dryfly

"Would not stocking for one year be enough time to really notice a difference in size? How fast do the trout in Bullshead grow on average?" Birchy, I don't know about one year...might take a couple--I dunno. bloom and Riverview and others will know how fast they grow. My experience elsewhere is between 2 and 4 inches per year--with perhaps 3 inches being typical. 14 inches one spring = 17 inches the next. They certainly used to grow faster at the Brooks Aqueduct Pond ... 3 or 4 inches per year for a few years. New reservoirs generally have a few years of major fish growth due to nutrient spikes. Crawling Valley was a festering green algae swamp in the early years. Kid name Danny Webster from Bassano yanked out a 19-pound rainbow thru the ice in about 1987. I took a pix of my bro with a 13-pound rainbow--he didn't catch it. Oink. swagman... "and by not significantly reducing the fish population are probably depleting the food source to a disastrous level." I have to strongly disagree. The fish are fat and healthy and they could not be so if we "are ... depleting the food source to a disastrous level." There is nothing to suggest there is not enough food...simply nothing. Basically it is closed system and very little is removed. Food types may be evolving (less shrimp..more something else) but you can't deplete food in a system like that where very little is removed. BH is a weed and bug factory powered by the sun and cow *hit. (Gotta love then range maggots, eh Don? ) Algae, insects, microscopic organisms, a tons of minnows all replenish every year. (No different than wheat in a field--and we ain't taking much out of BH like is taken out of a wheat field right?) New nutrients enter BH via BH creek and from the slopes draining into the reservoir. The drain water is "rich" (probably a stretch) in N, P, K and micros. Prairie plant material decomposes and carries nutrients into the reservoir. The shoreline weeds convert the sun's rays and nutrients into plant materials that becomes the basis for the lake's survival. Plant detritus becomes food for algae and insects. What happens in lakes is pretty damn neat. So if there were ¼ as many fish in BH and they all weighed two to four times as much as the fish there now, how would that change the consumption of fish food? Wouldn't. Same fish mass to support. Same "depletion." (There may be differences in food conversion efficiency between smaller and larger trout.) Let's say 1,000 fish are killed at BH every year and they weight an average of 1.5 kg each. So 1,500 kg of fish are removed. So what? Other than a few kilos of dead fish that are removed it is quite closed system. It is very capable of growing tonnes and tonnes of fish food. You don't just deplete food in a lake system where there is limited harvest. Say a 1-kg trout (spring) eats 5 kg of food (? ? ?) by the next spring and gained 0.5 kg. It has *hit out 4.5 kg of nutrient-rich food to feed weeds, algae and insects--and more trout. However, maybe there are too many fish in BH. Maybe reduced stocking would help. IMHO as long as there is a 50 cm limit there are unlikely to be a large number of keepers there. Let's quit stocking it for two years and see what happens. Wonder how long those trophies are gonna last. Let's see.. three guys in a boat who live 45 minutes away can make three fish runs a day. 100 day at six, 3 kg trout. Gee three guys can take out as many as all anglers all year now. As long as there is an allowable kill it is going to be hard to keep many fihs over 20 inches..whether the lake contains 10,000 fish or 50,000 fish. Oops ... I digressed ... what I was trying to say is that food sources don't deplete to disastrous levels and there is no evidence for that. Cheers, Clive

Riverview makes some great points and has historical info. Thanks. Based on Riverview's comments, how does everyone feel about taking a chance and NOT stocking fish for (say) one year and then maybe adding 10K the following year? Couldn't hurt. The risk? Numbers could (could) drop off and the fish not get bigger. If they don't get bigger then we might (might) know that the big ones are being whacked. If they do get bigger then we'd know it was the food and stocking rates. BTW... I am not sure I can accept the "aquarium" analogy. I did some rough calculations (while driving the other day) on water volumes and fish tonnage. If I recall my math, the mass of fish is about 20 ppm. i.e. 20 kg of fish per 1,000,000 kg (1,000 cubes) of water. In an aquarium the goldfish are more like 500 ppm. Is 20 ppm too much viz. food and space? I dunno. I still think there are too may folks going there with one thing in mind...whack a 50+cm trout. And then they finally get one...smacko. So what is it? Leave well enough alone or play with the stocking rates? I sure don't know. Cheers! Clive

Thanks Don. The trips we've been catching over in BC are a LOT prettier than the false-spawn-stressed diploids. Hawgstoppah said, "No need to change the regs, just change the ridiculous overstocking." I disagree. There MAY be some overstocking, but that is not exhibited in general condition of the fish which are large bodied and fat. There are no signs of lack of food or oxygen or lack of anything affecting growth rates except fish whackers. The lack of "keepers" is without doubt the result if many people killing them. Fish there long enough and you will be asked, "Get any keepers today?" RE: Overstocking and lack of food. Consider that if the fish numbers were the same and a whopping 10 percent of those fish were indeed 21 to 24 inches, this would increase the fish mass by maybe 20 percent. What difference would that have on the depletion of food in that lake? Absolutely none. If the present fish were showing signs of food deprivation that would be different. But they are fat and healthy. Reducing the stock rates MIGHT help, but they were cut in half already from the "standard" rates. Remember also that no one knows what the ideal rates should be. Every lake is different. There is no magic formula here. It may well be that with time, a suitable stocking rate for BH will be established. As for scuds, they come and go with the years and go through cycles--they may never return to BH. Who knows? Over 20 years ago, the Aqueduct Pond in Brooks was LOADED with scuds and they disappeared in one year. WTF? I asked the area bio about this and he attributed the disappearance to the bazillion "shiners" in the lake. There are a lot of small fish in BH and they are not trout. Between the "minnows" and bugs, IMHO there is oodles of food in that lake. We've seen trout chasing "minnows" in 6 inches of water right ON the concrete boat launch pad. Rather funny. As for the number of keepers. I kept a log this fall during the five trips made there. I landed 100 fish in five trips (+/- 2 fish) ranging from 12 to 29 fish per trip. Two of the fish I landed were over 20 inches. One was 19½ tip to tail and would have made legal if I'd done the idiotic "pinched tail" measure. The other was a legitmate tip-to-tail 20½ inches. So that's two percent for me. I think the other guys got one or two. So keepers accounted for 1 to 2 percent of the fish we landed--closer to one percent than two. Mark Twain said, Don't tell fish stories where the people know you; but particularly, don't tell them where they know the fish. Someone posted a note about BH and said that most fish caught were 18 to 20 inches and there were some keepers in the day's catch. I sorta doubt that. If size is important to an angler, then fish should be measured or claims about fish length distribution should be qualified, such as "not measured." Then we can all deduct the mandatory 2 inches from the estimate to get a more accurate sense of true fish size distribution. Our gang landed between 200 and 300 fish there this fall so we have a decent sense of reality. We estimate smaller fish length (maybe checking to odd one) and I "measure" the decent ones using markers on my rod. (Since becoming involved in Police Lake and having a new-found love of lakes, I like to have a sense of these "numbers" and "size." And I know that after 50 years of fishing I can't estimate fish lengths any better than anyone else. ) Anyway .. the fish we landed there this fall ranged between about 13 to 20½ inches. MOST were 15 to 17 inches with some 18s (maybe 10 percent) and the odd 19 incher--maybe 5 percent. Keepers accounted for 1 to 2 percent of the fish landed--as noted, probably closer to one percent. Bullshead is a great fishery, full of fat healthy rainbows. Congrats too all involved, including biologist Terry Clayton and bloom for his hard work a few years ago. IMHO the ONLY way to increase the numbers of larger trout is to increase the kill size to 24 inches. And if that does not happen it will still be a good fishery. Hopefully in a few years the "correct" stocking rates can be figured out...personally I think it is close now. Comment on hooking mortality and affects on fish size. Experience would dictate that it is probably not a major issue in the fall when the water is cooler. I released a trout in Police Lake that was hooked in the gills and probably died. Of the many landed in BH this a fall a few were hooked in the tongue and the rest in the lower front or side lip. I'd be surprised if any died. They all zoomed away. C&R and mortality is a reality. But killing (say) one fish per day (by C&R) instead of whacking five is the way to go. Y'all have a swell week...I'm outta here for a few days. (Going to Police and BH now that the crowds are down. KIDDING! ) What was the question? Cheers! Clive

Boy I don't want o start a fight. I read the "stressed fish" article. Here is a quote: The long and short of it was that if the fish’s eyes are looking down, or at the water while being held upright, it was less stressed than a fish that has “Dead Eyes” that are staring blankly straight ahead. He also explained that if the fish has the blank stare, his findings showed that the fish had less than a 10% chance of survival, even if quickly released. He explained that it is very important to look at the fish’s eyes once it is landed because taking extra time with the release, can improve a fish showing stress’ chance of survival by as much as 58%. I've been fishing for 50 years and photographing fish for 30 years. This is bullshit. DOWN EYES INDICATE STRESS. A fish that comes to hand easy will have its eyes straight out. A fish that has fought hard and possibly in warm water will have down eyes. The eyes of fish swimming (underwater .. doh) are straight out. They are NOT down. Cheers! Clive

and rainbows too

whitefish await us

FINALLY! Deserved recognition! :P

I keep getting this thread mixed up with this thread. :P :P Brian...pretty funny knock-knock joke. :D Clive PS: I am with Terry all the way. Go Oilers. PPS: How many cups does Calgary have again? Half of this many.

Y'all know the difference between the boots of cowboys from Texan, Calgary and the rest of Alberta? Real Albertan cowboy boots have the *hit on the OUTSIDE.

"wearing Depends." :lol: :lol: :lol: Are we allowed to laff .. or do I have to write something nasty?

Wrong thread!

The AVERAGE wind speed at Bullshead today was ZERO. Sort of like like the average weight of these two girls below is normal. First it blew at 40 kph from the west for 2 hours and then it blew at 40 kph from the east for 2 hours. So effectively there was no wind at Bullshead today. It did howl from the west for a while around noon and then the wind did switch 180° and was from the east at maybe 20 kph...no whitecaps. We walked the entire shoreline loop and fished out of the wind most of the day--or at least where it was not a major issue. Fishing was hot and cold. Crazy for a while then and slow. Crazy for a while then slow. (For a while I went ~ 16 hits out of ~ 20 casts..and landed a few of them. Just silly good.) Takes VERY soft and sometimes difficult to detect. Had to watch yer bobber with iggle eyes. By day's end I had netted 20 (+/- 1) rainbows 14 to 20 inches--that one was 19.75" tip to tip so woulda been a legal keeper if the tail was pinched--dumbass bloody law anyway!!) . Had perhaps ten more on for a few seconds and missed maybe 30 soft hits. It was Oct 23. It was just fine.

Taco keeps bichin' about "friggin lakes" ... but lookee what we found at Bullshead today AFTER he was there....

OINK!

HA HA on you Randy. I have decided to spend from Oct 27 to 31 at the lake every day. You are doomed! :lol: Kidding!

Oh man....makes me misty. Those are cosmic scenes. Thanks for posting. Cheers! Clive

adc, me and some other scoundrels are going to Bullshead on Thursday. BEWARE THE WIND! Y'all may wanna stay away. :P

YOU WISH!

GREAT underwater shot Chris! Thanks. NEVER let this happen to you!

dune, That would be a huge help. Thanks. The name may be either the maker or the owner. Hard to say. I tried altering the contrast in Photoshop and it was of little help. One issue is that it appears to be "old style" handwriting and may be hard to read anyway. Thanks, Clive

Can anyone offer info on this old rod? A friend of mine owns this rod and was trying to get some background. Perhaps someone out there has info. This rod is for sale. PM me if interested. Would look good over a fireplace. Some details. -- This is a greenheart or lancewood rod .. not bamboo -- It is a two pc and has three tip sections .. the tip sections are all different lengths -- The butt section is 61 inches and the three tips are 51, 55 and 58 inches -- Assembled with the long tip section the overall length is ~117 inches (almost 10 feet) -- The wooden "case" has places for just two tip sections .. possibly a third was made later -- The handle is rattan wrapped which is typical of between 1870 and 1890 or so .. could be into the 1900s, but I own a greenheart from between 1895 and 1915 and I think this is older. -- The rod has ring line guides instead of snake guides -- The rattan and the line rings are a clue to its age. -- There are no markings on the reel seat although the seat is similar (all but identical) to some rods I've seen in the Internet -- The seat seems to be nickle plated brass ... hard to say -- Most of the wrappings look original but some are obviously re done. The butt, three tips and wooden "case." There is a name hand written in two places on the wooden rod case. Looks like Allan A. _____. Rattan wrapped handle and reel seat Line ring Ferrule Three line rings Case with handle end Case with two of the tip sections Reel seat Three tip tops

Where in particular? There are strains of fall spawners. The spawning colors can linger for a long time in some specimens in some waters. If Kyle M reads this he is likely to reply. Kyle knows more about trout than anyone else. Clive

Here's some more grist for the mill....Greens wanted to bail on this idiocy. This bimbo can't accept democracy for what it is. ============ Quoted material below ================ Now you wouldn't think of Pallister Saskatchewan as the hotbed of "progressive" voting ideas, but CPAC just happened to catch the Greens and Liberals in action. The Greens and Liberals (with Carolyn Bennett present) try to form a coalition in the riding, but the NDP will have none of it. All this, just to stop those scary Conservatives. They never stop to think that people might actually like the Conservative platform and think that lefties are wrong. It never even enters their carbon riddled brains, that they just might be the ones who are off track. How May cried about democracy to get into the debates, and then just throws it aside when it's not to her liking.

People told me about this interview. Thanks for posting. Hair on CTV for showing it. Dion is pathetic. And that he could lead a minority gov't next week... an embarrassment to all Canadians. Pathetic. Just pathetic. Greens are no better... Green Party in chaos over May's "secret deal" with Dion As the Canadian Federal election enters its final days, news is emerging of a "secret deal" between Green Party leader Elizabeth May and Liberal Party leader Stephane Dion. Via Bourque Newswatch, "a secret deal has been cooked between Dion and Elizabeth May": ...which may explain why she has been meeting with "key Liberal organizers" and is now actively telling Green Party supporters to vote Liberal, of all things. This, according to our Liberal insider, in exchange for a possible Senate seat and a place as Environment Minister in a Dion-led government. To be clear, Ms May's curious strategy of backing Dion is creating ill-will within her own party to the point that "a lot of Green candidates are upset", according to one national news report this morning. Add to that the fact Dion himself is urging Greenies to go red and join the Liberals. There's more... In recent hours, Bourque has heard from a number of senior political operatives, notably senior Green Party standard bearer David Chernushenko, who told Bourque that "Integrity is when you make your actions consistent with your words and your promises. We all look for leaders with integrity. Too bad they are so hard to find. Green Party candidates should expect nothing but full and unwavering support from their leader. They have not received it. She has failed utterly in this one and most important obligation. To back them all to the end. In our 2006 leadership race, only when pushed by me, she promised Green Party members that of course she would back GP candidates 100 percent. Alas, the facts speak for themselves. If I were a candidate, I would be furious. I would feel let down by my leader when I needed her most. I wanted to stay out of this campaign entirely, but when I saw Green Party candidates, voters and donors being sideswiped, I could not stay silent. My friends and family deserve more respect. The Green Party is is not a "flag of convenience" to be raised and lowered on a whim." Elizabeth May and the Green Party: politics as usual. Stephane Dion and the Liberal Party: desperation. Update: He [Dion] characterized Ms. May as “courageous”, saying that “for the sake of Canada she wants me as prime minister of Canada.” Mr. Dion was speaking to a small but enthusiastic crowd of about 75 Liberals at a rally in the Ottawa area riding of Ottawa Orleans OK, so we are in the final days of the election and all Dion can do is muster the support of 75 Liberals? in the nation's capital?