Category: Public Service Announcements (UAPSA) (Page 2 of 2)

For you, because I care.

We are at war.

October 13, 2011 / / 27 Comments

If you’ve been following this blog for any length of time you know that the Unaccomplished Angler doesn’t very often (if ever) take things too seriously. Whether that’s a shortcoming or not, serious just ain’t my style; not what the Unaccomplished Angler is about. But this is some serious business that deserves some serious attention.

This entry was spawned by a writing prompt at the Outdoor Blogger Network. Trout Unlimited and the Bristol Bay Road Show, are encouraging bloggers to address the following questions:  How do you feel about a foreign company potentially threatening one of our country’s greatest natural resources? Although you may never visit Bristol Bay, do you believe getting involved can make a positive impact? Other thoughts?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

When a country is invaded by an enemy, that country must be able to defend itself against the marauding forces. If it cannot adequately repel the enemy, the consequences will be devastating. No war in history ever resulted favorably for those on the receiving end of the assault (just ask most of Europe after WWII). Even though the enemy was ultimately defeated, collateral damage and casualties were severe. Much was lost that could never be replaced.

Bristol Bay is under similar attack from foreign invaders. A Canadian oil mining company, if it gets its way, will create what would be the largest open pit gold mine in North America: smack dab in the headwaters of Bristol Bay. If built, the mine would produce up to 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste that would have to be treated for hundreds of years.

Bristol Bay is a long ways away.

If you’re like me, you’ve never been to Bristol Bay, or even Alaska. Tucked away in a remote part of the Last Frontier, Bristol Bay is out of sight, out of mind, right? One has to assume that’s exactly how the enemy wants/expects us to feel. Look at the map – Bristol Bay is a long way from anywhere. How can environmental destruction and devastation to the last great salmon runs in North America possibly affect us? And what about the loss of 12,000 jobs and $500 million in economic benefits that are under threat from the proposed Pebble Mine? That can’t possibly effect my quality of life, right?  Out of sight, out of mind. That’s what they want.

Although armed with impressive spawning canines, the salmon of Bristol Bay cannot defend themselves against this threat. Nor can the voters of Alaska – the people whose cultures and livelihoods depend on the salmon. We must come to their collective aid, as a band of brothers, and take a stand.

Salmon – Bristol Bay – Alaska – the United States of America – is under attack. We are at war.  How we respond will determine our future for generations to come. I’d like visit the region one day. I’d like my descendents to be able to do the same. Will we sit idly and allow the enemy to run roughshod over what is ours, or will we resist?  It’s in our nature as Americans to oppose tyranny.

Please join Trout Unlimited and Save Bristol Bay in this battle against an enemy that would invade our soil. Let us bring the fight to our enemy. Visit www.savebristolbay.org and see how you can help.

Disclaimer: Neither the UA, the USA, AK, or Bristol Bay are at war with Canada. Please be sure to read the comments from our Canadian brothers in the comments section of this blog entry. Some valid points are raised.

The Owl Jones Boycott has been lifted

September 27, 2011 / / 7 Comments

When sarcasm is the desired effect, perhaps a disclaimer should be issued along with the written entry. Sorta like a product warning label stating the obvious: Don’t drink bleach.

But if a writer has to state outright that sarcasm is the tone of a message, it detracts from the whole endeavor: kinda like attaching a note to the outside of a birthday present announcing the contents. An accompanying sarcasm disclaimer signifies that the message was ineffective and it is the either the fault of the writer, or it means that the audience is sarcasm-challenged. Maybe a combination of the two Probably the latter.

Regarding the matter of my recent UAPSA titled, Boycott Owl Jones, I believe 99% of the audience picked up on the sarcasm (including Owl Jones himself). Perhaps 1% of the Planet did not. Because of that, and because I take my journalistic responsibilities very seriously, I have issued this official press statement:

The Unaccomplished Angler wishes to apologize did not mean any harm toward Mr. Owl Jones. While neon green text on a black background may in fact cause eye strain, visiting Owljones.com is not the cause of my deteriorating eyesight. It happens to men my age. I officially apologize to Mr. Jones for If there were any web traffic slowdowns caused by what was clearly a sarcastic blog entry, it is merely a regrettable circumstance. So if you’re really boycotting Owljones.com because of what was said on the Unaccomplished Angler, it’s disturbing that you would place that much credence in anything I would say.

I was thinking that there should be some sort of internet technology designed to reduce the chances of a written word being taken out of context without having to resort to the use of cute little smiley faces, which to me are personally troubling (I’ve been told that I’m not in touch with my emoticons). Perhaps someone can develop a Sarcasm Detection Plugin? While we wait for that technology, the matter of Owl’s eye-strain-invoking website has in fact been remedied.

But don’t take my word for it–click on over to Owljones.com and see for yourself. It’s safe to go back in the water.

Boycott Owl Jones

September 25, 2011 / / 20 Comments

This is another UAPSA (and thus filed accordingly under the category of Public Service Announcements, and not Weekly Drivel®).

I try not to make a habit of reading Owljones.com, but once in a while–in a moment of weakness or temporary insanity–I make the mistake of stopping by the blog. I’m usually disappointed, but this time I was horrified. It seems as though Owl has decided to run with scissors and go against the flow (imagine that!) by assigning a black background to his website. Sensible and widely-accepted design principles will tell you that any dark background is bad enough, but at least most often a black background is accompanied by white text. So while it’s still hard on the eyes, it could be worse.  Like using neon green, for example, which is exactly what Owl did. The glare caused me to tap out before I could even read the entire entry, which I had somehow gotten sucked into reading. It was all I could do to leave a comment, to which Mr, Jones replied:

Clearly he is a stubborn man. Fortunately the Common Sense Cavalry, in the form of The River Damsel, rode in to back me up by attempting to talk some sense into Mr. Jones:

Her mostly sage words fell on deaf ears, although for a fleeting couple of moments Mr. Jones did assign yellow as his text color. And it helped, though only marginally so. I let him know as much and pleaded with him to listen to the River Damsel’s words of wisdom:

I don’t believe he took my suggestion to offer Owl Jones Contrast Diffusion Goggles seriously. I was serious. I wanted to go back and argue some more with him, but my eyes just couldn’t take it. This is the last comment in our discussion:

So what I would suggest to you all is to boycott Owljones.com.  If you’ve been there before, or are a regular, don’t go back. If you’ve never been, consider yourself lucky and keep it at that…at least until he changes his background to white, with black letters. And to those of you who are contemplating the use of a black background, please reconsider. If you really feel you must have a black background (highly discouraged) at the very least use white text.

The ONE

June 27, 2011 / / 29 Comments

Neo? Is that you?

The internet has been all abuzz with the announcement of Sage’s new stick, “The ONE”.

I first heard about it on Midcurrent and Angling Trade, which is not surprising because I often find out breaking news at these two sites. Then I saw a lengthy discussion about it on Washington Fly Fishing. It was also discussed in a LinkedIn group, and elsewhere. Surprisingly it even popped up in the webstats for this blog: to date, 30 people used the search phrase, “Sage One Rod” and ended up landing at The Unaccomplished Angler. I found that to be rather interesting since I hadn’t posted any mention of it here. I’m sure that whomever landed on the UA, expecting to find some inside scoop on The ONE, was disappointed. And so the reason for this post is simply to address that matter: if anyone else lands here after searching for “Sage One Rod”, I’d like to be able to provide them with something of value. Of course, I can’t do that because I know nothing about The ONE other than what I’ve read elsewhere, so consider this a redirect. Here is the Press Release.

God speed, dear adorable friend

I will say that since The ONE will replace the love of my life, the Z-Axis, it must be a REALLY great rod. I absolutely adore my Z-Axis rods, and that’s a pretty bold statement since I never use the term “adore” (because it’s not very manly). I have a Z-Axis 4 weight which is my go-to rod in every possible situation. I love casting that thing. When the wind is howling and I’m chucking big junk to big fish, then I employ my 6 weight Z-Axis. I also have a 7136 Spey rod which needs no introduction as it is a ridiculously popular two-hander. I’m a terrible hack when it comes to Spey casting, but the Z-Axis 7136 makes me be all that I can possibly be, barring any talent and ability. According to the press release from Sage, The ONE will only be available in single-handed models: “The ONE rod will be available at Sage authorized retail locations in August / September 2011 with a selection of 22 single hand models. ONE rods range from 3-10-weights and will be priced from $715 to $740.” Makes one wonder what will become of the Z-Axis Spey rod models- will they remain as such?  Your guess is as good as mine. Perhaps we should ask the Oracle, for she is a wise old sage. *NOTE: within minutes of this entry hitting the feeds, The Oracle chimed in with insight: The Z-Axis line of two-handed rods will indeed remain for the time being.

So, what of The ONE?  Well, it’s built using modern Konnetic technology: it’s light and strong. It’s said to be an extension of your casting arm, and deadly accurate. It’s ominously cool with it’s black blank. It has a name that is a bold declaration of it’s impending status. If you believe what Sage tells you, it will be the real deal. When first hearing of the name of this new rod, one cannot help but reflect upon the Matrix movies, in which the main character, Neo, was also known as The One. He was a pretty incredible dude with amazing abilities that made him the last hope for saving reality from virtual domination. If The ONE can give me even close to the powers of The One, then I’m definitely going to want to test this rod out some day.


Morpheus: I’m trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You’re the one that has to walk through it.

 

Here’s a Public Service Announcement you’ll Dislike

June 16, 2011 / / 13 Comments

If you use Facebook, and I do (and I am not the least bit ashamed to admit it because sometimes it’s my only social life), then you know about the “like” button. The “like”button is for those who are too lazy busy to leave an actual comment about someone’s post, but they want to acknowledge that they read it.  It’s an abbreviated courtesy that says, “I find this partially worthy of my time.” And they may have even liked the content of the comment. But it gets confusing after that.

For example, if the content of the post was something like “Steelhead officially proclaimed to be extinct!”, a person might click “like” to acknowledge that they read the post, even though they clearly did not like the content of the message. Or sometimes a person will simply click “like” so that they’re notified of follow-up comments (voyeurism). But what is really needed in this instance is a “dislike” button, for obvious reasons.  Let’s say you saw an outlandish post by someone, and you disagreed with it, you would not very well click the “like” button, but instead reach for the “dislike” button. That is, unless you cared to take the time to post a comment in reply.

There has been, for as long as I can recall, a public Facebook outcry for a “dislike” button.  It’s not uncommon to see any number of people post a reply to a comment, “Where is the dislike button?!” or simply they type “dislike”.  Well, recently I  ventured out into the world wide web in search of information on the matter, and I came up with several pieces of information–one in particular that caught my eye: Firefox dislike button add-on.

For those who live in a closet, Firefox is a popular web browser. I use it instead of Safari (Apple’s proprietary browser that ships as part of the Apple OS). I can’t remember why, but some years ago I became dissatisfied with certain page displays on Safari, so I switched to Firefox. I’ve never had a regret. But I must say, I dislike Firefox’s “dislike” button add-on.

After installing the “dislike” button add-on recently, I thought I was on my way to good times and greater accuracy when acknowledging a comment without committing to the time and courtesy required to leave a comment. I was going to be a super cool “dislike” guy. Well, not quite so fast. First off, the “dislike” function is meaningless unless all your Facebook friends also use Firefox and have the “dislike” add-on engaged. Otherwise I am disliking only to myself, which seems oddly self-abusive. But I figured I could recruit at least a few people with whom I regularly banter back and forth, and we could have our own little dislike-fest.

I immediately began to regret my rash decision. Why?  Well, first off at the top of every page there appeared one version or another of a really annoying banner ad.  With sound.  The damn thing chimed and talked to me every time I changed pages.

And who is Johanna and why does she want to be friends with me? She’s seemingly young enough to be my daughter. And I’m married. But I digress.

On the right sidebar, the stuff that’s usually there (stuff that I don’t really care about but isn’t bothersome) is replaced by another giant banner ad. These are “dislike ads”. Apparently baggage that comes with installing the “dislike” add-on. Trust me– they are aptly named, and you will dislike them.

Annoying, isn’t it?  Makes you want to “dislike” it. Well, I disliked it to the point where I had to find out how to get rid of the damn things.  Disabling the “dislike” button add-on is what must be done in order to regain serenity. Thankfully it’s an easy task, and here is how you do it:

1. Go to the main Firefox menu at the top of your screen. I will look like this if you’re on an Apple:

(if you’re on a Windows PC I have no idea what it might look like and you’re probably stuck using Internet Exploder anyway)

2. Click on the “Tools” tab. You’ll get a drop down menu. Scroll down to “Add-ons”:

3. Select “Add-ons”. This little gem of a page will appear. Other add-ons you’ve added will also appear, but the one you are after is the “FDislike 1.3.2” (or some other  numerical version). To the right you will find a happy, magical “Disable” button. You want to click that. Hell, you may as well click “Remove”.

Good riddance, Firefox. I don’t know if it’s you or Facebook, or probably the two of you in cahoots with each other on this whole Dislike Ad crap, but it’s weaksauce. I dislike it.  There is still a need for a “dislike” button, but until it is a feature built into Facebook’s interface, I’m left with actually taking the time to leave a comment when I dislike something.

And I’m a very busy man. Clearly.

 

Potscrubber soles by Korkers

June 2, 2011 / / 9 Comments

On a recent trip to Yellowstone, one of my fishing compadres (the Goosemeister, truth be told) picked up a copy of a free magazine in one of the fly shops. While we were back at the Ho Hum planning our assault on the Firehole the next day and discussing felt vs. rubber soled boots, The Gooseman buried his nose in the magazine. Before he could nod off into one of his sudden cat naps, he blurted out something about a new pair of boots that caught my attention: Korkers Svelte Sole.

He had me at Svelte.

According to an article in Fly Fish America Annual 2011 Gear Guide, Korkers and 3M have teamed up to offer a new boot sole material that is allegedly superior to felt in grip-ability but without the fear of harboring invasive organisms. The soles are part of Korker’s OmniTrax interchangeable sole system. The material in the sole is made by 3M, and the article says, among other things:

In fact, the stuff looks and feels just like the heavy-duty version of the 3M Scotch-Brite abrasive pads you can buy at Wal-Mart.

It’s good to see that someone is exploring superior alternatives to rubber soles, which seem to be very slippery–or at least more slippery than felt– without studs. Studs obviously present a problem when fishing out of a boat (particularly inflatables).

The one thing that made me curious about this news was that 3M, which is a huge conglomerate company, owns Scientific Anglers and Ross Reels.  Why didn’t they keep this new Svelte Sole in house and offer it on a pair of boots branded by Scientific Anglers or Ross?  It would have seemed a better business proposition to me, but then again I am a horrible business person, so what do I know?

I wonder if Korkers boots will be available at Wal-Mart anytime soon, and if so will they be in the sporting good section or the kitchenware isle?

 

 

Fishing alone while in Montana may be a crime

March 1, 2011 / / 28 Comments

Never fish alone in MT if you're a woman.

 

A friend and regular follower of the UA informed me recently of an interesting law in Montana. The law states:

“In Montana it is illegal for married women to go fishing alone on Sundays, and illegal for unmarried women to fish alone at all.”

Now, I’m a reasonably intelligent person and suspect that this is an old wive’s tale.  I’ve Googled the matter and the same verbiage comes up on several different websites, but none of them are what I would call reliable sources: stupidlaws.com, dumblaws.com. These websites are likely just spreading falsehoods and simply adding fuel to a fire that shouldn’t even be burning. Over at Single Barbed this and other ridiculous fishing laws across the land were also called out.

Makes you wonder if these laws are, or ever were, real. If they were real at one time, what lawmaker got paid to write them and how did they make it through the legislative process?  And assuming these laws were written during a time of considerable social conservatism, how could modern lawmakers not revoke such antiquated legalities? If these laws are simply the result of some lonely jokester sitting in a dark office posting outrageous claims to the internet, then what a pitiful life that individual must lead.

Whatever the case may be, I must ask myself, “Why let them have all the fun?”  The Unaccomplished Angler would like to throw his lucky fishing hat into the mix and declare himself an authority on Montana fishing law: I confirm that it is in fact, illegal in Montana for married women to go fishing alone on Sundays, and illegal for unmarried women to fish alone at all.

So, heed my advice when you ladies are fishing in Montana: Know the laws. Avoid judicial persecution.

No charge for the legal advice.


Newer posts »

© 2025 Unaccomplished Angler

— Up ↑