reevesr1

Happy Birthday! FNG, I hooked a big boy yesterday in a run you and I fished once. Could be a nice birthday present......

TREEHUGGER, You owe me a new keyboard as mine is shorted out from me spitting my coffee. Hopefully one made from fully recycled material and free from petroleum or wood products.

What was funny is I did go small. Hooked one fish on the first pass with a #20 mayfly (don't know what type) emerger. Got several refusals after that. Same type of thing with other small stuff, including a couple of different ants around #20 as well. Best fly by far was a #12 yellow sallie type thing (on 4x tippet by the way) from Crappy Tire. Didn't see any big yellow bugs flying around, so I don't think we were exactly matching the hatch! All that said, it's not like we weren't catching fish. Ended up with 20 or so, and if I was worth a crap at hooking fish on dry flies that number would have been much higher. I guess I should have worded the question better. It was actually more about behavior than what to hook them on. Ie, in the higher water the cutties seemed to be all in the pools and tails, with no fish in the faster water. Is that normal? If so, it would change my strategy on these types of days. In truth, had it not been my buddies last opportunity to fish for cutts I would have skipped the day altogether. Also, I've been reading about how the dry fly fishing has been more spotty this year overall from a few sources. Seems like there are many more stories about streamer fishing, nymphing, etc.-some of them from people who fish for cutts alot. I've heard the same thing from people who fish the Elk. Much more nymphing, much less looking up. Put that together with people saying the fish appear very healthy leads me to wonder about their access to underwater sources of food. It's not like suddenly all the cutties suddenly wised up to the fact that we all use big dry flies and decided to skip it this year!!

Matt, What's a bun fight? Also, fess up. You are a tiny bit of a tree hugger. (hey, what happened to the river cleanup this year?) While you are certainly correct that we don't need our cars and trucks, they are not going to go away any time soon. Unless I miss my guess, as more of the world develops there will be more of them, not less. And they will need fuel, and part of that fuel will come from oilsands. There is no doubting that, IMHO, unless there is a cosmic shift in economics and human behavior. So the question becomes how do you produce the oilsands in a more environmentally sound way? The water needs currently for SAGD is admittedly massive, and will continue to rise as the Sask fields begin to be developed (though I must admit some ignorance here as I don't know how the Sask fields will be produced. My assumption in mining and sagd like here, but that is purely an assumption). There was a line in the paper this morning that said current oilsands production is 1.2 million barrels a day, estimated 2015 production at 4.3 million (that's from memory and could be off a bit) in Alberta alone. (Warning-personal opinion to follow with no facts to back it up) Also, I think people need to recognize what they are saying when they talk about ending the oilsands. The stopping of the oilsands could be a near death sentence for the Alberta Oil and Gas Industry. There is basically no oil left in Alberta, natural gas production is declining, and nat gas prices are in the toilet with little prospect for short term recovery. There is too much supply in the shale gas plays in the US, and all these LNG terminals being built assuring supply for the next several years and beyond. Now I know that there are those who would say "good, see ya oil and gas and good riddance." And I also know that many more would accuse me of being a bit of an alarmist. But the end of the oil and gas industry here means a collapse of the Alberta economy and a return to agriculture and tourism. But hey, more fish, a more pristine environment, and a lot fewer people to enjoy it. On the bright side, all us foreigners and newfies will be gone. Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to start a fight either. This issue is massively complex and unsolvable here. But sure is fun to talk about.

Triple F, just having some fun. If I really wanted to have some fun, I would say aloud how fascinating I find it that a fly fisherman (as I suppose Mr. Raymond is) thinks that fly fishermen are most consistent with noble purposes. Seems a bit self congratulatory, Mr. Raymond I mean. But that would just be me using a pointy stick just for the hell of it, so I'll pass. Can you hear me laughing at the keyboard as I type this? Hope you are taking this in the fun intended.

I have a question for you guys: When I was on the Liv this weekend, the water was fairly high and somewhat off color. Lets say 3 ft of vis. Certainly fishable, but not the stunningly green and clear water. Noticed that all of the rising fish were in the slower tailouts of runs or in the pools. Every fish we saw was in the quiet stuff. We did not get a fish in fast water. And they were pretty finnicky. Most big stuff wouldn't even get a look, and if it did, would get refused. Not what I would have thought of as cutty behavior in mid August. Do you guys think that water clarity played the biggest role here? Since the water was slow, the fish had lots of time to look and say "try again sucker!". I also remember someone stating that they were having troubles catching cutts on dries this year, but the fish sure seemed healthy. Is it possible that there is more subsurface buy activity this year, and they aren't feeding on surface as eagerly because they don't have to?

Cough, cough.

How exactly did this become a liberal vs conservative issue? I don't like Random Camping, or at least the unregulated version. But I would classify myself as more leaning toward liberal causes than conservative. Am I an anachronism (hey, an alliteration!)? Can I only be against Random Camping if I am a conservative? Can I just be a small c conservative, or do I have to be a big C Conservative? Is there such a thing as a bleeding heart conservative (if so, I bet those bastards are small c), or are conservatives only unfeeling, uncaring bastards who are more than likely armed? I currently don't own a gun. So if I want to be a conservative, either big or small c/C do I need to go buy one? Now that I think of it, back when I was in the military, I owned a gun but funnily enough was still a liberal (they call them democrats where I'm from). Maybe they should have kicked me out. I wonder if I was a bleeding heart or not? Just wondering. Figured this thread couldn't be any more in the mud, so I should drag politics into it.

Left hand more back by the tail, fingers or right hand more under the fish. Nice pics, hope it was as fun as it looks.

My son and nephew just got back from an afternoon on the river. I recommended they travel south outside the city to avoid the weekend crowds. This was Ben's first fishing trip on his own since he started driving, and my nephews second trip ever. Several phone calls for directions yielded in him finally finding the correct road and river. I called him after he had been there for an hour to hear "I'm fighting a 18" rainbow. Call you back." So Ben and my nephew ended up with 8 fish in a couple of hours, all rainbows, with my nephew catching a couple as well. When we called them and said "come home for dinner" as we had family over he replied "but the water is boiling!" The only complaint was from my nephew who said he would prefer a place where he can backcast! Anyway, I fished all day yesterday for 4 cutties and this morning for no fish at all. But between my buddy having a great day yesterday and my son and nephew doing it on their own made this maybe my best fishing weekend ever!

A drag that you didn't get the reward, but good on you for giving it back. It is what we are supposed to do, though not all of us live up to it.

I spent all day yesterday and this morning with my fishing buddy (or I guess I should say one of my fishing buddies). This was meaningful to me as this was his last weekend in Canada as he is moving to Paris, in fact is on the plane now. He started fly fishing last year, with almost no fishing knowledge in general. Yesterday he caught his first cuttie on the dry. 11 of them in fact, up ot 16" or so. I would like to take credit for teaching him, as all his fishing has been with me. The reality is this board, or people I have met through this board, taught him even though he has never read it. Everything I know (which admittedly is a work in progress) is through here. So thank you all. I would list everyone, but it would take too damn long. Anyway, I'll miss my friend. I know I"ll make more, but it is always a bit sad when they go. But I take pride in the fact that I helped create a new fisherman. And his young son may be more addicted than my friend. Hope they can find someplace in France to fish. Thanks again everyone!

When I have more time, I'll read all this plus links. But here is what I know. Both my mother and father had cancer. My father died of his and my mother fully recovered. Both received absolutely excellent care, as they surely would have here in Canada. As my father was self employed, he could not afford health care for probably the last 10 yrs of his life. Their cancer sucked up all their retirement money. I don't care how capitalist you are, and I am plenty capitalist, there is just something wrong with that. The insurance companies have a total death grip on the medical system in the US. For me, it doesn't really matter. When I work in the states my company covers me and I am provided with outstanding health care. The access to service is quicker than it is here. If you are wealthy or have good company care, you will probably receive better, or at least more timely, overall care in the states (that is nothing more than my opinion based on my experiences). But if you do not have coverage through your company, or not independently wealthy, than there is little doubt, to me, that it is far better here in Canada. The insurance companies and republican party are going to use whatever means they can to convince the majority of Americans that Canada's system is worse. Too damn much money involved for it to be otherwise. I watched Lou Dobbs comment on a report of Canada's system vs. the US. Many of the facts Castus brought up above were quoted. Dobbs ignored all the positive and focused on the negative aspects of Canada's system. (that confirmation bias thing again). Getting a 2 tiered system in the US will be a major uphill climb. Too many are afraid of it, and they are getting bombarded with all the horror stories from around the world while constantly being told the US has the worlds best health care. This is true. Too bad too many don't have access, or go bankrupt using it. Edit: Cleaned up some obvious typos above. Also just read this on that right wing bastion-CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/pot...ance/index.html

I used to wear one made for saltwater called a Wade Aid as I used to have pretty serious back pain, and wading the flats made it worse. To tell the truth, I was never convinced it did anything, but I figured it couldn't hurt.

jj, Tonyr is taking a little shot at me. Just let it alone!

Don't know if this qualifies as a "find", but once when I was 13 or 14 my brother and I were fishing with my dad on a big Louisiana flat. You could go trips down there without ever seeing a soul, except at the ramps. Miles and miles of open shallow water. When we fished we always were competing. This morning I think my little brother was ahead a couple of fish, like he had 10 and I had 8 (which means it was still early in the morning!). I was working my lure when I feel big weight. I set the hook, and can feel some pull back, but mostly it is just weight. Well, I pull it in to find a stringer with about 10 live fish on it! I shudder to think of what the odds of this were. So I hooked the stringer to one of my belt loops and said "its 18 to 10 now!" My brother, um, disputed this turn of events, with passion!

This is not a fly fishing picture. This is a trip my son and I took early one morning while we were in Texas a few weeks ago. We had about 1.5 hrs to fish and knew we were going to fish deep, so fly fishing was not an option. We fished with lures for a bit, then switched to bait (in the heat of the summer, these fish can be hard to "fool"). This is one of my favorite fishing pictures ever for several reasons. It was a lucky shot. The flash of yellow in the trouts mouth (one of the nicknames of this fish is a "yellow mouth"). The reflections of both the fish and Ben in the water. The pier and levee in the background. The chest deep water. The smile on my son's face which reminds me that the method we choose to catch fish is not nearly as important as we tend to make it as all methods can be a blast. And maybe most importantly it is water my father and I fished together many, many times. I have no pictures of any of those trips. This picture will always remind me as much of my trips with my dad as this trip with my son. It makes me smile every time I see it.

I've never fished salmon, but I can imagine if one day I went back to Texas and all the redfish were gone, as they once nearly were. It would be devastating. How could it happen all in one year/ I know the leading candidate is the lice from the farms, but could they truly wipe out an entire class? Haven't the farms been around for awhile now? Why are the other species not as affected? Are sockeye somehow more vulnerable? I ask this out of almost total ignorance.

I hope you are wrong to tell you the truth. I have no trouble debating with SL. His, and your writing skills are fine. I just felt that we had run our course in this matter, hence the good luck to you line. I wasn't going to change his mind and he wasn't going to change mine. Same probably holds with you as well. But the truth usually is that when you are debating with someone you are not going to change the mind of the person you are debating with. You are trying to influence the people reading the debate. Do I think that we will go at it again? I have little doubt of it. Same with you. If you guys stick around my bet is we are going to be on opposite sides of many issues. I love that *hit! I don't get why if you have a debate and totally disagree with each other that means we have to be enemies? I disagree with your opinion and you with mine. So what? I grew up in a land of right wing republicans. I am a yellow dog democrat. If I was not able to debate politics with people who disagreed with me vehemently and still be their friends, I'd of had no friends. I thought they were absolutely wrong in most of their political views. Many of them are still my closest friends. Finally, what do my writing skills have to do with it? Should I dumb it down? I think that would be insulting to you guys as you can both handle yourselves just fine. You say I was not going to let him have the last word? I don't really think he was going to let me either. And I wouldn't expect him to.

Ryan, May want to listen to those two.....

I took my first name and added the first letter of my last name. But I left it all in small case to be confusing.

Castus, Are you calling me a dummy who thinks he's smart? Thats it, I refuse to golf with you. And isn't it called Confrontational Bias? Actually, there is a book called Freakonomics (not written by Glen Beck-it helped me learn to think for myself) where confirmation bias is discussed. Anyone who wants an interesting read on causality, among other things, I highly recommend it. Tries to teach that just because there is A then B does not necessarily mean A causes B. And I loved the rotary bullshit detector line!

SL, If you honestly believe that there is no bias in university research, then you and I debating is useless. Good luck to you.

I've been involved in studies as well. I've actually contracted one myself, though I must say it was not for environmental reasons, but safety reasons. We contracted the company we thought were the best in their field, which I promise did not make them the cheapest in their field. I do not think that I, or any of my team, biased the outcome of the study at all. Or at least I hope not. Their recommendations cost us pretty significant dollars. We implemented all of them. Many studies are contracted not to get a pre-set answer but to protect the company from future liability. The implementation of results from these studies can be massively expensive not to mention the cost of the study itself. But the cost of not following the recommendations and then being faced with the environmental liability later can be company ending. So all I'm saying is don't just discount an oil companies study because you think they have ulterior motives. Their ulterior motives (protecting the environment for example) can be the same as yours, they are just doing it for economic reasons. Now do I think all studies are commissioned to get a real answer not a pre-conceived one? Of course not. But more are commissioned in good faith than not.

Ok, I'll admit to liking to hear myself speak too. Not that that should surprise anyone. A couple of points. Some of the most politically charged atmospheres anywhere is the scientific community. I am not saying that they are biased by default, but I will say that once many of the researcher/professors stake their reputation to any position it is very, very difficult to get him to abandon that position. And it is not hard to find examples of data being massaged or abandoned when it did not meet the foregone conclusion. Read Stephen Hawking sometime. He talks about it. I will say there is very little unbiased research happening anywhere. That does not make their results wrong, but to say they are not biased by default in just inaccurate. I agree, though I would say CNN is biased both ways. Guys like Lou Dobbs lean way, way right. Most of them (Anderson Cooper, Larry King, Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer) lean left. But what I can't understand is how every single entity you point out as biased has opinions that seem to be different than yours and any news org or research community you seem to agree with is fair and impartial? If anyone says they will believe a study from a non-profit, scientific community, or whoever before they believe an oil company study, then that my friends is called bias. Everyone is biased to some degree. You need to listen to all sides (though this is somewhat impossible today), take what you believe from each (of course trying to remain unbiased yourself) and draw you own conclusions. If you can figure out how to do that, please let me know. I haven't figured it out yet, and I'm not as dumb as I seem.