DaveJensen

The barbless on the coast thing was due to the fact he was a shareholder at a coastal BC lodge. After his Bow float, within 2 months, using the guide impetus to substantiate his agenda, as follow up he simply referenced that other adjoining jurisdictions used barbless, referencing adjoining ones. He knew that much to substantiate his agenda. When you actually see the emails from gov bios / techs around at the time, it is as is. Some have memories for this stuff. Call me the TMZ, lowland Alberta style. And how dare anyone here question the Queen of Alberta Trout? (you'd have to have been around our old forum a long time to get any of that one - it was a great thread)

That's the understatement of the decade. Klein went on a guided trip on the Bow and asked the guide what would make fishing in Alberta better. Guess what the answer was? And guess who circumvented all process in telling the lackies 'make it so'. Still recall and shake my head at the email that was written by gov bio at the time, upon being told to 'make it so'. Under the assumption a % of the rivers/streams would go barbless rather than carte-blanche province wide, his email went out saying,"Given the complete lack of science behind this new regulation, I propose that streams begining with the letters _, _, _, _, and _ now have barbless regulation." And so it was. And here we now are once again about to spend a ton of time and $ on an issue that has so little impact on our fisheries as compared to so many larger scale issues. There are so many positive things of how our fisheries are managed, given the severity of land use, resource extraction, and intensity of recreation in this province, but the barbed hook issue is not a shining point. Fisheries needs to find a way to focus on things that can make a difference, and somehow find a vehicle to ensure their recommendations have to be adhered to in the env review processes rather than simply a 'recommendation'. But given the direction of the gov, with the next election likely to be Conservative vs Conservative, do we expect process to allow the good fisheries staff to have their say with clout to get better?

What this truly smacks at is what has been needed in Alberta for so long: baseline ecological data. I'm starting to feel like a broken record on these forums - every time I post now I reference how Fisheries are managed and the hope for the best - react to a crisis - hope for the best - react to a crisis... ongoing cycle. At some point, we need to stop the downward spiral of generational amnesia (how good it used to be and the acceptance of the lower standard) that has seen things deteriorate. We need to know the baseline data on things like bugs, water quality, influence of perpetual clear cut logging on in stream flows at critical flow periods (high and low) and restrict logging companies' AACs where necessarry, and begin to restrict road/pipeline construction to reduce the amount of sedimentation/pollution/seepage in our waters. We need true biology to occur with annual fish populations and angler surveys that draw us all out to share our experiences in a tangible manner that can reflect, over time, the trends and the why behind the declines in our fisheries' ecosystems. This would be a massive over haul in our Fisheries Management. Without it, however, we will continue the decline. Alberta is running the risk of becoming the sacrificial lamb for N American energy. While all things ecological can recover, why run ourselves into the ground just to prove that point? Anybody can Google that, so what makes our govt so special it needs to re-learn what the world already knows?

What ^^^Toirtis said^^^ If you know how to handle fish you can catch the same cutthroat trout 50 times in 10+ yrs and see it swim off happily enough. You can catch the same brown trout from the same shoreline bucket 15 times this coming season and anticipate seeing it again. Run your hand down the leader, grab the fly at the mouth, flip the fish upside down to settle the fish & take the fly out. Roll it for a quick pic or not, tuck into the current. That said, the irony is on the NZ Forum over this season, a fellow was wondering how he could improve his landing % of hooked fish. More than one person said to go barbless to increase the landing % as the hook embeds deeper - as long as you kept tension the deep embedding will help keep you hooked up. Many, many perspectives. I am fully on the side of user decides if for no other reason than we're now going backwards and using finite resources squabbling over things that are of little conseqeunce and are truly a feel good issue. There are far, far more pressing issues in our fisheries than debating the 2-3% difference in hooking mortality as it pertains to 97% of our trout fisheries. Let's spend our time getting a fish ID test so bulls can be distinguished from brookies, let the COs actually enforce habitat issues, ensure TransAlta doesn't run rivers dry during brown trout spawning season, etc, etc.

Sorry to hear that. I've certainly broken a Helios but not because of the rod's build - but because of me. I've stepped on one while filming on day #2 on last year's trip to NZ (nothing like doing that on day 2 of 3 months), then sheered the tip of another with a streamer. Otherwise, have been using the mid flex 4, 9 foot since it came out. Have landed some very large trout at Fortress, in MB and in NZ, mistreated (I can't tell you how many rocks have hit the rods) and really worked the shnautz out of the 4s with huge streamers and heavy situations, but other than those two events, no issue whatsoever. We do fish a bit too. I have had a few age spots occur in the rod: places where I've obviously dropped or fallen with the rods and whacked them. Over time the finish has worn in those spots. Have the two 4 wts, a 5, and a 6 Helios and all have been great.The 5 and 6 wts are up at Fortress and somehow managed to not get broken... and trust me, people find the neatest ways to break our rods up there. The good news is Orvis always will make it right and you should have it for skwala season (not that the current weather helps!) Honestly, I wouldn't trade my 4 wt, mid flex, 9 foot Helios for any other rod out there, that's the one for me. I used to cast the Scott G series 4, but that's long discontinued and it had to be sent back for ferrell replacement every 2 years (I used it a ton and didn't take as good care of it as I should have). I have the new H2 rods as well. Just finished up a bunch of NZ fishing with a 5 wt and it handled a lot of fish, including some heavy salmon. A 4 wt, mid flex just showed up in the past few days here and it is likely to be a sweet ride. I'm looking forward to comparing the new 9', H2. 4 wt, mid flex against the original Helios. Definitely agree with the AA web page. Your rod issues sound like they might have had a wee booboo from a rock ding and then maybe a bad angle when pulling from the rock snag. And you'll love me for saying this <because the timing is oh-so-helpful, right? > ... sacrifice the fly for the rod's sake... when pulling a fly out, just straighten the rod straight back and pull once you know it's stuck good. We should get together this summer and you can try out a few of these rods, as well as the Superfine, which is a really nice rod for Alberta waters. Hope third time's a charm. Cheers

Ther cost of living is somewhat up but quite comparable to Alberta all told, given that some goods are coming direct from Malaysia, China, etc that are much cheaper, while other goods are coming from N America or are oil product imports that are WAY more expensive (a L of oil is $16 for the cheap stuff; gas is $2.15/L). But, all told, maybe a little less than Alberta but more than Manitoba for sure. If you could do a home property and winter in NZ at a wee place, you might really have a fishing tiger by the tail.

Before you go plopping a lot of $ in Canada, do yourself a favour and travel the S Isl of New Zealand, and look at a small batch (cabin) on a small parcel of land that is centrally located. There are small places that will sell for $50K NZ (about $40K Can), that may not have every service you want, but will put you on more rivers than you will ever find in Alberta or BC and generally never cross paths with other anglers who are essentially hunting for trophy fish in the big rivers. IE - one valley here has 20 spring creeks and has 10 rivers within 20 minutes of each other. Granted the smaller waters 'only' have 3 to 8 pound browns and rainbows, but still... Just another perspective. Cheers

There's an annual redd count on the RDR. The issue is consistency of the eyes looking at what counts as a redd and where those eyes are looking. There needs be a consistent set of eyes, and I'm not sure you get that with sporadic volunteerism. NOT knocking the idea, but how to get that consistency? TU bio? DFO (sorry, laughing from New Zealand on that one). It would have to be a 20 year vision as well, otherwise, no point to begin. Lovely idea. Just a 'how' needs be answered. Oh, and of course, with any volunteer thing, liability comes to the forefront too. People in or near water in boats. Insurance companies love that combo (the only thing missing would be a float plane or chopper - more humor). Cheers from windy, rainy-ville

For what it's worth, these are the only pr of waders that I have ever had that have lasted 2 seasons. It used to be that an old pr of Simms Guide waders were the longest lasting pr at 5 weeks to leaking somewhere in the seams. These Silver Sonics were the first to last a full season and now 2. And the ones I'm using are a prototype pr with a front zipper. Not sure when that will be officially released but it is WONDERFUL to have waders with a zipper, esp in the cold or pissing rain. Best, they fit quite well. I know Amelia loves the fit of her new women's version. I'm beyond happy with them. Again, likely other companies out there too, but those are the ones I've used. Hope that helps a wee bit. Cheers

Good. The way it came to pass in the first place was a shame, the biological support for it is suspect, and resulting impact of a fishery is negligible. It would be a very good thing for this to now go through the local and regional Fisheries Mgt Round Table discussions for approval through proper process and procedures - or tossed altogether. If you know what you are doing, barbed/barbless is absolutely meaningless, and even those who don't - all you have to remember is to treat the fish gently and keep it in the water. Barbless or not is truly of little coincidence, which is why that reg was removed from the N Ram years prior to the province wide reg coming in. In fact, when the reg was introduced from the premier on down,not from any bio/tech or public movement, it wasn't at first intended as a province wide thing so much as to have a representative # of our waters barbless. The emails from one bio said "Since there is little to no biological support for this and no need or guidance shown on what waters, I propose that we choose waters with names beginning with the letters _, _, _, etc" That tells you all you need to know.

A lot of awesome pics. No doubt a magazine will be graced with their presence. Good for you! Boy, that evening thunderhead shot was two angle shifts and a slight zoom away from being All-World (but that's just one perspective because it captured great mood) Cheers

And this is where the Fisheries Mgt Plan comes into effect. Someone in gov, TU, or on that advisory committee will have that, and the reasoning for all will be in that document. There could be a whole host of reasons - I don't know them. And that's why I was pushing so hard for the past 10 yrs to get the FMP revisited on the RDR as it was last done in 1994 and many things have changed since. Even in the same river, 20 years will make a huge difference in populations - walleye have done very well while pike, whites, etc have not. Time to address that and our interaction with them. The whole point is to understand process and look at the ramifications and why something is <needed vs wanted vs necessity> as it comes to fish, fisheries, people management. I don't know it all and am likely wrong in a couple of points when compared to the specific Bow R FMP, but the point is that the regs are in place right now for a reason, and that reason has come out of process, and process comes from science/biology/land use/ecology with consideration to the fishery and our use of it. Again, without us, the fish would do very well on their own. Cheers

Because nobody is willing to step up for something, we should close it? That's exactly the problem. It's a defacto answer. And we can't even grasp the ramifications on tomorrow by doing it that way. I've held off on this part, but, let's go with the idea of closing the Bow down to 22X for spawning protection. Let's look at the science of what is being asked and the ramifications of what's being asked. Where do you draw the line? Just because trout have spawned, is that enough? No. Not even close. Fry emergence can happen Feb - March, into April. Eggs can and do get trampled at any time. Just because they are most susceptible the first couple of days post spawn doesn't mean that they become a magical, bulletproof shell after that and are quite susceptible just pre-emergence. I can guarantee you that if you open this up, someone or many people (likely me if nobody else) will introduce the science that the entire reach down to 22X should be closed through fry emergence... April 1... just like it is all through central Alberta. If you are closing it for spawning, then complete the puzzle of reproduction. Further, spawning browns remain at their lowest energy reserves all winter with little energy gain - it's winter, and it's no stretch to suggest they are most susceptible to succumbing when at their lowest energy levels (to disease, infection, hooking mortality/exhaustion, etc) and even c&r shouldn't be practised until energy levels are back up. There is a very strong argument to close fishing to protect the post spawn adult fish until the ecosystem gains energy sometime in April or May. Ultimately, you're asking to close your winter and spring fishing without any scientific proof that there is a need, in a river that has a generally healthy brown trout population, where the FMP & closure regs account for the highest area of spawning already, forcing everyone to fish from 22x to where things freeze up many years just below Policemans. Careful what you ask for. You might get it. ( PS - aren't there rainbows known to spawn in-river just a little down from there? Why distinguish between species? And now your river is closed through June)

The TROUBLE with having the attitude of let's close it to make it better or to to improve it because it's common sense or my opinion is right vs waiting for the science to show what is happening, when, why, where in a case where the population is shown & known to be healthy and the management objectives are being met, is that if you close it without due cause, without satisfying a clause in the FMP, etc, then you are leaving yourself wiiiiide open to... well, really, there are about 5 weeks of the year on the Bow that the fish are in enough of a variable free state to actually fish for them without harming them. And even at that, PETA would likely eat up that 5 weeks pretty quick. You need to have a standard, which is what the gov has in its varying guiding principles and procedures and allocations, regs, Fisheries Management Advisory Committees (I'm involved int he one of the Red Deer R right now), Round Tables, etc. Fisheries Mgt Plans (local or regional, or water specific like the RDR, Pigeon L, etc) come of these things and reflect things like spawning, rearing, etc, etc and do the best mgt to satisfy the management goals & objectives. If the mgt goals & objectives are met - again - is there a problem? Then re-open the FMP and address it. But, when things are good, relatively healthy, etc, you don't just close everything because it is "common sense and reasonable". You do the process of science and allow the river to speak to you. If the population was showing a rapid decrease (ie - whirling disease) that's one thing that would have to be addressed. But when you have a relatively healthy population that has its cycles and responses to its environment, you have to listen to what it's saying and not simply imposing artificial, superfluous management without considering the ramifications of doing so. You have to understand the line of thinking that goes into this kind of management before you jump. And you have to consider the ramifications of the action. There are always spin-off consequences. Just consider this: what is the ramification of closing the water to 22X? Do you want to see the line up of anglers below 22X if you close 1/2 the available water all winter? What do you think the C&R mortality #s would be of the trout from 22X to Policemans? Based on a consistent mortality rate but double the angler use in a smaller area... a few more of your fish die in a concentrated reach. You have to consider the spin-off impacts. And that would definintely be one. All those people fishing the city to 22x would be crammed into the section from just below Policemans to 22X. Think you've had run-ins before? Now you're also talking angler satisfaction of their angling experience, which is also part of the FMP. That's real. And, if people hate the mgrs for the closure, how much do you want to be the bio heading up the public mtgs? These guys take enough BS from the public as it is. I can't keep going over the same ground here and I encourage Max & BCube to re-read what I typed because process is very important. <edit - had to come back to add that while it appears I'm belaboring a point re: a specific item, my point is discussion about process based on protocol, policy, and procedure as it applies to a specific item, in hopes that a bigger picture view of some of this stuff can be appreciated as our fisheries folks have to deal with this every day in what they do - which is why we could show a little more appreciation on these forums and at mtgs when held>

No question that the science is there re: a whole host of factors. The science has to be proven for that water and proven to be having a negative impact on that fishery that contradicts the Mgt Plan. IE - Just because science shows growth potential of brown trout is amazing, it doesn't mean that the same strain of browns in Alberta are going to grow the same as the same strain of browns planted in New Zealand, for example. There are differing variables and managed differently - Management in varies areas is different and has to take into account local factors and look at the whole, bigger picture. That bigger picture is the present Bow R Fisheries Mgt Plan. If the mgt plan's objectives are being met - then is there a problem? If there is a problem that the mgt plan's objectives aren't addressing, then it needs to be updated and action taken. But, before all that, you have to have data that shows the population status today, compared to yesterday and every year for the past 20 years. Sampling every 5 years means nothing because a population can go anywhere on a chart in between data sets of 5 year intervals - any good bio will tell you that. And even at that, just because some eggs get trampled where the redds are reachable by waders (not all are by any means - not even close) if the population is dwindling, is it because of that or is there another reason? What if you get so hepped up on one factor you are convinced is the culprit when a chemical leak was to blame and you simply missed the boat for the focus on one variable? Worse would be if the population was expanding despite the egg trampling, those who want a closure - what would that do? After considering all the above - you have to look at the local redd trampling issue on its own and determine- what % of the redds & the immediate area downstream likely to be trampled? Are they spawning along riprap and deeper gravel that is likely unwadeable? What %? And if even 20% (likely nowhere near that high) of the redds get trampled, what % of the eggs are destroyed - how often are the redds getting trampled? Who did theat survey? How many years in a row? And what is an acceptable # of undisturbed redds to sustain the population that is deemed acceptable by the Fisheries Mgt Plan for the Bow? There is a variance of population that is acceptable under the Plan, I'm sure (say 3-600 browns over 20cm /km - I'm just picking a #). But even at that we (fly fisher types) all have to acknowledge that we want as much size as numbers. But if at the end of the day you want lots of browns you might be disapointed at the result of the Mgt Plan that says it is based on an acceptable range of bigger fish (read - fewer but larger). And I'm just getting started on the inter-connectedness of questions, variables, seasonal/annual/cyclical variances of poulation, environmental influences, etc that go into this. ***Remember that the highest area of spawning has been identified and that reach is closed. Yes, there are other areas of spawning, but the prime area is 'protected'. The current FMP likely relies on that protected area to satisfy the FMP objectives. Through this, I'm quietly saying to myself, nothing would be better for the Bow and several other waters to have true science occur - annual sampling for the past 20 years and into the future with an annual report of what happened in the watershed each year that could (in hindsight review) point to future species population dynamics. Anyone holding their breath that'll happen on any river anytime soon? There's a lot of bios that would line up for that kind of $ commitment on their waters. Back to my main point, while it would be common sense to close a reach for spawning, and I'm not arguing against it, the process has to be followed, the science has to be there, and process must be followed - and all applied to the local water in question. And at the end of the day, you have to ask if the parameters by which the change happens (should that come to pass), can that benchmark become an unforeseen future action items justification for, say, banning fishing through the entire river in the city, or closing the river to fishing for all but 2 months of the year? Cheers

In this I not coming at anyone or putting down the idea, just laying out the hard questions that would have to be answered: Where's the science? I'm talking hard proof that redds are being disturbed; that the population of browns is deteriorating, dwindling, or population dynamics are shifting as a DIRECT result of WHAT determined, provable activity? The KEY here is - what are the management objectives for the river? Are they being met? If so, then either the mgt objectives need be changed to _____ or - is there a problem? Does science support the notion that having the river open must be bad for the fish population? Common sense is one thing, heresay another, but opinion is absolute? If we are to have the decent fisheries that we do have in this province, science must prevade. In order to see regulations change you need biological data to support it (science); political will (means the regs make it through all levels of gov review); and public support through a complete cross section of the users. And after all that you have to look at the ramifications: if you close that reach for _____ reasons, be careful of someone else 10 years from now using that as a benchmark to close the river for a different, yet tangibly associable reason that might not be thought of in today's world. It could bite you the wrong way from an unseen source. Base it on science and not "a good idea" or an opinion, and those issues don't creep in. All the above why I was such a mouthpiece in the mtg re: guide licensing several years back. If it takes 3 components to change regulations, in that case, there was a light smattering of public support both pro & against, zero biological data to support it, and luke warm political support. Not saying I'm proud to have been a mouthpiece in that mtg and likely didn't make too many friends, but process is process for a reason. It needs to be respected otherwise our fisheries will degenerate into good ideas, heresay, and opinions. Cheers

Well, this will be the last one for a little while, but wanted to share another short video. This one is in production but at least this teaser will <hopefully> provide an escape from the wintery weather for a few minutes! As always - watch in HD full screen.

Neat stuff. There's a migration along the east slopes that happens spring and fall. I think it's about 5000 goldens that use that route. They certainly do fly at extremely high elevations. Beautiful birds that are more predatory than the more scavenger bald eagles.

Glad you all enjoyed it! The Sight-Fishing dvd is available @ Fish Tales & Bow R Troutfitters shops in Calgary. Working on a submission to F3T. We missed the cut-off to IF4 simply because of the mid-Sept due date, unfortunately. No time in the season to get the concept complete by then. Not sure we're in the same class as some of those great productions, but the point is to engage, learn, and try your best. Cheers

That swimming footage is an old favorite from our 2nd trip. But such fond meomories! 8lb brown hooked up, it then swam across and wrapped around and between two rocks - the line wouldn't come free. The fish was jumping and jumping and wouldn't break off (2X). So, had to cross and unhook the line. Oddly, I was able to wade waist deep water on the first crossing. The way back... not so shallow! (might not have been looking too closely) I had a camera in my pocket too. (we dried it out and it did actually work again). That smaller brown that took beside my left foot. As you know, approach is king and I had taken 4 min to move into position actually targeting a larger fish in the flat above. I was dead still a few minutes while waiting the larger brown to pop once again, and saw a tail flagging in a sunbeam beside me at the tail out. I figured to have a go and swung the flies a few feet above that fish. I had no idea it would be as energetic as it was - about 3 1/4 lb too boot. Chump change for NZ, but AMAZING for where we were and how it transpired which is what made it so cool. If you look closely, when I set the hook my rod rips through the willows - lucky not to break it on the set. And there's a bit of vide closer to the start with AJ casting to a brown. Her cast looks like crap from casting a HUGE cicada and HEAVY nymph. It chugged out there and got smoked. We included that vid because that day was amazing - I'm sure we landed 15 browns and all over 5 lb - up to 9.5. After her fish as shown, we took the nymph off. It went well. Glad you enjoyed. Cheers

I figured that the Calgary crowd might be in need of some warmer, fly fishing thoughts with this snowy stuff. This video is just to share some neat moments in time, snapshots of engaging fly fishing in New Zealand. What you don't necessarily see and what each scene represents to us is the work, the planning, the 'best guesses', the time to plan shots, the time to explore (often fruitlessly but that is the point of exploration)... all these that culminate in that moment while totally lost in everything that is the New Zealand back country. Just 4 minutes of a few neat scenes. Make sure to watch in HD too. Cheers! Click here if the movie does not play.

Oh, and you might want to check this link out... Sweet As! Now we know she has caught at least two fish. But she was only standing on a paddle board for one of them. Remember, gals can't fish. Right?

I love forums. I need to get my own. Paula - nice fish. Good on you. Nice aperture on that photo. Nice that you are wearing color. Truth be told, you seldom have to worry about clothing color when fishing, regardless what your quarry. Approach is king. I suspect someone has an issue with an attractive gal, happy as can be, holding a nice fish in a well composed photo. The negative response might be because girls can't fish. Dang, I guess I have to stop fishing with Amelia.

Jim, out of curiosity, what other forums have you shared this with? Curious to track the different responses in varying circles.

I think that was from anglers in Quebec. It doesn't look like NZ (trees, foliage). This was on the OrvisNews.com blog site last week to feature these fellows with their new Sony cam (240fps @ full hd or 940fps sd), which makes for that smooth, crisp look. Good luck carrying that cam with you around every day on a trip! Makes some very nice vid though!