Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fishing Discussion

View Poll Results: What type of stillwater trout fishery would you prefer at your favourite lake?
C&R with the chance of catching trout up to 25" 112 42.75%
Limit of 1 under 18" with a good chance of fish over 22" 47 17.94%
Limit of 1 over 18" with a good chance of fish over 20" 38 14.50%
Limit of 3 any size with a good chance of fish over 16" 49 18.70%
Limit of 5 any size with a good chance of fish over 12" 16 6.11%
Voters: 262. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #241  
Old 03-02-2011, 12:47 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigtoad View Post
You're probably right but:
1. I'm hoping that there will be more people that vote because generally, the larger the sample, the more accurate/valid the data. I'm not sure what I'll do with that data or how skewed it is being on an outdoor forum but it might be interesting to pass along to SRD or a regional biologist, just so that they are aware. More votes would help but I agree, I don't the % is going to change much.

2. I am also hoping that we are getting close to the end of anyone having anything left to say; including name calling, and perhaps there are a few folks that haven't been heard to give a few constructive things to say from different sides of the spectrum? I think I'm pretty much done any ranting and raving I have left and will probably sit most of the last bit out in respect to others who haven't shared.

If we continue as we have, with only a few sharing and going in circles, then yes, I'll ask to close the poll. Thanks for your input.

Cheers.
Bigtoad, I'm not slamming you with the following comments about your poll however......you can create any poll that you want in order to achieve the results that you desire. Whether consciously or not, that is what happened with your poll IMO. The choices that were presented, other than for the C&R anglers that have no interest in eating fish, created a skewed poll. No big surprise there.

If you worded the poll differently or offered different options you would have came up with different results. For example, instead of saying "a good chance of catching 12"" you had said "with an average size of 12" with a chance of catching 16"" the poll would have been had different results. There are allot of different combinations that could have been used that would change the results of the poll everytime. Do you know what I'm saying?

Like I said, this is not a slam against you, your poll maybe , but not you personally. I knew just from reading the poll options what your position was and the results that you wanted to achieve. If a good ol' boy like me can see it, I'm pretty sure that the talking heads at SRD will as well. I'm just sayin'.......
Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 03-02-2011, 12:54 PM
Doc's Avatar
Doc Doc is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
I don't think that changing 30% of existing stocked lakes into "quality" fisheries in order to please 10% (I think that I'm being generous with that figure) of the fishing community is balanced.
Curious how you get 10%? If SRD doesn't know how do you?

Here's lies the problem with the management of our lakes. SRD needs to start with the basics and go from there. Does SRD know how many anglers there are in Alberta? No. They can tell you how many licenses were purchased but what about those over 65, those under 16 and our aboriginal citizens? A guess at best. Studies need to be done, data needs to be collected and plans need to be made and followed through with according to that data to make our fisheries the best damn fisheries we could hope for. Then they need to re-study the data on a continuance basis to then tweak our fisheries. Throw the models they follow now out the window (which I believe is a general X amount of trout x the number of hectares = the amount of stocked trout). Lakes like McLeod (Carson/Pegasus) will get more because of high fishing pressure and "quality" lakes get less because of the special regs but generally there doesn't appear to be a lot of thought that goes into it.

Now I know our boys running the show aren't stupid, they're highly qualified and I also know it all comes down to money. How much is it going to cost to manage our fisheries right? They really need to look at Parkland County in Manitoba for that and see how much they're spending and then the return that area is bringing in from anglers now visiting from all over North America due to those huge trout.

I think it's time we all sit down for 5 mins and write an email to our local fisheries biologist, MLA, the Minister and the Premiere. Let them know, we want great fishing here too.
__________________
Visit my BLOG.
Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:00 PM
Gust Gust is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 6,408
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Bigtoad, I'm not slamming you with the following comments about your poll however......you can create any poll that you want in order to achieve the results that you desire. Whether consciously or not, that is what happened with your poll IMO. The choices that were presented, other than for the C&R anglers that have no interest in eating fish, created a skewed poll. No big surprise there.

If you worded the poll differently or offered different options you would have came up with different results. For example, instead of saying "a good chance of catching 12"" you had said "with an average size of 12" with a chance of catching 16"" the poll would have been had different results. There are allot of different combinations that could have been used that would change the results of the poll everytime. Do you know what I'm saying?

Like I said, this is not a slam against you, your poll maybe , but not you personally. I knew just from reading the poll options what your position was and the results that you wanted to achieve. If a good ol' boy like me can see it, I'm pretty sure that the talking heads at SRD will as well. I'm just sayin'.......
I noticed this too, it's called a push-poll, politicians use this polling method often to always get the answer they want,,, faux-democracy.

However, someone intiated a debate and honestly even the mudslinging between a few provided a decent crosscut of an Alberta Angler.

How about a debate on how and what questions are asked?

I still don't know what degree of quality people regard as quality?

Is this poll for those up Edmonton way only?

What is a good fishing day? Limiting out? Catching 3-25 inchers? Seeing big risers? Having a great day on the water with nary a fish in sight? What is the age of the anglers? How often do they target Trout?

You know, Bigtoad, I think there are steward programs where you could gather a team and manage a lake.

Hunter makes a good point though, about joe fisherguy who discovers his local pond is now designated flyfishing only.

The poll needs to be more chunky, a few pages at least.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:07 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Hey pikester, what time is the book burning party?

I don't find anything particularly nasty being posted but I have a bit of a thicker skin than most, and I know it. If there's something on the thread that you find particularly derogatory or against the rules in any way then by all means, report it to the mods and it will be removed. I don't spend allot of time on the fishing threads so this thread might be particularly disturbing to some relative to the other threads that are on this forum.

I don't think that the mods would close down this thread due to content but that's just IMO. AO is not about censorship and I'm sure that one or more mods have already read or are following this thread. Any of you mods want to chime in here.

Based on the amount of reads of this thread I think that although allot of people are not posting they are still reading the thread and they might find some of what is being posted interesting or informative. You might disagree with that but why would you want to try to decide what's best for them to read?
LOL

I gotta agree with Dave...seriously...we can agree about something you know.

I like Dave's style of discussion. It is different but he is a great debater. Lots of fun. He is great at twisting and redirection. He is a master debater.

Pikster... If you don't like it...maybe....don't read it?

Most people don't post...but clearly people like reading. Probably fewer reads when it is not -30 out...

Plus I like trying to emulate Dave's use of smiles...
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:09 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Bigtoad, I'm not slamming you with the following comments about your poll however......you can create any poll that you want in order to achieve the results that you desire. Whether consciously or not, that is what happened with your poll IMO. The choices that were presented, other than for the C&R anglers that have no interest in eating fish, created a skewed poll. No big surprise there.

If you worded the poll differently or offered different options you would have came up with different results. For example, instead of saying "a good chance of catching 12"" you had said "with an average size of 12" with a chance of catching 16"" the poll would have been had different results. There are allot of different combinations that could have been used that would change the results of the poll everytime. Do you know what I'm saying?

Like I said, this is not a slam against you, your poll maybe , but not you personally. I knew just from reading the poll options what your position was and the results that you wanted to achieve. If a good ol' boy like me can see it, I'm pretty sure that the talking heads at SRD will as well. I'm just sayin'.......
LOL

Dave...the last poll you posted gave you the total opposite of what you were hoping for. In other words your poll essentially agreed with the premise behind this poll.

How about start your own poll so we can get another thread started.
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:19 PM
aulrich's Avatar
aulrich aulrich is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,111
Default

My vote would be to stop beating this dead horse, at least for a while. This topic has had three way too long threads.

Time to bury the hatchet.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:24 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Curious how you get 10%? If SRD doesn't know how do you?

Here's lies the problem with the management of our lakes. SRD needs to start with the basics and go from there. Does SRD know how many anglers there are in Alberta? No. They can tell you how many licenses were purchased but what about those over 65, those under 16 and our aboriginal citizens? A guess at best. Studies need to be done, data needs to be collected and plans need to be made and followed through with according to that data to make our fisheries the best damn fisheries we could hope for. Then they need to re-study the data on a continuance basis to then tweak our fisheries. Throw the models they follow now out the window (which I believe is a general X amount of trout x the number of hectares = the amount of stocked trout). Lakes like McLeod (Carson/Pegasus) will get more because of high fishing pressure and "quality" lakes get less because of the special regs but generally there doesn't appear to be a lot of thought that goes into it.

Now I know our boys running the show aren't stupid, they're highly qualified and I also know it all comes down to money. How much is it going to cost to manage our fisheries right? They really need to look at Parkland County in Manitoba for that and see how much they're spending and then the return that area is bringing in from anglers now visiting from all over North America due to those huge trout.

I think it's time we all sit down for 5 mins and write an email to our local fisheries biologist, MLA, the Minister and the Premiere. Let them know, we want great fishing here too.
I pulled the 10% out of the air to make a point. It all comes down to your own perception I guess and drawing your own conclusions from there. If you surround yourself with people that want something a certain way then your perception of what the majority wants may not be as realistic as you think.

Yes, you are entirely correct that no one knows what the exact number of anglers are in the province. Licensed yes, but total no. SRD can make a pretty good guesstimate based on what they do know though.

I think that the best solution to confirm either way what anglers want is to ask SRD to conduct a survey of all licensed anglers. It should include a section with the number of children in the home and the counts of the children should count towards how the angler votes. This would cover licensed anglers as well as their children that will inherit the fishing waters from us adults. The only group not covered would be seniors and an online or similar poll could be available for them. Is there any logic to my thinking?

If done fairly, whatever the results, I would be happy to live with it. As I have previously stated, I do see an upside with easing the fishing pressure in harder to get to lakes as a result of creating easy to get to "quality" fisheries close to large urban areas like Calgary and Edmonton.
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:30 PM
Fishfinder's Avatar
Fishfinder Fishfinder is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by aulrich View Post
My vote would be to stop beating this dead horse, at least for a while. This topic has had three way too long threads.

Time to bury the hatchet.
No way! This is way too entertaining...and interesting
Of the choices, I voted for the first one. And if I really felt like eating some trout, I'd just go to another lake where permitted to keep some.
Cheers n GL all
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:33 PM
Bigtoad's Avatar
Bigtoad Bigtoad is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
I noticed this too, it's called a push-poll, politicians use this polling method often to always get the answer they want,,, faux-democracy.
I wasn't trying to sway the poll (too much) when I came up with the questions. There were 5 different options as I saw them; I guess I could have done a "1 any size" but thought 1 over and 1 under would still give a good choice. As for the size of fish, I put down what I thought was reasonable for an accessible stocked trout lake. I know of a one that has a 5 fish limit and produce fish over 20" but it's relatively isolated. I know many more where the average is 12".

However, you can tweek the average size of the fish for each question and debate what is a more reasonable average size (or leave it out altogether) but it's 75% vs. 25% for quality vs. quantity, as I see it. It's not even close. C&R alone is 40% of the vote and a limit of 5 is 6%.

I don't see any skewing there boys. I see you coming up with excuses and giving the line of, "90% of statistics are inaccurate," to try and skew what you really wish it would be. "Well, this is NOT what the average fishermen in Alberta wants," or "Oh, the questions are misleading," or whatever. Stop complaining and coming up with excuses. It's obvious what the average fishermen wants that is on this poll. I'll let those numbers continue to speak for themselves. Go skew yourself (Oh man, I just could NOT resist that!)

Cheers.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:45 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
Curious how you get 10%? If SRD doesn't know how do you?

Here's lies the problem with the management of our lakes. SRD needs to start with the basics and go from there. Does SRD know how many anglers there are in Alberta? No. They can tell you how many licenses were purchased but what about those over 65, those under 16 and our aboriginal citizens? A guess at best. Studies need to be done, data needs to be collected and plans need to be made and followed through with according to that data to make our fisheries the best damn fisheries we could hope for. Then they need to re-study the data on a continuance basis to then tweak our fisheries. Throw the models they follow now out the window (which I believe is a general X amount of trout x the number of hectares = the amount of stocked trout). Lakes like McLeod (Carson/Pegasus) will get more because of high fishing pressure and "quality" lakes get less because of the special regs but generally there doesn't appear to be a lot of thought that goes into it.

Now I know our boys running the show aren't stupid, they're highly qualified and I also know it all comes down to money. How much is it going to cost to manage our fisheries right? They really need to look at Parkland County in Manitoba for that and see how much they're spending and then the return that area is bringing in from anglers now visiting from all over North America due to those huge trout.

I think it's time we all sit down for 5 mins and write an email to our local fisheries biologist, MLA, the Minister and the Premiere. Let them know, we want great fishing here too.
I pulled the 10% out of the air to make a point. It all comes down to your own perception I guess and drawing your own conclusions from there. If you surround yourself with people that want something a certain way then your perception of what the majority wants may not be as realistic as you think.

Yes, you are entirely correct that no one knows what the exact number of anglers are in the province. Licensed yes, but total no. SRD can make a pretty good guesstimate based on what they do know though.

I think that the best solution to confirm either way what anglers want is to ask SRD to conduct a survey of all licensed anglers. It should include a section with the number of children in the home and the counts of the children should count towards how the angler votes. This would cover licensed anglers as well as their children that will inherit the fishing waters from us adults. The only group not covered would be seniors and an online or similar poll could be available for them. Is there any logic to my thinking?

If done fairly, whatever the results, I would be happy to live with it. As I have previously stated, I do see an upside with easing the fishing pressure in harder to get to lakes as a result of creating easy to get to "quality" fisheries close to large urban areas like Calgary and Edmonton.
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 03-02-2011, 01:53 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
Dave...the last poll you posted gave you the total opposite of what you were hoping for. In other words your poll essentially agreed with the premise behind this poll.
Actually I posted the poll as fairly as I could with the hopes of seeing what people on AO actually thought without trying to influence their decision one way or another. There was never an issue with the way that it was worded or the choices available because it was clear and concise. It was however allot less complicated than this issue in that there were only 2 clear choices and in no way can it be compared to this poll other than it was a poll as well.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:01 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
He is a master debater.
Thinking along the lines of fishing.........some might consider me a master baiter.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:15 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GustavMahler View Post
Is this poll for those up Edmonton way only?
I figured this poll more for the fellas down in Calgary until I saw posts from member(s) in Edmonton. We certainly do not have the challenges with catching bigger sized fish up here as down that way IMO. Or at least that's what I've been lead to believe from what I hear about the fishing down that way.
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:21 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfinder View Post
Of the choices, I voted for the first one. And if I really felt like eating some trout, I'd just go to another lake where permitted to keep some.
Well, I never thought of it that way. I still wouldn't want any of my "favourite" lakes changed to C&R where I can already catch bigger fish though. How about Morinville Rez? I'll give up that one!
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:30 PM
Doc's Avatar
Doc Doc is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 492
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Well, I never thought of it that way. I still wouldn't want any of my "favourite" lakes changed to C&R where I can already catch bigger fish though. How about Morinville Rez? I'll give up that one!
We'll take it!

It's small enough that it won't cost to much to poison the lake and kill of the Perch. It's close to power for aerators and it's got some deep holes in it but lots of shallow areas for good weed growth and lots of bugs.

Can ya throw in some trees with that though, not much for shelter there.
__________________
Visit my BLOG.
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 03-02-2011, 02:59 PM
Fishfinder's Avatar
Fishfinder Fishfinder is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Well, I never thought of it that way. I still wouldn't want any of my "favourite" lakes changed to C&R where I can already catch bigger fish though. How about Morinville Rez? I'll give up that one!
I see what you are saying.
I spose if I was more into eating my catch I may feel similar but it all depends on the lake lol. Some of My Fav lakes have smaller fish, but I love em for different reasons ie:scenery, non-crowded, if I'm boating or not, etc etc. However, I'd sacrifice one of em to CnR for sure, if it meant bigger fish. Not all of em though. There's gotta be a happy medium I reckon. Gotta leave some lakes for the kiddies to wrangle some easy small panfrys.
But in the end, I'll take the long day on the water in hopes of landing a huge fish over a gazillion lil fishies anyday. Tis why I love river fishn and love me sturg I'm glad the mercury level is high in the SSR, lotsa people won't eat the fish in there, so back into the water they go, to get larger and larger, and eventually come my way, to be caught, and released, again
(Srry got a lil off topic there ha!)
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:10 PM
Fishfinder's Avatar
Fishfinder Fishfinder is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,015
Default

Bullshead...example. Only allowed one keeper over 50 or 51cm I believe. Bout 20 inch I think. Anyways I've seen alot fish come outta that lake and they all range from 15"-24" with average I'd say 17-18". And I also watch many fisherman fish n fish that lake till they get there one keeper and zoom, off they go with it. It's their right and I'm fine with that.
However, I'd love to see it go full on CnR. As this great fishery would see larger average sizes with good chance of catching a beast or 2 or 3 or 4 or...
Then it turns from great fishery into Super Uper Duper Grand Fishery imo
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:32 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

its my opinion lake habitat has as much to do with the success as any regulation....maybe more. I believe all the regs in the world wont make a lake a quality fishery without proper habitat.

I must ask...is this poll or discussion being presented to the people who can make the change. Or is this the incentive to spur people on to contact the government fisheries people?

As ive stated im not against the proposal
1- stock less in the lakes listed as qaulity fisheries already present....use the surplus in other lakes that see high pressure
2- make the tweaks or adjustments to the lakes already listed as quality

But in all fairness i dont believe the proposal should be given any more lakes to be listed as quality until 'success' has been proven in the ones already present. Is that not fair?
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:34 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc View Post
We'll take it!

It's small enough that it won't cost to much to poison the lake and kill of the Perch. It's close to power for aerators and it's got some deep holes in it but lots of shallow areas for good weed growth and lots of bugs.

Can ya throw in some trees with that though, not much for shelter there.
Okay, deal then. Just killing off the perch would be enough for me. Now that you've convinced me, how are you going to convince the people that fish the lake.

Shade? Bring an umbrella.
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:45 PM
Sundancefisher's Avatar
Sundancefisher Sundancefisher is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Calgary Perchdance
Posts: 18,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Thinking along the lines of fishing.........some might consider me a master baiter.
ROTFLMAO.

Oh man...you are funny. We would have a gas fishing together...
Reply With Quote
  #261  
Old 03-02-2011, 03:48 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sundancefisher View Post
ROTFLMAO.

Oh man...you are funny. We would have a gas fishing together...

this might be a bad time to tell you guys this......................but my buddy Dave doesnt fish.....lol..kidding
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:07 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Lets simplify this.....obviously one group wants support and needs fisherman to back their cause. Im assuming this will take letters and emails to the people in power to make the wanted changes.

Bigtoad, Sun and Doc type and express themselfs really well.
Lets see what your letter would look like. Any one then can copy and paste it and send it with their signature.

that is of course if the 3 men agree on how to accomplish the desired result

Wont that accomplish more than a poll they may or not see?

Last edited by chubbdarter; 03-02-2011 at 04:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:18 PM
Fishfinder's Avatar
Fishfinder Fishfinder is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Lets simplify this.....obviously one group wants support and needs fisherman to back their cause. Im assuming this will take letters and emails to the people in power to make the wanted changes.

Bigtoad, Sun and Doc type and express themselfs really well.
Lets see what your letter would look like. Any one then can copy and paste it and send it with their signature.

that is of course if the 3 men agree on how to accomplish the desired result

Wont that accomplish more than a poll they may or not see?
I don't think the intent of this thread was for "they" to read, rather just someone looking for other's opinions on the matter but maybe I'm wrong.

I'd type out my letter but apparently I do not type or express myself well enuff to make the listJK!
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:20 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Lets simplify this.....obviously one group wants support and needs fisherman to back their cause. Im assuming this will take letters and emails to the people in power to make the wanted changes.

Bigtoad, Sun and Doc type and express themselfs really well.
Lets see what your letter would look like. Any one then can copy and paste it and send it with their signature.

that is of course if the 3 men agree on how to accomplish the desired result

Wont that accomplish more than a poll they may or not see?
I've posted it before but IMO you need to make a resolution to AFGA through your local F&G club. If it is supported and passed at club level and supported and passed at AFGA level then it will be presented to SRD for consideration. If it doesn't get support and approval along the way then there isn't enough support for the resolution.
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:28 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishfinder View Post
I don't think the intent of this thread was for "they" to read, rather just someone looking for other's opinions on the matter but maybe I'm wrong.

I'd type out my letter but apparently I do not type or express myself well enuff to make the listJK!
oh so this was just a exercise in typing on the computer...maybe kinda like why so many complaints about SRD not acting fast enough...someone has to poop or get off the pot.

FF you type up a letter and I'll sign it.....lol..sorry didnt mean to exclude you.
obviously anyone can type up a letter and people can decide who to back, at least its headed to the right place.

Im curious how long it would take if only 1 letter or petition was drafted because i dont believe Group A is in total aggrement about specifics.
Its quite clear group B doesnt want any changes.
p.s. ive changed my mind and am willing to conceed to vote for certain changes
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:38 PM
Fishfinder's Avatar
Fishfinder Fishfinder is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Medicine Hat
Posts: 2,015
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
oh so this was just a exercise in typing on the computer...maybe kinda like why so many complaints about SRD not acting fast enough...someone has to poop or get off the pot.

FF you type up a letter and I'll sign it.....lol..sorry didnt mean to exclude you.
obviously anyone can type up a letter and people can decide who to back, at least its headed to the right place.

Im curious how long it would take if only 1 letter or petition was drafted because i dont believe Group A is in total aggrement about specifics.
Its quite clear group B doesnt want any changes.
p.s. ive changed my mind and am willing to conceed to vote for certain changes
Nah I was jus dorking around, been laying in this darn bed waaay too long, meds are getting to me haha. Seriously though, there are indeed some great fishminds on here that could put together a much better letter than I and if I agreed, I'd happily sign it. It may be a process to get it into the hands of the people capable of making any changes, however talking/debating the issues is a great place to start
Cheers!
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:42 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
Im curious how long it would take if only 1 letter or petition was drafted because i dont believe Group A is in total aggrement about specifics.
Its quite clear group B doesnt want any changes.
Do you want me to write a form letter for group B?
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:43 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterDave View Post
Do you want me to write a form letter for group B?

Your the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:49 PM
chubbdarter's Avatar
chubbdarter chubbdarter is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: cowtown
Posts: 6,653
Default

A little lull in the action so this isnt a highjack
Dave how you healing?
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 03-02-2011, 04:57 PM
HunterDave HunterDave is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Copperhead Road, Morinville
Posts: 19,290
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chubbdarter View Post
A little lull in the action so this isnt a highjack
Dave how you healing?
Not bad. My funny bone's hurtin' a bit though. Starting to get cabin fever so if the weather lets up and it's nice enough I might go to Chickakoo on Friday to see if I can catch a few small brookies for the fryin' pan. It might take awhile to drill the hole left handed but I'll manage.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.