Harps

Before Bearspaw, flows in the Bow dropped to under 20 cms quite regularly. It also wasn't a great brown and bow fishery. Bearspaw was built in '54 (where the gap in data is found). The Bio's are doing what they feel necessary to protect the fishery. Yes, there are other opinion on what to do, yes this will affect other fisheries, and yes there are other factors - but it is an action. My only grief is with the closures is the suddenness and that Montana Style Hoot Owl Fishing Restrictions were not applied to all Alberta flowing waters in July when it was clear that temperatures would become a significant risk to releasing fish without mortality. But then again, I'm not sure if the regulation allows for that and we don't have the strong self-regulating fishing community that they have in Montana (despite action taken by many on here). Montana has the tax base and political will to prioritize fisheries and tourism, unlike here. We took some really stupid and destructive action in the past, but the fishery survived. Action like this demonstrates that we are learning from mistakes and would rather not deal with the risk of increased mortality in a Calgary treasure. ... For people's own interest - historic and current flow data is readily available: http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/graph_images/ag.05BH004...0.0.0.0.0.0.e.png1439415980 No temp data with this... but Minimum flows in the Bow have been recorded for decades. How the minimum quartiles are calculated is a question that I couldn't answer (i.e date ranges) (You might have to search the Water Survey data for this gauge: Annual Maximum and Minimum Daily Discharge Graph for BOW RIVER AT CALGARY (05BH004)) - http://wateroffice.ec.gc.ca/report/report_e.html?mode=Graph&type=h2oArc&stn=05BH004&dataType=Annual+Extremes&parameterType=Flow&year=2014&scale=log Current flows (http://www.environment.alberta.ca/apps/basins/DisplayData.aspx?Type=Figure&BasinID=8&DataType=1&StationID=RBOWCALG)

I know this thread is a little old, but waterfalls are considered obstacles (ie you can not fish below Castle falls). It doesn't mean just man-made obstacles, but means any place that "backs fish up", such as waterfalls, big drop structures, etc. Has to be a significant obstruction, but I'm sure that is a point that could be argued in court. This is a federal regulation that originally is intended to stop over-exploitation of Atlantic salmon that congregate in a pool below falls, waiting for rain to bump the flows so they can pass. It isn't necessarily sporting to fish for migratory salmonids when they are crowded, and often results in snagging during large runs. A F&W officer or CO can issue tickets if they believe that you are fishing below a barrier. You'd have to check with them on current Sol-Gen policy and opinion.

Download Google's Picasa. It allows you to Geo-tag images in Google Earth and displays them on a geo-referenced map. It's also the best free image library / management software. You might be able to edit some of them on Picasa-web, which is the online image management tool for google. If you deal with bigger or RAW images, Adobe Lightroom has geo-tagging capabilities, but the cost is much higher than free.

I apologize if I misunderstood. Like I said, I've been having one of those weeks and I'm being short with everybody, which isn't really acceptable. What did you mean?

That's just a red herring. Yes everything has an impact, I'm so tired of that argument... seems to be something they teach in the oilpatch here in Alberta. Mrmagnan posted the AK article about boat erosion in support of Gil's original assertion. Then everybody jumped on them for suggesting that wakes could cause an impact. Well, they do. You originally asked about the legality of using a jet in the city. Not allowed at this current time, due to municipal by-laws that trump the Fed Nav Act. I suggested some solutions to real issues that could be brought up against jet boat use, and you continue to assert that it's your right. It's not up to an individual to decide what's an acceptable limit, it's up to society. And on this issue, society/gov't has deemed fast moving boats to be unsafe in the city. If you don't agree go to you councilor and complain. But you can sure as hell bet that if you go to them with that "holier than thou" attitude about everything having impacts, you'll get nowhere. But if you go with a plan to minimize your impact and set some rules and guidlines, you'll be seen as somebody that they could work with. As it stands, your entitled attitude that "everybody wreaks *hit, so why shouldn't you", will give all of us anglers a bad name. And forget the city thinking that there are reasonable jet-boaters out there to work with. We all can make efforts to reduce our impacts, and it will result in positive change, whether it is less need for hydropower or just better fishing. And still nowhere am I telling you to stop driving or not to use your jet. I'm just saying you shouldn't work so hard to be ignorant of your own footprint.

You know what... F it, Here are some peer reviewed reports on boat wakes. http://www.hydrologynz.org.nz/downloads/20070417-030209-JoHNZ_2003_v42_2_McConchie.pdf http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrr.3450090102/abstract http://roundthelake.com/PIER%20WI%20DNR/lakes.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304392483900254 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02471995#page-1 http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA122370 http://ascelibrary.org/doi/abs/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-950X(1988)114%3A3(363) This last one is a god one: Hydrodynamic impacts of commercial jet-boating on the Chilkat River, Alaska http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.183.3481&rep=rep1&type=pdf You can also educate yourself with scholar.google.ca but many of the articles are restricted to those that have licenses. There's a good old article from Alaska that talks about the increase in turbidity in a river from fishing boats drifting with anchors as well as wakes from motorized use. I'm not sure where I have it stored though and I can't remember the name of the river.

Yes, rainfall does have an impact. But on most banks the run off is absorbed into soil and intercepted by vegetation before it gets to the steep portion. In areas where the banks are bare, there is often significant rainfall erosion, often in the form of rills and gullies. Rainfall and surface runoff is a significant cause of sedimentation in our local watercourses. Much of it comes in at places of linear development (man-made river crossings, ditches at crossings, pipelines, etc), from agricultural fields (especially those with no buffers), and because of the "hardening" of our landscape (removal of wetlands which filter water, loss of floodplains, loss of tributaries that used to gather filed water in nice meanders, paving of areas, etc). It even is caused by all of the bank armouring and channel straightening that we have done to our rivers and creeks. Bare construction sites "have to" install sediment and erosion control measures to protect against that very thing. Wakes can push more (resulting in deeper) water up the bank slope, which in turn can cause erosion- different/more than flooding and often more than rainfall. You said floods are worse than wakes, I refuted. Rainfall is a different topic- similar erosion on bare banks, not as bad in areas with vegetation preventing direct runoff. Wake erosion would be one more human impact, another pile on the cumulative harm that we are causing, and something that could possibly be prevented/regulated. And Jayhad, I would post peer reviewed work, but there is no point in this type of forum. I have been dealing with river erosion for over the past decade and I currently work every day to protect our fishery from the impacts of erosion. If you are interested in the effects of sediment and turbidity look up some of the work of C. Newcombe, E. Shaw, P. Anderson, or D. Harper. You will see what even short pulses of increased turbidity can cause, especially when it is above background levels or in an abnormal season. Eitherway, I clearly stated that there could be rule put in place to protect the sensitive areas if heavy jetboat use is to be expected/desired/controlled. I have been on a jet on many of the rivers in Alberta, I'm not for or against them. I just want folks here to be completely clear with potential impacts of use (and I am having a really pissy week). The RCMP have contacted me in the past about jetboats on certain small rivers, and I have passed on similar complaints to them. Safety is the biggest concern about any fast motorized boats on crowded rivers.

Flood erosion is very different from that caused by wakes. Splashes up the bank that run down have a completely different impact than rising flood waters. In a flood situation, there is much more that is impacting the whole channel, areas of constriction where the water moves faster, backwater areas where water moves slower, steep sections, flat sections, etc, etc. Deep areas, steep areas, and flow constrictions will have the most force, and in those areas the banks may be eroded. In other areas the flood water will deposit material... shallow areas, flat areas, areas with hight friction zones and flow disturbance- like vegetated banks, floodplains, etc. These areas will have fine materials piled on them that will vegetate if undisturbed. From wakes (waves, splashing), water running down a bank is running down at a higher slope than water running adjacent to the bank. Splashed water running down a steep slope will cause more erosion than deep water in a flooding stream. Material could be removed from the bank based on the type of material and the potential of the flowing water to overcome the tractive force that holds that material in place. That is solely based on the slope of the bank, how high the water gets splashed, the amount of water, and the size of the material. Tractive force (how much force something will take before it starts to move) in water is based on the slope and the depth of flow. Water flowing down a bank is much steeper than down the streambed and that steepness often makes up for the lack of depth of the water flowing down the bank. On top of that, you have the initial impact (drop) erosion of water hitting the surface under pressure. Like raindrops this initial impact can dislodge bank materials and initiate the movement of those materials into the stream (collisions of particles can overcome that initial force required to get that material moving). So yes, erosion caused by wakes can be worse than that caused by flooding, even in a river system. But... it comes down to amounts. Lots of wave action will mean no vegetation growing on materials deposited by floods along the banks. It will mean it is harder for vegetation to establish on steeper banks that have suffered mass wasting or slumped. A single wave, no issue. A few a day, maybe sustainable..., a wave an hour??? Ignoring all the issues around user safety (low visibility drunks can get run over on the water...), crowding, noise disturbance to people and wildlife, and the introduction of hydrocarbons... the wake disturbance issue could be controlled by enforcing no wake zones, adding higher sensitivity avoidance or no motor areas, or controlling motorized "upstream lanes" through certain areas of the Bow.

Hi Nishikant, You should share this with www.sexyloops.com, which has a big international fishing community. Cheers,

Letter to their minister- those action are unacceptable- guide and officer. I'd also call the shop and let them know that you and those that know you will not be frequenting their establishment.

Really, nobody knows about it? The complaint was sent into DFO and SRD last fall by local fly anglers, some of which are on this board. it's likely those anglers weren't happy about the whole thing and the response, so I'm suprised others weren't told?

http://www.onthewater.com/assets/lightning-fly-rod.jpg I saw a better picture on the web some years ago... I'd rather risk a broken rod tip than that, althouhg to is easier to put that in a box to send to Sage for repairs... Charges from the ground will reach upward from multiple places trying to connect with charges in the cloud. Don't be one of them! If you feel "tingling" in your rod (man I actually typed that?!?), drop you rod and crouch. You want to stay low and minimize your contact with the ground, just in case there is a strike near you. Tuck your head down and stay low! Also try to stay away from wire fences and all the tall objects! The last thing you want is to be part of a path for the lightning- whether it is along a wire or down a tree or tower.

I've shared it on the Chinook Waters Fly Fishing Club Facebook page. We'll see if it can find its home...

Tiemco 2487's are my go to hook for most of my patterns from size 12 to 22, although I prefer the 2487BL if I find them. I only use down to 5x on the really small hooks because of the eye size- there is rarely a need to go under 3-4x, and I have broken a few but never bent them out on fish. They are the best hook for Wyatt's Deer Hair emerger and the Agent 99 caddis which are 2 of my favourites.

SRD in Lethbridge cares about the crayfish expansion. Still a bad thing. Was discussed here a couple of years ago: http://flyfishcalgary.com/board/index.php?showtopic=3509&hl

Not me... Unfortunately bull trout face a lot of habitat issues that are going away.

Call DFO and complain, too (despite the uselessness of that action, it still sends a message). As of July, temporary changes to the Fisheries Act make any activity that harms habitat illegal!!! That means quading can be stopped by the fishery officers and charges can be laid by the public (like Martha Kostuch did in Alberta) or by federal crown prosecutors. It may also mean that mis-operation of dams could be complained about to teh minister... Info at: http://www.blakes.com/english/view_bulletin.asp?ID=5497 or http://blakesfiles.com/pub/English/environ...l_2012/Fish.pdf DFO offices in Alberta: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/regions/central/h...dfo-mpo-eng.htm But make sure you also email the DFO Minister: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/Contact-eng.htm#3 I'd also call SRD (RAP line) and complain.

I'm in! Although this biologist walks at a very slow pace and gets easily distracted by ever bug that flies by! Now I just have to find time to tie up some more muddlers...

Take Hwy 22 back to Calgary... you have the Sheep, Highwood, and tons of small creeks and other rivers, etc, etc. Short of that, the only thing worth fishing* between Cal and Leth is the Bow in Calgary. (*fly-fishing for trout- there are lots of great pike spots)

I used to think that most anglers cared; That more eyes means more calls to the RAP line; That people would pick-up their garbage. I don't believe that now. Piles of garbage, miss handled fish (that is an education issue- littering isn't), and pulling fish off redds have proven that. 40 comments and 1300 views of a fishing report show that people don't want to share your fishing experience- they want an easy spot. Finding a site on your own increases the value of that site to the user. Every angler that fishes there feels that it is their "secret" spot and they strive to keep it in good condition- a sense of ownership. Public resources that don't have that prideful, individual sense of ownership get abused. Tragedy of the Commons. Larger waters can handle the abuse (Missouri, Bow, Red Deer) to a certain extent. Smaller waters can't. There are some good examples in Montana right now- the Madison will now be specially regulated because of too much pressure on a very productive and heavily used river. Same happened to the Big Hole. The Oldman and Crow are not near as productive and the pressure would kill them (luckily we don't have the pressure). A single location on any of the small creeks will have fish completely wiped out without the users having a sense of ownership (higher ethics), greater than what is dictated by law (most of the little creeks have eggs in redds in June and July (Cutts still on redds in July) and then again in Aug/Sep (bulls) and October (brookies)). Luckily most of the folks that fish small streams for beautiful small fish aren't bragging about locations. I think it is good for an angler to "own" a water- that person will be a great steward of the resource. I also think that spots should be shared, but through contacts and fishing buddies- with codes of conduct around who you can bring and fishing without the invitee. I thought those codes were standard in fly-fishing, and they probably were before the internet (especially since many were keeping all fish and "your" creek might be wiped out by somebody else you shared with). So post pictures, brag about your fish if you need- but laud the secret location over everybody- be proud that you discovered it or finally convinced an old codger to take you there! Take ownership of your own secret stream (and know that 25% of the forum members may fish there also...).

I cringe every time I read a title labelled about a specific creek... but most of the time they don't mention access points or things like that. For the most part there is enough water, so there isn't a problem. But... Most folks are lazy and don't want to do the work for themselves... and that's fine. Taco posts tons of creek names, but 90% of the readers here aren't going to make the effort to explore each access they can find on a map for one that produces fish bigger than 6inches. They are going to go to the spot from FFC that was shown on the Livingstone with a big fish picture, or the spot on the Oldman that produced 17in fish (which is a big trout anywhere in the world except the Bow ). They will go to the easiest fishing possible. When you have something posted online like "Frenchman's Creek at the wooden bridge is fishing hot with green drakes right now", I bet you see people out there at the next available light. So when it comes to hotspotting... naming a launch where you started or saying you fished Oldman River tribs is fine. Telling water conditions of a river is fine. Naming an access point, flies, etc is a little overboard, unless you are privately helping somebody out (for example I'd give some pointers to someone over beer or through a PM- but I look at their past posts first as I'd hate to have some of my quieter fishing spots out on the forums).

Get a TU membership- you then get the Fly Fusion mag. If you want "how to's" go to the typical drugstore FF mags (Flyfisherman, Fly Fishing and Tying Journal). American Angler is also picking up its game and has good content. All of the above get old- stale content that is recycled in different forms every few years. I still buy them when I see an article that I'm interested in, but I don't have a subscription anymore. I have never missed an issue of Fly Fusion, but to be honest, I rarely read the whole thing as I don't find them relevant to local fishing nor cutting edge, nor creative enough. They do have good pictures though! If you want great writing and photos that are fresh, get the Drake and FlyFish Journal. These are the only two that I pay for a subscription for, but don't expect too much for techniques- and you get twitchy wishing you could go fishing every time you open one. Grays and Field & Stream also have good FF articles, but not enough to pay for a subscription.

Great post Hybridfive!! I'm waiting on 2 of the kits to be delivered to my place in Lethbridge. There are great possibilities in this world to do good with social media- I only hope that this can break through the Culture of Apathy and Entitlement that has become Western Society. We need change.

Short of the very few SLS employees in the pass, who benefits for this and how? And I'm seriously asking, I'd like some sort of cost breakdown- pro/con type of argument (like to have an informed opinion). Most of my family (Beaver Mines area) are on the fence. They've been told it will improve grazing access and reduce fire loads, but it will also increase OHV access which is the largest cause of fires and the biggest disturbance to grazing. I know many of the SLS guys and they will try to do a good job, but that is based on the best knowledge present... not the best scientific knowledge nor the precautionary approach which should be followed under such uncertain circumstances. This is a case of NIMBY but it is also more than that. Water from the Castle supplies the bulk of the water to the Oldman River. It provides for the ultimate fishing experiences in Alberta. The area has some of the best hunting, birding, some of the coolest rare plants, some of the most scenic viewscapes. It has a possibility of bringing in millions in tourism... which will be completely lost, a missed revenue op for all the local residents. But whatever... even if you question, you are typically labelled as a socialist pinko hippy that shouldn't use fuel or wear polyester clothes. There is no sustainable use-less view, only pro a Alberta industry view or a commie environmentalist view. But now I'm ranting... After this SLS, is moving their cut into the Porkies. There are some pretty sensitive streams in there... but a lot of areas that could use cleaning up.

To be fair and clear, the Atlas road is owned by SRD (it is on crown land). It was managed by Atlas Lumber and the management was taken over by SLS when they bought Atlas. Their (SLS) license says they HAVE to reclaim the road when done with the logging. SRD will not let them reclaim the road because of local recreational users and DFO will not let them take out the crossing structures and leave the banks to be destroyed by OHV use. SLS is stuck- damned if they do, damned if they don't. Why should SLS continue to be responsible and pay for a road that they don't own or use, and even more so, why should they be liable? That road is a mess (environmental-wise) and may will require enforcement action from regulators to fix it properly (or better yet, to remove it).