DaveJensen

Haven't been here in an ice age but heard this topic was here and hopefully can help a little. Bron - I had the exact same thought as you about the outriggers when we showed up to film with that boat. The reality is that they are on top of the water and really don't get in the way. It was funny because I envisioned getting all gnarled & tangled but not a chance as they are out of your range of motion with any effort. Tallieho & Monger - I'm 210 and wasn't even worried about falling out when standing. Sure, the first time standing you feel off balance but then you get the hang of reverse bracing your calves against the seat and it's no problem at all. As Joe said the boat's seat is well high enough to do everything you need to while sitting anyway. Lifting it - if 40 year old Amelia can lift it off the truck and carry it to the lake first try, most should be able to or at least have someone help easily. And because it's extremely light you can carry it a long ways. I've tried walking a pontoon boat down some long cutlines and this is a breeze by comparison. Time to set up - a little longer than a pontoon boat but marginal from what I saw. No matter what packable or portable boat you buy it will take time to pump up pontoons, snap frames together. Price - well... what boat are you buying for what purpose? It's a lake boat that could be used on slower rivers by anyone with any kind of moving water aptitude. If you fish lakes I have yet to see a design that allows you to go anywhere near that speed and allows you to stand up and sight-fish. And touching on speed - it's not just that it can book it across a lake but the ease in which you get moving. Unlike a pontoon boat that chugs & stalls with every single stroke, this thing carries and glides. And standing to spot fish - that is worth a lot to people that want to do some neat things like watch for cruising rainbows or tailing browns in shallow. There's a ton of subtle things that have been sourced and crafted to make that boat work. And it does exactly what it is supposed to do, very well. I'm not sure how Joe could price it less based on being a small company using mostly locally sourced parts. Hope this helps a little. Cheers

So, to throw a wrench in everyone's sling pack and vest love... once you wrap your head around what's happening with this pack you'll really have to mull over what to buy, what to use. This thing is really good for camera folks when ff. The two part pack means you simply can swing the bottom 1/2 of the pack around your waist and get all your stuff without unclipping or zipping. http://www.mindshiftgear.com/products/rotation180-horizon They're about to send up another like-concepted field test demo of a pack based on fly fishing so that might be interesting. And yes, our collection of these packs, bags, and slings is getting outrageous. I think we're in the mid-20s downstairs now.

Spent a lot of time wearing these in field testing. They are perfect for day trips and if you have any need for a camera, get the guide sling. You can fit a lot in there, they are mostly comfy (the caveat is if you over load them like we always have), and really easy to use. There's room for lunch, several fly boxes (enter the Tacky), tippet & all other *hit, a water bottle holder that actually holds your larger bottle and doesn't lose it while going bush, and space for your jacket. All while not burning out your shoulders.The caveat is to figure out where to hang your net in a manner that works for you, but hand landing & flipping, or tailing is likely friendlier on the fish anyway. Hope that little bit helps.

Side by side comparison to Smith LLI to MJ HT. There is a review on the internet by an Alberta angler who did exactly that. I used to love my MJ HT but once given a pr of Smith LLI to try out I haven't used my MJs in 4 fishing seasons. The amber/green lens color thing is overblown in practical, on the water applications. The amount of light, glare cutting, sharpness of detail, contrast, etc are all far more important. There isn't one person I've passed the Smiths onto that hasn't called them a game changer in sight-fishing. Every person I fish with in NZ now wears the Smiths. Cheers

Thanks here to folks understanding that I’m just sharing one person’s perspective while trying to help folks understand process. I’ve long said it shouldn’t be called fisheries mgt. Without humans the fish would do very well on their own. It has to be said that the rainbows should be in a good place through the winter in the Bow, hence the opening. Generally, the stage of annual life cycle has them in a good place up until spring at least (and I'll exit that conversation stage left!). The central AB brown trout stuff is a sidebar herring, apologies. Back to this being a discussion about Bow R browns. Let’s remember that the Bow R FMPC has used science and a whole host of variables to put forth the recommendations, and that we’re at a good place. (at a good place is relative and in perspective when scaled within the flood recovery and natural re-population of browns). It is the best we have. Let’s not lose sight of that. Full stop. OK! So, now that I’ve shared my perspective, some detail on the Fisheries Mgt Plan process, the biology, let’s look at an important aspect of the entire process: SOCIAL. Let’s completely discount my position of not fishing to stressed fish. My position could be seen as an elitist position. I don’t see it that way. But, others might, that’s fair, I get it. Let’s look at the fact that Amelia & I fish 200 days a year anyway. We have no kids, no dog, no mortgage, no payments because of the sacrifices and squireling of $ and how life has gone healthily thus far. We don’t make a lot of $ but all we want to do is fish and share fishing. BUT, we get to go to New Zealand for 3 months year because of how we’ve set up our lives, we’ve established a way to do it economically – most wouldn’t want to live as we do there. But because we get to avoid much of winter (Nov – Jan) in Alberta and fish NZ summer, it removes the desire to force a few fish to hand in Ab winters. Combine that with the skinny, poor energy of post spawn and winter, I find it tough to fish browns. That’s me / us (to be clear!) One perspective in a vast social discussion. ENTER SOCIAL considerations here. The Bow is well known. Calgarians love it. It’s a healthy escape. Allowing fishing ties people to fishing, it supports the industry, the entire process that includes everyone from bios/gov types to guides, shuttle co’s etc. It keeps a lot of people sane in the winter and some people suffer from depression/SAD or need a mental escape. Hence, and this is important, because the FMP sees that there is room for angling without detriment on the population, one person’s decision to not fish vs another’s to fish should simply be left to themselves. If we need to close the Bow to #2 all winter eventually, then that’s what will happen. But for today it is open to fish most of the year and that’s a great thing. As you can see, trying to shed light on the FMP process is involved, hence why what you will eventually see in public review has a lot behind it: likely 20 people directly spending 2 years on the process. Remember this process and how involved it is the next time you or someone you know calls a biologist, enforcement officer, a tech, etc an idiot or that they don't know what they are doing. There is a process involved, one that has many, many considerations. It ain't perfect but nor are any of us. I think that's as far as I can go to be of help here folks. Hope my involvement helped a little. Cheers & good fishing.

As it pertains to the Bow, obviously the FMPC feels that the Bow can produce enough positive energy through winter, or at least that the present and short term (next 5 yrs) forecast of angling impact is not detrimental to the population. The Bow has a unique productivity in Alberta thanks to the city of Cgy. The monitoring of angling impact is always up for future discussion based on examination of carrying capacity and biomass levels discussion as well as other impact (redd trampling, hooking mortality of aggressive fall males, etc). There really are only a handful of brown trout streams that could = enough positive energy to support a winter fishery in Alberta. The Bow is one, Stauffer another (very marginally and is based/relying on less angling pressure / impact at present), the Crow is good for rainbows (a few browns). There’s more to it all yet, but in the balance of opportunity, politics, and biology, here we are with the opportunity. Go with it until a change is needed. As it pertains to browns, we need to look objectively in Alberta. How many post-spawn browns are caught through winter to early May that look like the above? If there isn’t enough energy and growth in a stream to recover a fish from the fall spawn’s wounds and markings, is there enough energy available to warrant us angling to them? Maybe we should hold each other to a higher account and not fish some waters at all at some points of the year, and pressure gov to that same std to ensure we don’t cause a demise of something so good. Of course, this then challenges the guiding principles of brown trout in Alberta; begs consideration of the spawning season; begs us to consider the wintering energy issues; forces us to accept the limitations and revisit the spring opening; will see a need to change regulations province wide; would force a brown trout management plan that brings managers from varying regions and districts into a discussion of how best to manage a collective of waters that are managed by several different managers though the waters themselves are mere miles apart; and would force a series of discussions on the management of the collective-whole. You begin to see how the link that started this thread raised many questions. I wanted to come back to another aspect of my first post as, sure as anything, someone is going to hold me hard & fast to the absoluteness of what I wrote vis-à-vis the energy thing. (the more you say the more detail people want yet the more ambiguous you are the more people project upon you in the future...) My consideration is that having healthy fish to start with before energy deficit begins is one thing – and being in an energy deficit situation is somewhat sustainable and the exception to my position. For example, Amelia caught an 8 1/2 pound brown in NZ this year on a fringe mousey influenced west coast river. It was a sort-of mousey river and the mice were done there by late spring – hence available energy was lessening. 6 weeks later a friend caught the exact same fish. Due to the prolonged rains, the fish was 8 pounds – losing 1/2 pound in that time due to less energy available and greater energy expense. Still a very healthy fish and cicadas are now out so it should stabilize. That scenario is different than what I wrote in my first post because the fish had a very healthy profile to begin with. Starting with hurting fish is another thing altogether, such as a post flood Bow or RDR brown, or one that is skinny post spawn has zero chance of positive energy until early May. There’s a fine line sometimes, many/most other times it’s flat obvious. But when we know the trends of fish in Alberta and ignore them, allowing open brown trout season all winter or April 1 when we know their trends and likely condition, that energy isn’t available until May, does it make sense in the long run/ future of our fisheries to allow our impact? How many photos of browns have you seen on the internet from the Bow or other waters that look like this next one, taken in winter or late spring and the fish obviously is energy neutral or negative and hasn't recovered from spawning 6 months earlier? That's why these fish look like this. And once you know their plight... well, sorry, I've likely ruined winter fishing for a few people.

As my article on the post-flood browns of the Bow R was referenced and that I was asked to join this conversation, I can share a bit. As in all things fishy, the discussion behind a one sentence reg change in a link has a generation of fisheries behind it. My article as referenced is quite specific in focus: helping anglers find the browns post flood on the Bow R. It was never intended to discuss spawning closures nor fishing regulations. It did discuss the sapro issue because the decadent portion of any population is subject to many variables. There are a finite, specific number of decadent individuals in any population: more when conditions allow, fewer when they don’t. One variable or another will kill these individuals. In the case of the Bow R, it was almost irrelevant that the sapro issue came to pass because had sapro not taken a % of that decadent population, the floods the very next spring would have (and did). It’s that simple and both would have dealt with the exact same individuals of the population. Browns in floods of that scale simply don’t do well. Browns in prolonged high water also teeter on the precipice but many survive. Like any infection, disease, etc, Sapro is in the Bow system but you need a susceptible (old) population and environmental conditions to allow for its increase of occurrence. We may well see it resurface in 6 to 8 years as the present bumper crop of juveniles coming out of the flood grows old together - disease and infection runs amok amongst numbers of susceptible individuals. In previous discussion about the spawning closure on the Bow, on this and other media where I shared perspective, I did so from the place of pointing out the many considerations that have to be made in regulations and management. There are the guiding principles for brown trout in Alberta that also have to fit into the guiding policies of fisheries management in Alberta, which have spin-off considerations into/from gov policy. There are then considerations of the stream specific angling regulation to both that water and the regulation of similar brown trout fisheries, but also the impact of providing angling opportunity (or restricting it) and that impact on nearby waters. It ultimately has to consider the accessibility of angling in Alberta as a whole and the fishery resource. In past, my points and counterpoints have always been to point those items out for people to consider the ramifications beyond one reach of one river, though for many of us our passion in getting involved derives solely from one river (the Bow in this instance). The process of sorting through the above points of discussion is one that the gov undertakes through a Fisheries Management Plan, and there is a FMP Committee. We wrapped the Red Deer R FMPC this past spring. The Bow R FMPC went through the same process. Well respected, intelligent, thoughtful, people are involved in the process and it is a once a month commitment for 2 years as the framework of discussion occurs. Believe me, the items of discussion and consideration and their potential ramifications (short & long term) are put through the ringer. It is complex and involved and the amount of information and sharing is exhaustive. At the end of that process are not only recommendations for fisheries regulations by reach of watershed, river, etc, but a much broader reaching series of considerations per in/ex-stream course watershed habitats, habitat improvements/reclamations/future issues directives, etc. Science/biology is at the center of all the discussion. The FMP is so much more involved than to worry ‘only’ about fisheries regulations. It’s a whole set of considerations and recommendations. The resulting fishing regulations recommendations only reflect the state of the habitat – the regs are the canary in the coal mine. Regarding the link that started this discussion, that link caused a lot more problems than most people can appreciate. There are massive questions in the process used to arrive at those recommendations and serious concerns moving forward. The simplest regulations changes for a few central Alberta brown trout streams have massive implications. Wrapped into that as well is the lack of a provincial round table mtg and discussions, and things are at a stand still. It’s a lot deeper than many recognize and with the budget state in Alberta it’s in limbo. It’s almost unfortunate that the proposed Bow R reg changes were shared publicly in the manner of that link. My reasoning in saying that is that it’s a bit of disservice and disrespect to the process and people involved. It also short changes an opportunity for community outreach. The next step of the process is a public review process through information sessions that details the process, the data, science, and biology as well as social considerations in the process of getting to the proposed regulations changes. Jumping only to the regs and not looking at process as well as ignoring the other parts of the forthcoming complete Fisheries Mgt Plan focuses solely on the fish and misses the point of the full spectrum of considerations of our society and impact of our actions as a whole as they pertain to the Bow R habitat, which then trickles down to the regulations needed to keep what population of what species in the river. It misses opportunity to share and educate and encourage people to get involved in habitat protection. While I have specific concerns about brown trout in Alberta, it has to be said that when you consider the state of every fish species in the province, browns are likely in the best overall health. (Impacts of floods and drought come and go). This doesn’t mean that serious changes aren’t needed to ensure things remain this way. But I would encourage everyone to also consider the state of fisheries management in Alberta. With the gov budgets we’re facing, the ongoing cuts to operations and staffing, it is far better to support our biologists and techs and take the time to understand and appreciate the process and frameworks they have to operate in than to express opinion form the hip. These people are trying to do best they can within that system. Now, personally, given what I’ve seen in the differences in the health of brown trout in many fisheries due to the impacts of floods, drought, heavy forage vs poor forage, and so much in between, I’ve come to the conclusion that fishing regs are irrelevant (I stick to the legal regulations of course). My personal stance is that if the browns in a river aren’t at least ina state of being energy neutral I won’t fish that water until the available energy balance is neutral or +. And you can tell the state of a river’s fish at that time simply by seeing a photo of a fish, knowing the time of year and knowing what the environmental conditions are/have been. It’s easy to project what’s going on and line it up with your personal parameters. Seeing the stress of drought and floods, seeing post spawn browns literally spend months on end in a state of deteriorating suspension through central Alberta, seeing peak of summer doggo fish in New Zealand, and knowing that the impact of catching them only impacts them further, it’s simply unenjoyable to catch them though they are often the easiest fish to catch. It’s one thing to catch easy, skinny fish when you know positive energy is on its way (food: hatches, fry emergence, mice, etc). It’s another when you know that incoming energy is neutral or deficient. It’s why on this year’s trip to New Zealand’s S Island we spent 3 days fishing the west coast in 10 weeks though we've traditionally gone to NZ to fish the west coast. It poured rain for 7 weeks straight (150 to 400mm of rain a day, literally – let that sink in). The fish were skinny, suffering. Yes, we spend good $ to be there but for us the value of not impacting those fish was greater than our need to catch them - but only because we’re aware of the negative energy balance and their plight. What joy is there in easy fishing when you know the fish are desperate, suffering, and likely to continue to do so? And that is the point of all the above. Just for some consideration. Cheers

-

The gov is aware of this. If you can provide specific detail to the advancement to Jason Cooper, I'm sure they'd appreciate everything that you can offer to provide. Jason.Cooper@gov.ab.ca We can't expect the eyes of gov to be as open and broad reaching as 4.5M people.

Just saw this Taco - I only have 2,3,4 wts in those. They get used time to time. I should fish them more often and may start to spread water time out a little more this summer. If I had a 6 I'd send it your way tho.

If I can make a comment? Try many, many rods and see what you prefer for flex / load point and whether your style matches the rod. I'm personally not a tip flex guy because I like to load a little deeper & slower, and let the line/rod flex and shoot in one false cast. The rod has to load and flex how & where you like it and the line you choose has to lay out how you best feel for where/how you fish. Keep in mind that a shorter rod will preclude a few things, like steeple casts high above the willows in tight water. Maybe check out an Orvis Superfine, 4 wt. Load it with a trout taper line and a 12 foot leader and 25 feet of fly line and see how that feels laying out. I used to be a Scott G-Series guy, then an Orvis Helios 4, mid, but am loving the Superfine (graphite. The glass is nice but a different application). No matter what rod you use, you will have to allow a 4wt to work for you, so true for the style of fishing on smaller waters. Cheers.

Yes. The downfall in our communication a year or two back was that you were screaming that something had to be done NOW & I didn't agree there was any issue. But there was no way to show there was any issue, no data set that was pertinent to anything about anything to show any cause and effect. My point then - as it is now - is that your efforts had to be tied into a larger effort that - over time and allowed time to be shown - could track and substantiate cause and effect, not just be random, widely dispersed and somewhat irrelevant data left on its own. So, obviously, tying your data into something larger and focussed and allowed time, will benefit the fishery you've spent a ton of time on. That's where I was coming from. And it has to include observations over time that includes your stuff but goes further and professionally / consistently gathered evidence. And hopefully you see today that this isn't a shot at your efforts - it's to make sure that there is consistency in data collection to substantiate that it is valid, or at the very least consistent. I have only really ever been saying there has to be framework to show what you were screaming about was true/not, and you didn't want to allow time to develop that framework. Now that we know the biomass is ok and the stream isn't in imminent trouble, we can allow time for that framework to be developed and expand the data we collect. I honestly think that you were on a good path all along but your view lacked the structure needed to affect change within the system of biology. Our in-our-faceness with each other didn't help, but we're getting there. It ain't like I'm perfect or anywhere near it in my approach. Like you - my goal is to keep pushing the idea ahead to those with the power to institute that change. There are a ton of similarities/commonalities to what we are saying. All along, I've only ever hoped that we can set something up to take Stauffer into a healthy future, transitioning from what you've done to ongoing monitoring and data collection, applying what we can learn from Stauffer to a broader scope of applicability. It screams benchmark fishery.

Ok, back to Stauffer it is Don. Did you read my post about biomass? You know, the one with the 27" male brown staring you in the face? The brown trout population - that is, total number of individuals - could be down 95% but if the biomass is the same, is there a decline? NO. It would likely show up in sizes - which it is. But you already dismissed that point - and I don't get why anyone would want to wilfully ignore the facts of what science data collection is showing us. And that is only dealing with brown trout. Now add in the fluctuations of the pike and brook trout population and their use of the available biomass for fish in Stauffer Cr. Not only is there fluctuations in biomass distribution within brown trout, but pike & brook trout can eat into the biomass brown trout use and their #s and biomass distribution can also fluctuate. And then you have to consider that within Stauffer Cr, there are reaches that each species of fish utilize and various reaches will have higher/lower populations of each pike, browns, and brook trout. To be clear to Don & everyone else: there is absolutely NO CONCERN for the available biomass in Stauffer Cr - it is the same today as it was in the peak study - the biomass is simply redistributed in sizes of browns with a little nibbled off the shoulders to accommodate brook trout and pike in their preferred reaches. And regarding funding and desire to start data collection - a couple interesting conversations today @ the provincial RT mtg. The idea I've been floating a few years might be catching on with folks that have influence and $. It is simply collecting and analyzing data and tracking the changes and relative impacts/events through time. Things like previously mentioned in pH, turbidity, flow, temp, insect population/dynamics, angler use/density/creel, beaver influences on habitat (wood, water temp, etc), etc, etc. Quite a few folks are seeing that the discussion of Stauffer has to start turning toward measuring of the habitat and their causes and effects. Again, of all waters in AB, if we can't get it together to do this on Stauffer, we have no hope. Why is it important in my mind? Because we can at the very least extrapolate what we see there to other (relatively) low elevation brown trout waters and then overlap it with other studies to start to gain an appreciation of various impacts and impacts moving forward across Ab. And this is just off the top of my head - there are so many positive spin-offs. Don, always remember that no matter what happens with Stauffer, and hopefully that includes what I typed above, it is all testament to what you & Barry laid foundation to. If we can get something set up to carry your hard work into the future, isn't that a wonderful next step?

To be clear, Vagabond, otters are native (even as a fringe of territory) as clearly shown in our history books. Either habitat/climate or man extirpated them. In the time since some began to cling to the false notion that today's world is as it has always been and anything new/outside the way it is must be bad, managed, and controlled based on what we want - which truly is our species' downfall. But, if otters aren't native to the area: Anthony Henday reported otters as the #2 pelt in traplines between Stauffer Cr & the Battle R in the 1750s, who stocked them back then? Don, of the 15 otters you've seen, how many were re-sightings? Answer: you don't know. Way too many open ended variables in your argument. Avoiding facts to continue a position doesn't make sense. This is true in the case of otters & Stauffer's brown trout. At some point it kills need for discussion. But Don, as I mentioned in our spat on the AO forum, Stauffer is a perfect place to carry out true biology, to study as many facets as possible. See, the above statements from me are based on the best available science. But our science spearheaded by our gov is not good science - it's science that serves a purpose of keeping minimum stocks of fish in our waters based on our min desire/expectation (and of course that is a generalization). At the end of the day we can agree to that (see, I found a commonality). We need better data to base decisions on so that we can substantiate what you are saying or dispel it. True biology would best occur in Alberta on Stauffer Cr - it's as closed an ecosystem on a functional trout stream as we have.

Ah, Don, bugger me anyway. I was hoping we'd find commonality for once. Alas... population on Stauffer. There is only a finite amount of biomass available in any ecosystem to a species. How that species uses it in a population pyramid dynamics changes/fluctuates over time. Do you want 30 browns @ 8 to 12" or 6 browns 20 - 27"? Because that is exactly what has changed in Stauffer. The same amount of biomass is tied up in browns today as it was then. We could change that by putting a bounty on all browns over 12" and you'd get your numbers back. You cannot cause any more biomass to brown trout than carrying capacity allows - and by all study the carrying capacity has not changed - only the biomass distribution has. Is it good or bad that we have more big fish that might not be as active as the hordes of smaller used to be? Depends on who you ask and what the population of users of the resource want. I kind of like how it is now, however. You'd be surprised how many of these a guy can catch in a season.