BRH

I haven't noticed a difference. In fact, it has been dynamite throughout the day the last while. It all depends on how and what you're fishing.

rickr and 420 ... then I have probably been out of line with about 20 posts here ... my apologies ... I will abide.

Monger ... I've never thought of my years of fly fishing that way. One would think I'd be a little smarter after all those years of chucking flies. There have been a lot of changes to fly fishing since I started at a tender age long before fly fishing was fashionable. From a single old Hardy bamboo to the arsenal of composite rods now in my equipment rack. From wading bare skinned (they didn't make waders small enough in those days) to several pairs of breathable waiders, float tubes and drift boats. From natural, painstakingly collected fly tieing materials to synthetics and flawless hackle capes within easy driving distance. From being religated to fly fishing the small muskeg streams close to home to fly fishing excursions for Tarpon, Permit, Salmon, Steelhead, Arctic Char and to countless trout waters. There have been a lot of changes but over the years two things have remained constant ... there is still nothing better to be doing than standing waist deep in a trout stream throwing a fly into a seam and ... I still have days when I am humbled by the targets of my angling pursuits ... the fish.

I have often had reservations about responding to posts in this "Ask the Pros" forum, I am certainly not a "Pro". However, through occasional browsing of this forum and some of the responses posted by various individuals who, through the content of their response, make it obvious that they are no more a "Pro" than I am, I wonder what qualifies these individuals to offer responses in this forum. Is the connotation of being a "Pro" a self-proclaimed distinction? Is there some set of criteria, hidden away somewhere that I don't know about, that outlines the credentials of a "Pro"? In the description of this forum it states "... This is your chance to ask the guides ... about flyfishing." Does that mean that you have to be a guide to post responses here? Does that mean that everyone posting a response in this forum is a guide? Essentially I'd like to know if I'm qualified to be posting a response here. If not, I'm happy to leave the responding to posts occurring here to the "Pros".

Maybe I'm not understanding your problem but if you're leader is breaking at the clinch knot on the fly then, as I see it, one of three things is happening. Either your leader is defective (worn or deteriorated) or the knot you are using is causing the leader to cut itself or the eye of the hook has a sharp edge that's cutting the leader (highly unlikely). If the problem is that your leader is defective, adding a tippet may only mean that you'll then break off at the joint between the tippet and the leader meaning you're going to lose everything from the tippet down. If this is the case, instead of adding a tippet and losing everything, replace the leader. If your leader is not defective, then the knot you're using is causing the leader to cut itself which is resolved by using a different knot. If you're using a clinch knot to tie on a big fly (big hook) with small diameter leader, it could be the clinch knot is slipping and not the leader breaking at all. Switch to an improved clinch to resolve this problem.

2 things. Wire strung across a navigable stream is not necessarily illegal. Same goes for other manmade obstructions. Be cautious not to make the mistake of assuming the landowner hasn't gone through the proper channels authorizing him/her to put in place the wire or obstruction. You have the right to follow many township and range lines to a watercourse. This is true but don't be fooled into thinking that all township and range lines appearing on the Alberta township system fall into that category. A township road appearing on the Alberta township system separates two of my quaters and borders a third. I lease that township line from the county with full access authority written into the lease. You have no right to be on that township line without my permission.

danhunt makes a valid point here. As a landowner through which a trout stream wanders, I have about 30 seconds to evaluate an individual asking for permission. If the person looks like "city folk", my immediate impression is somewhat less positive than if the person looks like the neighbor down the road. If the person standing at my door has rings in his eyebrows, nose, ears, lips or any other visible portion of their anatomy, my reaction is anything but positive. A farm boy, generally, doesn't have any of that for safety reasons. If he's dressed in a suit and tie wanting access to your willow lined stream, he's an accident looking for a place to happen. If the person looks like he comes from a farm, chances are he's pretty well in tune with respecting the land and his permission to have access. Whenever I'm going to ask a farmer for permission, I always put on my dirtiest Carharts before I knock on the door. I hand him my farm business card with all my contact information on it including the make, colour and license plate number of my truck. As far as swapping labour for access, don't come to me with that offer. By the time I teach you how to do something, I could have had it done 3 times over. This may not work in your favour. However, the guy who comes to my door and tells me I have a fence wire down or a calf out or someone is out wandering around in my field is welcome back anytime and can even drive through the yard down the old trail to the beaver dam cutting out a mile or more of walking. As a side note, dogpound ... I sure wish someone would come to me with a Buck For Wildlife prospect of fencing off both sides my stream. Keeping cattle off the stream course is a costly venture.

By definition, if the stream is identified as a navigable stream then the stream bed is public lands. This includes some nebulous amount of the bank back from high water mark ... whatever that means. Who measures where the high water mark is and when it is identified is not included in the definition. Your challenge is determining if this particular stream is identified as being navigable. If so, you have every right to wander the stream and its banks. If not, you need to respect the signs. Generally, if a stream is identified on a regional map it is deemed to be navigable. I have a navigable stream running and winding through two quarters of my land. Although the stream is navigable and public land, I still string a set of barbed wires across the creek where it intersects with my properly line and hang a "No Trespassing" sign on the wire. The wire is there to prevent the cattle from wandering off my land. If someone follows the stream bed into "my" property, they have every right to be there and I can not refuse them the access ... as long as they stay on the stream bed or banks within the arbitrary distance from the high water mark. If they wander away from the stream onto what is really my property, then I am justified in doing something about it. Having said all of that, civil conversation with the landowner who owns the land on both sides of the stream is likely a good way to go. Keep in mind however that he may try to deny you access even though he has no right to.

Hats off to you BigBowTrout ... nice to see someone recognizing the sponsors of this Forum and giving them a plug. Too bad such recognition is not universal.

FNG ... Fly fishing is a personal sport. It is supposed to be about getting out there and enjoying yourself, enjoying the experience and all that goes with it. Each person has their own opinion about what they use and why they use it. This is consistent through rods, reels, vests, waders, etc., etc. I believe the question you should be asking yourself is which rod do you believe you will enjoy more? Forget about the mechanics someone might tell you about the ease of mending, ease of handling or leverage of one rod length over another. All those things are subsidiary and can be adapted to. My suggestion would be to pick the rod you think you will enjoy fishing with most. As my bowhunting buddies tell me, it's not the length of the shaft that matters, it's what you do with it that makes the difference.

Although it hasn't started yet, exactly, it is on the verge. Flow over the last few days has shown a continual, marked increase. The Highwood and Sheep are total mud flows and have been for the last week or so. We usually figure on runoff hitting about the first week of June. Last year is was early, on the 20th or 21st of May. The year before it hit on June 3rd or 4th. The year before that it was June 6th. you can figure on the river being fishable again around the 25th or 26th of June. This can vary a bit by as much as a week but I've never seen the Bow really fishable before the 20th, and I have seen it stretch into July. Flows in late June and early July will still be up but the visibility will be vastly improved. You can figure on not seeing the flows we saw a week ago until at least mid-August and maybe even September.

From my fence post you see nothing wrong because you're looking through tinted glasses. The funds and energies you spend creating a more prolonged put and take fishery ends in virtually the same way, 5% of the fishers taking 95% of the fish. The only difference is the time frame they do it in. Not that it will take them any more fishing time, they'll just have to fish the pot hole for shorter times more frequently. The best thing we can do in this general area of Calgary is to create better and more effective fisheries that cover certain niches like put and takes? I beg to differ. The best thing we could do is to have an effective Alberta Fisheries Management that acutally manages the fisheries, all fisheries, not based on political pressure but rather based on ecological and biological merit. The best thing we could do is to protect the water resource by reclaiming the banks, diminishing erosion and giving the water courses of Alberta a protective hand toward fisheries sustainability. The best thing we could do is harness your conviction and energies, however misdirected they currently are, and focus them toward meaningful stewardship of our Alberta fisheries. If all you want to do is to focus entirely on one fishery, count me out, I'm not buying your propaganda. If you want to starting talking about preserving fisheries throughout Alberta, I'd be more willing to lend an ear.

Pothole-mania ... the fisheries phenomenon that took the prairie provinces by storm! A concept deemed to be the salvation for the casual fisherman which has and continues to capture the attention of Alberta Fisheries. The entire program was and is based on a put and take philosophy where the quality of the experience was supposed to be elevated for the novice and the young. And now we're spending "ink" on debating who or how much the 'take' should extend to? I, for one, simply don't get it. Now maybe I have no place in this discussion ... I have not killed a fish on purpose for over 30 years, seldom wander the shores of a put and take fishery and have no interest in wasting my time chucking a fly to fingerlings that, if not taken by the hook, with suffocate under the ice. To this type of a scenario I'd suggest that if you're keen on this kind of experience then you're gonna have competition from the uneducated masses. And where does the concept of sustainable fisheries fit into this? Put and take and sustainable (maintainable) fisheries are polar opposites. The "Put" part ... a fininte number of fish are intoduced to the pond. The "Take" part ... fish will be taken from the pond reducing the number of fish making it neither sustainable nor maintainable. Setting the limits so as to increase the distribution of the kills on such a pond is a matter of Angler Management not Fisheries Management, a doctrine far too prevelant in Alberta's Fisheries Division today. Due to budgetary restraints and political indifference, Alberta's Fisheries Division doesn't manage the province's fisheries but rather the anglers utilizing the resource. "Alberta Fisheries Management" would be more aptly named "Alberta Angler Management". The focus of this discussion, putting political pressure to have regulations changed, is testiment to that. If Alberta Fisheries Management actually managed fisheries, regulations would reflect fisheries management principals for sustainable (maintainable) populations based on research and studies instead of being based on political pressures by one interest group or another. Far more energies would be expended on the fisheries that can be sustained and maintained than on the Put and Take pot holes dotting the province. Yes there is demand for P&T fisheries in the province just as there is demand for C&R fisheries. But let's not confuse P&T fisheries with sustainable fisheries.

Cole's Notes version ... hopper-dropper setup. If I "know" the trout are lying in 1 to 2 feet of water (fast or slack), one effective way to fish them with nymphs is using a hopper-dropper set. This does not necessarily mean the top fly is a hopper imitation, just that the setup is that of a hopper-dropper set. I might use a March Brown or Mouse imitation on top and you could even use an indicator is that's your preference. Depending on the time of year, I don't expect a take on the top fly ... only the nymphs dangling below. The idea is here is to limit the amount of bottom drag you're experiencing and covering the water columns. The other aspect of this that you should consider is the field of view the fish has in 1 to 2 feet of water and how much they are going to move to "take" a fly. In 1 or 2 feet of water the fish's field of view is reduced. The faster the flow the less they will move to "take". There is more to this in terms of fly suspension and offerings but that's another story.

Ward ... Max gave you some pretty good, standard info for leader length. One thing you should also consider is the depth of water you're fishing. 8 to 9 feet of leader when you're fishing 3 or 4 feet of slower moving water means you'll be continually cleaning flies of bottom debris. Fish aren't likely to eat flies covered with debris. Leader length is also affected by the type of flies you're chucking on a nymph setup and the configuration of those flies. In constrast to what others might tell you, given the water in the Bow right now, I'm 6 feet from strike indicator to the first fly. Have had some pretty good days of late with much shorter leader lengths than what might be considered to be standard. Having said that, I'll also adjust my leader length multiple times on a trip searching for the "right" zone. Provided you're using the "right" flies and presenting them correctly, it doesn't take much playing with leader length to determine the best length for the water you're fishing.

Trouble is, drbull, that what you consider to be your Canadian right to enjoy crown land and someone else's view on the same thing could be polar opposites. What you might consider to be abuse might be simply exercising their Canadian right to enjoy crown land to someone else. A case in point. I was out west on crown land a couple of weeks ago, heard a horrendous ruckus and investigated. Four turbocharged quads were "playing" in a muskeg bottom. "Playing" is what they called it. They were running, full throttle, into the muskeg, mud flying and wheels churning, seeing who could go furthest before they got stuck. It was no longer a muskeg, it was a mud hole 250 feet long and 60 feet wide with all vegetation displaced and churned up. When I asked them what the "H" they were doing they just said they were "playing". When I pointed out all the damage they were causing they simply said, "we ain't hurtin' nothin'. It's just a bog".

The hijacking continues ... Ignorance, by definition, is a lack of knowledge, learning and/or information. We are all ignorant in this particular situation because insufficient research has been conducted to make an educated evaluation. We can each cite papers or studies that support our individual opinions and beliefs but the fact remains that there is no definitive position on this issue. As such, condemning other fishers for practicing arguably acceptable techniques is what I took exception to. Taking exception to my use of the word "ignorant" simply reiterates my point.

I do apologize for the hijacking. It's just that it gets my dander up when a statement is made that unjustifiably condemns another flyfisher's technique. There is a fair amount of literature on this subject although most of it is taken out of context. Research or studies done on southern or stagnant waters where oxygenation of the water is itself an issue may not be entirely applicable to Alberta streams. It seems to me that research done on our local streams is more appropriate. That said, I’m not adverse to fishers who "heel 'em" or prefer the longer battle. Depending on the situation, I’m both. I just think that mutual respect and courtesy should be at least part of the fly fishing doctrine. Ignorant condemnation, I believe, is counterproductive.

From what I've seen, I'd say it depends on the water. On streams like the Bow I'd suggest it doesn't have much of an effect. On smaller streams, I'd say ducks taking off certainly puts the fish down. That said, there are always exceptions.

Hydropsyche and TimD ... don't get caught up in that misconception. There is another thread on this forum where issue was discussed this at length. Believe what you want but don't attempt to proport it as fact. It would probably serve you well to do some research. More fish die because of improper release than the length of the fight. The fact that someone is taking the time to revive the fish adequately at release is far more gratifying to me than the fact that you stiff-heel your fish. Stiff-heel 'em if you want but don't assume someone else is doing it wrong by fighting the fish.

It seems to me that choosing a pair of polarized sun glasses is a matter of personal preference. Choosing the brand or pair that allows the viewer to "see" into the water. I often wonder if the price tag associated with a particular pair has an influence on what the viewer "sees" or what he/she believes he/she "sees". While I have nothing against the brands mentioned here, my preference is PolarEyes polarized glasses. The lofty price tag associated with them, and other brands like them, may deter some from "seeing" the difference they make. Others not influenced by the price tage will "see" the difference. It is a matter of personal choice.

I tend to agree with bigbadbrent but caution you not to change too quick, just for the sake of changing. You can spend your entire day changing flies and tippets ... spending more time changing them than fishing them. Just because you aren't catching fish doesn't mean the fish aren't feeding or that you're using the wrong flies. More often than not, the presentation is the killer. Not necessarily the killer in catching fish but rather the killer in not catching them. I tend to be a bit slow on the draw when it comes to changing flies and/or tippets. I tend to change presentation markedly more often, while searching, than changing flies and/or tippets. I also take a lot longer to fish a hole than my companions do. Whether or not that translates into greater angling success is a matter of perspective.

Fly fishing Poons ...

While I'm not going to debate this issue or even participate in the poll, your comment concerns me. Not that I think you are wrong or that what you say is inaccurate. I agree our fishing resources are under pressure and that pressure will only become more acute at the years go by. However, I wonder if your reasoning and blame is misplaced. No doubt the flooding of people here everyday is continually increasing the pressure on our fisheries but I submit to you that the greatest pressure has nothing to do with anglers on the rivers and streams of Alberta. The pressure on our fisheries resulting from the influx of people is most profoundly the development associated with the influx and our provincial government's inability or lack of desire to protect the fisheries resource. There are many examples of this on virtually every stream in Alberta where development and industry are given precedence over the retention and preservation of our waterways. While the provincial government gives lip service to the entire issue and presents a bold and endearing front, that fact of the matter is that industry and development along and across Alberta waterways are killing more fish each and every day than you or I will in a life time.

I've got mixed emotions on this. What is the point in licensing guides if all you're going to require is insurance, first aid and basic water knowledge? That would be like issuing driver's licenses to folks based on the fact that they can walk, breathe, and know the basic traffic rules. If this is all your licensing requirements are going to be then I'd be opposed. It would boil down to those who can afford to maintain the required certification. It does nothing about ensuring the ability of a guide to render services or use the resource responsibly. If, by contrast you include in the criteria some level of demonstrated competency, then it might be worth further consideration. I personally don't see the point in restricting guide licensing to Alberta residents. A guide is a guide, some are good some are bad, regardless of their place of residence. It may be the best guide on the Red Deer River is a fellow from Kelowna. To deny him the opportunity to guide on the Red Deer simply because of his place of residence seems to me to be very narrow-minded. Instead, why isn't licensing considered on a two-tiered structure? Anyone able and capable of meeting the criteria of the guide license may obtain a guide license while booking fishing trips in Alberta requires a different level of licensing which could include the Alberta Resident stipulation. That's a licensing structure I could buy in to. Having said that, it is ridiculous to attempt to compare Alberta fisheries with resource management in other jurisdictions. BC and other jurisdictions actually have a fisheries management. Alberta does not. Alberta's fisheries management is not one of managing the fisheries but rather the management of people. There seems to be a general dissatisfaction with guides in this forum (unless of course you're the in-house favourite). I'm not sure where this stems from but I find this fixation exceedingly interesting. I would think, as a broad spectrum of anglers, it would be infinitely more productive to spend your energies on securing better access to our fisheries than targeting the guiding fraternity.