BRH

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.

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.

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.

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.

BrianS ... there's a few pockets I'd be quite willing to tell you about, with detailed specifics, to help you as you're getting started. You can probably appreciate I don't really want to advertise them here but as a neophyte to the sport I'd be willing to share. If we don't help the new comers to this sport at least a little bit, we're doing ourselves a disservice. PM me your e-mail address.

one4adventure ... just one more thought before I leave this. Have you ever noticed that, in general, wading fishers wade out into the water as far as they can and cast to the middle of the stream while the boats, the ones with the bent rods, position themselves parallel to the bank and fish to the shore? Better water? You're standing in it!

*lol* ... I was thinking exactly the same thing. And the three guys in my boat wouldn't be slowed down by waders. *lol* Think about it. The guy behind the oars likely spends over a hundred days a year manually rowing a boat up and down the river and all winter on a rowing machine keeping in shape. Do you really want to throw rocks at this guy? *lol*

Thanks rickr. My point was and is that no one has the legal "right of way". It is a courtesy extended by most and rudely ignored by others both in boats and wading the banks. If a boat extends the courtesy it's because the pilot chooses to respect your presence. Those idiots who don't extend the courtesy are not breaking any laws and legally have every right to float right through "your" water. So rather than getting livid or contemplating throwing rocks or purposely attempting a tangle or shouting profanities at the boaters, let the idiot pass and don't allow them to ruin your day. Obviously they could care less that they just floated through "your" water so while you may be ticked, it's only your day you're wasting on fretting. I spend over a hundred days a year in a drift boat on the Bow River and at least that many wading her banks. In the many years I have been doing this, not once has a wading angler thanked me for making special effort to "leave" him "his" water. Not a nod of the head or a tip of the hat. Not even when I'm obviously straining at the oars to make distance between my boat and the wading angler has any wading angler ever thanked me for the extra effort I made to show him the courtesy. Maybe it's a general expectation of wading fishermen that the water in front of them is "their" water and because of that no acknowledgement for the courtesy is necessary. By contrast I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've been thanked by other boaters for changing my course. Courtesy is a two-way street.

Still devil's advocate ... a pedestrian in Alberta has the 'right-of-way' by legislation. Not so in other jurisdictions. Is there legislation in Alberta giving the wading angler the 'right-of-way'? If not, it is illogical to associate the two. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just asking for a legitimate reason for the wading angler to have the right-of-way that actually makes sense with something other than emotion and/or perceived opportunity and/or avaliable options. Is the water not public water? Are the fish in the water not the boater's fish as much as they are your's? Is there a clause in the regulations that I have overlooked that cites the wading angler having the 'right-of-way?

Continuing the devil's advocacy ... so because the wading angler can't cover as much water as the boater, the wading angler should have the 'right-of-way'? Doesn't he have the same opportunity to be a boating angler as everyone else out there in a boat? Can't he too go where ever the hell he wants except for that which he can't reach because he's not in a boat? Don't boating anglers have to make do with what they can get to as well? Aren't boating anglers also wading anglers from time to time?

I actually laughed out loud reading this thread. Most boaters, there are always exceptions, give a wide berth to wading fishermen regardless of the pole style in their hands. It is the courteous thing to do. But pull their lines out of the water in addition to giving a wide berth ... give your head a shake. Most of them respect that you walked in to the spot you're fishing and are quite prepared to "leave" you some water to fish but if you expect them to take their lines out of the water as they "leave" you some water to fish just ain't going to happen. Most are quite happy to meander down the middle of the river to allow wade fishermen on both sides of the river "their" water. But take their line(s) out of the water as they pass? Give me a break! For those of you wading fishermen who have encounters with discourteous boaters, believe me, boaters have the similar encounters with those same discourteous boaters. Further to that, boaters also have encounters with discourteous wading fishermen. Just because they're wading doesn't make them exclusive. For the sake of being devil's advocate, what gives the wading fisherman the 'right-of-way'? Is it because of his mode of transportation? Is it because of a misconception that he expended more energy to get to the spot he's fishing? While most are quite prepared to yield water to the wading fisherman, can some one please tell me why the wading fisherman has the 'right-of way'? It's all public water so what makes the wading fisherman more deserving of the water? one4adventure ... do you honestly think that if the boaters pull their lines out of the water as they pass your location it is going to enhance your chances of having success? I hate to be the callous soul that breaks this to you but a fishing party in a boat passing, fishing, lines in or out of the water has little to do with your chances for success. If your success is dismal, it's got nothing to do with the boat, the fishers in the boat or the fact that they passed your location.

The handle seemed fitting given the situation ...

I'm not sure I really fit into this discussion. I believe the rod should be fitted to the type of fishing you're doing and the fish you're fishing for. I actually am a little reluctant to list my rods here for fear that my wife might venture in and read this. However, here goes ... 1 - 9' 6 wt Echo 1 - 9' 7 wt Echo 1 - 8'6" 5 wt Sage 2 - 9' 7 wt Temple Forks 1 - 10' 10wt Echo 1 - 10' 12 wt Echo 1 - 8' 3wt Loomis 2 - 9' custom rods - one 4 wt from Loomis blanks the other a 6 wt from Sage blanks 1 - 9' Hardy Bamboo - retired and in a show case on the wall I personally prefer the Echo rods although my second choice would be the TFs. Each rod has a different feel and different attributes that dictate which rod I'll use in any given circumstance. Having said that, I didn't even take either of the Sage rods out of their case last year. I'm currently on a kick with the Echo Denmark reel. I've used a number over the years but I'm really pleased with this reel for the time being.

openfly ... It's likely a little early for much of a variety of nymphs. A dull stone nymph might turn a few heads but nymphs won't be as productive now as they will be in a couple of months. I'd be looking more along the lines of the leech varieties and similar offerings. Take a seine net along with you. You'll be amazed what you find in the water.

Thanks for the welcome ... I don't trophy fish either ... I find the monuments with the little cup mounted on top just sink to the bottom when you try to release them back into the water! However, I do tend to fish where I'm likely to tie into something slightly bigger than your finger. June is Giant Tarpon on a fly for me ... and I certainly hope they're a little bigger than your finger. Not that I'm going for a trophy (I can get one of those in a monument store right here at home) ... just something I've always wanted to do.

I gotta tell ya ... mikefromSundre makes more sense to me in this thread than anybody else. Those of you who choose to keep your favorite fishing spots a secret are maybe keeping them a secret from other anglers but certainly keeping them secret from the authorities who protect them. The only way to influence the political arena into preserving our fishing streams is to attract enough attention to force the legislators to act. A case in point are the fishing opportunities in Montana. Montana understands the value of their fishery. The majority of streams in central Montana have a boat launch every 5 miles, foot access almost everywhere and a state promotional program second to none. And every one of their streams is protected from development ... protected to preserve the fishery they offer. By contrast, Alberta has no concept of what fishery protection is or how to achieve it. Yes they've done some work on the Stauffer and Dog Pound but how about the thousands of miles of other streams in central and southern Alberta? Go ahead an continue to keep your favorite fishing hole a secret and, over the years, watch it fall victum to the development threatening every water course in Alberta today. The Raven River, North and South, is a perfect example of this. Sure they used the "Buck for Wildlife Program" to protect the banks of a very small segment of the Raven (Stauffer) but following a good rain storm, none of the Raven is fishable including that section known affectionately as the Stauffer. Same goes for the Dog Pound, Fallen Timber, Little Red, Sheep, Highwood, Gorge ... I could go on and on. If we are going to curtail this tendency, we've got to start making some noise instead of quietly trying to keep a "secret".