Harps

Barbless makes a difference with inexperienced and uncaring anglers. If you compare barbless and unbarbed in experienced and not you would likely see a difference.

We have a few things to worry about. Didymo is dead if dry. Laces, pants things like that dry fast, much faster than felt. Plus people used to leave their boots wet from river to river (I used to)... not good. Also dy your neoprene booties (although they have less space for the nasties to hide in). Hot water will kill the nasties, but how many people wash (long soak) their gear in water that stays above 45deg? Freezing solid is great and works on most winter nights... not so great in the summer. Take home message: Dry your gear completely before switching rivers. Now we already have didymo here, so it is more important if you are taking your gear to a different watershed. But You could also bring nasties here. Montana (and Van Is.) has New Zealand Mudsnails which would wreak havoc on the ecosystem. The bugers would eat everything and coiat the bottom. Same cleaning methods apply. Completely dry your gear... (in the sun if you can) and/or wash (and soak) in hot water. There is also Whirling Disease in Montana. Drying works, as well as wash and soak. Zebra mussels will clog intakes fro water at powerplants, irrigation turnouts, city water supplies, etc. If they end up here it could be devastating to sectors of the economy. You should see the damage they've done on the Great Lakes and more recently some of the big desert reservoirs in the SW States. And last: Never transport fish (and bait) between rivers. Of course, Crayfish are making there own way, and they will eat all thos pretty mayflies and caddis that we love to fish. Carp would change the ecosystem and be direct competition for other aquatic invert eating fish (like all of them). The FFF has a program aimed at educating anglers about invasive species. Check it out: http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Default.aspx?tabid=4379 And don't forget to clean out those jet boat intakes... Honestly--> Jet boat grate: Manually remove visible clumps of algae from the grate and flush the system with a decontamination solution. Jet unit: Open ball value at bottom of sand trap, remove any residue and flush system with a decontamination solution.

Always the camera man... I hope you have a speedy recovery!

Wayne, I'm in Lethbridge with a Sage Z-Axis 690 (custom built). I love the rod and use it on all sizes of creeks. Send me a message and I can rig it up for some test casting if you'd like. I have a Ultimate trout Sharkskin and a RIO built Lumiline (practice casting line). Let me know. Cheers,

Hey TailingLoop, Excellent summary of what is available under the existing legislation!

Thanks for the response, Lancaster. The comment about whether you've seen the system for yourself was an invitation. I'm glad you've had a tour though. I'm quite cinical about how much water people need versus how much they want... when it comes down to a real decision, a judge decides and that would end up with an undesired decision, I'm sure. Really what judge would take water from an irrigator, water that his livelyhood and children depend on, and give that water to fish? I'll take some time and read the reports in more detail... I've only breifly skimmed them. Thanks again for the post. Harps

Hi Lancaster, Who decides what the best use for water is? There already is a moratorium on new water use in the SSRB (with the exception of the RD). By getting rid of our 100yr old well proven, fair, much studied system we'd be taking water from the land where it is and giving it to cities or popular users (like malls and horse tracks). As it stands we have all the appropriate legislation and power to control existing water resources, just not the public will (much of it ignorance), to determine what is done with the water. I like the FiTFiR system. Its much better than having a gov't decide that the water should go to a bunch of idiots that live in the green lawn, water intensive homes cropping up in subdivisions all over southern Alberta. I think the best thing for water in the province would be a cap on population. There isn't enough water in the rivers right now, but clawing it back will take more then whining. A good court decision for conservation groups accepting water transfers is the best (close to best) way for fish to get water. In the mean time people in Alberta just don't care or know. I'll say one thing... the agricultural community in Southern Alberta are the rivers best friend and worst enemy. The best thing that could happen would be a switch back to smaller ag units and less intensive irrigation. But that is not going to happen. Plus getting rid of FITFIR would mean an end to small irrigators... only industrial agriculture would be able to compete with cities, industry, and other water users. You're new to the site, so I'll let you know I don't always type what I agree with. On that note, I don't really know what your organization stands for (Although I know quite a few of the board members and know of some of the staff). What is your stance on current water policy (or your organization's)? How would you propose to get 70-90% back to fish... Giving it to communities won't help fish. It is the cities that use the power produced at Kananaskis, the cities use irrigation structures, the people use the reservoirs. Do the people want more water for fish or for themselves? I don't agree with deregulation (I believe you're also against dereg), so what other options are being proposed? You've been with the organization since Aug (I believe), have you seen the flows, irrigation systems, reservoirs and fish for yourself?

. . . . . And... Both Energy and SRD have a focus on resource use/extraction, so he might be a better fit than expected.

New line-up of Alberta Ministers. Biggest change for us anglers is Ted Morton is out of fisheries to Finance and Mel Knight from Grand Prairie-Smokey is in to SRD. http://alberta.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?Relea...B10F8E0513.html Mel's info can be found here: http://www.melknightmla.com/about.html Why not welcome him to the portfolio with a letter about what the fishery in Alberta needs (2010 resolutions help) and enlighten him on some of your complaints. He is a former Minister of Energy so he should be used to dealing with pressure. Cheers,

Hey Jeff, Who did you ask about the Carp? From what I know, you CAN NOT fish for them (it is signed stating that you can't fish for them too). The city spent alot of money putting them in the Lakes and they don't want them removed or harmed (like anything can harm a carp). I was also under the impression that they didn't want them taken and moved to other locations. But that was based on earlier conversations and looking at the signs last spring... maybe I'll take a look again tonight. For real carp fishing, the Missouri River has a large population in Great Falls. Cheers,

I think they can co-exist in many places, where the situation is right. Each just needs to find a niche. Unfortunately, there are many places where, in order to co-exist, one of the species has to experience a population decline (basic environmental carrying capacity). In one of my creeks that I've been fishing for over 20 year, I have seen the cutts (cuttbows) pretty much disappear. Maybe pure cutts would have survived better? I think the changes in the creek from road construction, and the changes to the beaver dams and the flooding all had an impact and the brookies were able to withstand better than the cutts. Without the brookies, would the cutts be doing better? ... Brook trout are invasive non-native when they aren't desired; They are introduced non-native when they are. It all depends on current fisheries objectives. Asian carp were brought here on purpose, as were starlings and rabbits to Austrailia and goats to Hawaii. Poor management decisions in the past shouldn't limit current actions.

Brook trout fry emerge from the gravel in early-mid spring. Cutthroat fry emerge in late spring to mid summer. There is not much growth in the cold winter months. Brookies also Brook trout 1) displace cutties, then 2) replace them in a western environment. Brookies displace cutts through competition (depleting resources) and preventing access (territorial behavior). Brookies also prey on cutts more readily (many experiments have shown increased predation on cutts due to the later emergence). And in some places introducing brook trout introduced disease from hatcheries and other waters. On top of that cutts may be more suceptable to man made changes to the ecosystem involving sediment transport to the streams... brookies can spawn on finer materials unlike cutthroat.

Read the best comment on CBC:

Thank you Don!

Sundance... there are underwater cameras. Dustin, There are many good examples on this board (and others) and they get pointed out. Of course, there isn't the conflict so less people view them (RileyS put it better than I would). Like posted before, check out ThisisFly and Catchmag for great fish photos and article. SexyloopsTv on youtube has some quick fish handling, and keeps fish in the water, the New FF is great for fish handling. Oh and fish handling aside... IL and HW were charged, not for fish handling but for poaching (fishing out of season, snagging, etc). Whether you handle fish rough or not, you'd better follow the law that is there to protect the fish.

The best pictures are of fish in and near their natural environment... Bass are tougher than trout in the sense that they live in warmer, less oxygen rich environments and can withstand longer periods out of the water (like Jack said). They still die due to angler mishandling, and there are many reports on panfish C&R from the US that indicate that. They are also suceptable to population harm when the fishing season is open while they are on their nests. Big bass pulled off nests= a lost generation. They are aggressive while defending their territory and are easily angled. BTW Fishing show hosts aren't shining examples of how to handle fish... or how to follow the regulations. Just looking at most FF mags will show you that we need more education on how to handle our resource... I read a good quote this morning that sums it up: "Take care of the Fish, and the Fishing will take care of itself." -Art Neumann, former TU president http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/1998/04/16/fish980416a.html (and a number of writeups from online:

Read old articles on Sexyloops and practice casting movements with a pencil. http://www.sexyloops.com

Fish Pro, I stick with Rogers for my personal phone... it gets better coverage in the S forestry area than my telus work phone does. All though my telus phone picks up a signal along 22 near Chain Lakes.

Mike, Do you think if parks implemented a broad angling based non-native removal program more people would fish? I'd like to see more hiking trails, liberal keep rates of brookies (mandatory ID tests for park licences), and lots of 'cook your own fish on the campfire' type campspots... That was one of the best things when growing up, camping near a creek with a fresh brookie on the fire... mmmm. As it stands, I doubt there is enough angling in the parks to have any impact on non-natives (especially since most anglers don't want to carry brook trout out while hiking, or throw fish on the bank near a camping spot... its just bad bear policy). I see great value in having vast spaces with little human access, but a selfish side of me wants to visit those places, just to test the fishing a little bit. It would give us a great benchmark in regards to managing other places... whether it is looking to create bigger fish or how to minimize impact, while providing excellent access. I've spent some time on the tundra alone, out of radio contact the only sign of humans the planes way overhead... when you get over your fear of the big grizzly that passed by, you really understand how insignificant you are, but also how important your thoughts are, and further- how important an individual is when it comes to influencing the gears of society. In that regard, I'm conflicted... parks with no trails, walking access only will get few visitors, but areas like that create the type of people that have huge impact to environmental polocy. On the other hand, easy access to "wilderness" will alow children (and families) to experience a small part of the awe associated with real wilderness. Although, in the past everybody experiencing a little bit of wilderness hasn't helped protect it.

I like reading these debates, despite what people may think about value. I think our opinions are influenced by what we read from all media, including internet forums. I also believe there is alot of valuable info available that can educate policy makers and regulators that may occasionally visit these forums. At the very least an intelligent person will look for peer reviewed science to support an opinion or debate it, based on what they've read here... In that regard, I'm still curious about peoples opinions of managing fishing in parks, and opinions for and against. If you have nothing of value to add, don't post; if somthing pisses you off here, leave or post a 'value-added' response (I hate policy wonk terms). So getting back on track... if we can quit the pissing match and stick to debate, I'd like to continue learning. ** I'm of the opinion that the fisheries in BNP and JNP are minor compared to the fisheries available in the surrounding area just outside of the parks (largely due to resource access). Limiting fisheries in the parks and impementing a policy to encourage native fish propogation would be fine by me, as I doubt it would impact many people's fishing. Am I wrong? Or should I go back to the rock I've been hiding under for the past few months... NEBC, I'm curious about this report (assumming it's relevent to jetboats and salmonids)... for those of us that aren't worthy, but may have access, how would I go about finding it? for those of you not familliar with the MK: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p027/rmrs_p027_104_109.pdf This is all I have on jetboat (or any boat) access concerns in BC: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/b...sReport(v6).pdf

University of Lethbridge represents... and I agree (amazingly with the majority of experts). If the experts say a toy is bad, I won't argue it being pulled off a shelf. Same with bad food and faulty cars. If the experts beleive in human affected climate change, why shouldn't I? You believe that ozone depleting CFC and acid rain causing sulfates were bad... why not human added greenhouse gas emissions, above what would be natural? And it's global climate change, not warmer weather in Calgary.

Jetboat impacts on salmonid eggs. Merry Xmas; Happy Holidays; or my favourite... Bah Humbug

I'd support the removal of many of the non-natives in the Nat'l Parks too... I also support some limitations to fishing if it is a biologically supported approach (no to fishing spawning fis, maybe limit wading while redds are in the gravel, etc) I also think it would be fine to close a creek for (no more than) a couple of years to help a re-introduced native population establish.... It's all about long term availablity (other wise knon as sustainability). BTW Neil, Great article on Riprap in the Alberta Outdoorsman.

I've noticed a huge improvement on my knees with a Serrapeptase treatment (2 months now) and it seems to have helped my sinuses also. Or it all could just be in my head?

Seniors should definately be required to have a licence. As it stands now there is no requirement for them to even get the regs book. Charge the Win card fee and 5-10 bucks a year for admin costs. Under 14 shouldn't have to pay, but only catch and release unless with somebody holding a licence. I hate to see a family of 5 walk away with 25 trout even though the 3 kids are under 7 years old. That's $60 in licences... now add 4 grandparents and 20 more trout for an extra $0 a year. How is that reasonable? 10 days of fishing the limit is 450 trout for that family unit at only $60 a year. And that can occur how many times over how many years at how many lakes/rivers in Alberta? No license, no keeping fish. period.