in a less expensive neighborhood - and fish on weekends wherever you want...... But if were to put money on it; the human race will wean itself off oil towards alternative energy; if we can keep the every-growing power of lobbyists in check. Fingers-crossed.

I'm curious, why? And what other types of communities will increase in value?

U.S. oil spill could hit Atlantic tuna Last Updated: Monday, May 3, 2010 | 10:43 AM ET Comments65Recommend49CBC News Tuna bring in big money for some fishermen in the Maritimes. (CBC) The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico could have a serious long-term impact on tuna stocks off Atlantic Canada. The Gulf is the spawning ground for bluefin tuna that migrate to the Atlantic region. "Many fish are going down to the Gulf to spawn," said Jackie Savitz, a marine biologist with Oceana, an international conservation group based in Washington. "The larvae of the fish is actually the most sensitive life stage to the toxic effects of oil. And one fish that's spawning right now down there is the bluefin tuna." There is already concern for the health of the Atlantic bluefin tuna population. It has fallen 90 per cent since the 1970s, and the World Wildlife Fund says the species faces a serious risk of extinction. Stocks in the western Atlantic are in better shape than in the east, and the oil spill strikes at an economically important fishery in Atlantic Canada. P.O.V.: Offshore oil: Should we be drilling offshore? "It's definitely going to have some effect on the spawning mass and the juveniles," said Walter Bruce, chair of the P.E.I. Tuna Working Group. "The bigger fish, the giants as we call them, most of them I would think, are out of that area by now and on their way this way. So it may not affect the next few years … but 10 years down the road we could see a big decline in the catch." Oyster fishers could benefit The spill has also shut down one of the largest oyster fisheries in the U.S., which could bring a sales boost for other oyster producers. While Rory McLellan of the P.E.I. Shellfish Association takes no joy in it, he expects the closure of the fishery in the Gulf of Mexico will mean higher prices for oysters coming out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. "While the animal is not exactly the same as ours, some of the markets are the same," said McLellan. "If, God forbid, they're not able to save that shoreline, it should increase demand for oysters coming in from Canada." The oil spill began April 20 after a drill rig exploded off the coast of Louisiana. Officials estimate it is spilling nearly 5,000 barrels a day, and it could be months before the flow is Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/05...l#ixzz0mt3GpMkF

The other major advantage of pant-style waders is they actually look like 'pants' on the bottom instead of moulding into the socks. Major advantage: you don't look like a wiener.

A short article I read in the Guardian a few weeks back. US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015 • Shortfall could reach 10m barrels a day, report says • Cost of crude oil is predicted to top $100 a barrel The US military has warned that surplus oil production capacity could disappear within two years and there could be serious shortages by 2015 with a significant economic and political impact. The energy crisis outlined in a Joint Operating Environment report from the US Joint Forces Command, comes as the price of petrol in Britain reaches record levels and the cost of crude is predicted to soon top $100 a barrel. "By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 million barrels per day," says the report, which has a foreword by a senior commander, General James N Mattis. It adds: "While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India." The US military says its views cannot be taken as US government policy but admits they are meant to provide the Joint Forces with "an intellectual foundation upon which we will construct the concept to guide out future force developments." The warning is the latest in a series from around the world that has turned peak oil – the moment when demand exceeds supply – from a distant threat to a more immediate risk. The Wicks Review on UK energy policy published last summer effectively dismissed fears but Lord Hunt, the British energy minister, met concerned industrialists two weeks ago in a sign that it is rapidly changing its mind on the seriousness of the issue. The Paris-based International Energy Agency remains confident that there is no short-term risk of oil shortages but privately some senior officials have admitted there is considerable disagreement internally about this upbeat stance. Future fuel supplies are of acute importance to the US army because it is believed to be the biggest single user of petrol in the world. BP chief executive, Tony Hayward, said recently that there was little chance of crude from the carbon-heavy Canadian tar sands being banned in America because the US military like to have local supplies rather than rely on the politically unstable Middle East. But there are signs that the US Department of Energy might also be changing its stance on peak oil. In a recent interview with French newspaper, Le Monde, Glen Sweetnam, main oil adviser to the Obama administration, admitted that "a chance exists that we may experience a decline" of world liquid fuels production between 2011 and 2015 if the investment was not forthcoming. Lionel Badal, a post-graduate student at Kings College, London, who has been researching peak oil theories, said the review by the American military moves the debate on. "It's surprising to see that the US Army, unlike the US Department of Energy, publicly warns of major oil shortages in the near-term. Now it could be interesting to know on which study the information is based on," he said. "The Energy Information Administration (of the department of energy) has been saying for years that Peak Oil was "decades away". In light of the report from the US Joint Forces Command, is the EIA still confident of its previous highly optimistic conclusions?" The Joint Operating Environment report paints a bleak picture of what can happen on occasions when there is serious economic upheaval. "One should not forget that the Great Depression spawned a number of totalitarian regimes that sought economic prosperity for their nations by ruthless conquest," it points out. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/ap...oduction-supply

Another thing that works great (even for deer) is crushed up bars of soap. Sprinkle the soap around the perimeter of your garden, after a couple rains it will disappear but it's effective for months (it also won't hurt your garden or grass). Of course blood meal (and bone meal) are the best options and you can mix them directly into the soil (it will still deter rabbits). Both are excellent sources of slow release Nitrogen (blood meal) and Phosphorus (bone meal). Just watch the amounts; especially the blood meal which can burn plants really quickly if you over apply. I just had another thought...maybe fish could work too.