dryfly

Some good advice here. Cell phones, P&S and tablet cams are "okay" for web posts and modest prints. If you are serious about "scenery," then get a good DSLR and good wide angle lens and polarizer. LR is good, although I don't use it often. As someone noted, everything you will ever need or want to do can be done in PS Elements for about $80. (Look for a new older version.) I've taken about 250,000 digital photos since getting my first DSLR ten years ago. Although most of my work is purely for pleasure I still do occasional photo shoots and sell a few images to ad agencies. For what I need and do, PSE has been great. Lots of good PSE videos online and Kelby's books are worth the money. Every photo in the galleries linked below was run though ACR and PSE. (Warning: Whereas Shaw's gallery system is handy, Shaw's gallery system increases compression of photos and IQ is reduced. It is very noticeable in some pictures. Oh well.) http://clives.shawwebspace.ca/photos/view/birds__animals_scenes______2014_/ http://clives.shawwebspace.ca/photos/view/arizona_2015/ http://clives.shawwebspace.ca/photos/view/birds__animals_and_scenes_2013_-/ Clive

Thanks all. Posted on the Bullshead thread. adc, GM and I attended Bullshead and did well and then we had a lovely turkey dinner with our wives at our our home. Was a fine way to spend a birthday. Thanks again! ☺ Onward.

Thanks Smitty Yes, it is possible the glaciers will be gone by 2100. Shindler rightly discusses population growth and conservation...something we'd all agree with (but not willing to do much about). Indeed, these two items are the sole issues. However, there is a strong implication (computer models and climate simulations to find that warming temperatures are threatening glaciers in B.C. and Alberta) that the glacier melt is more rapid today than in the past. Not only is that patently false, in fact ,the reverse is true. Warming and melt rates centuries ago were massive and today's ice losses are miniscule compared. The glacier outwash valleys in southern Alberta were all scoured out by massive flows of water from ice sheets malting at rates we are unable to fathom. What we are witnessing is the ongoing process of ice sheet and glacier melt that started at the Late Glacial Maximum here. (The Late Glacial Maximum (ca. 13,000-10,000 years ago), or Tardiglacial ("Late Glacial"), is defined primarily by the beginning of the modern warm period, in which climates in the northern hemisphere warmed substantially, causing a process of accelerated deglaciation following the Last Glacial Maximum (ca. 25,000-13,000 years ago).) The article published this photo which is a nice segue. In 1955, I came to Canada and that year we attended the Columbia Ice fields in Jasper. There was a sign near the hotel that said something like in "The glacier was here in 19XX." That is a different sign than in the article, but it was the same idea, i.e. the glacier is/was indeed receding and exemplifies the state of many glaciers...but not all. In 1955, the glacier face was maybe a few hundred meters away from that sign. “Wow!” we thought. "It sure is melting." (This was when the earth's population was about 2½ billion or 1/3 of today....and yet melting was seemingly happening apace.) According to Google Earth the glacier face was ~1,500 meters away in 2004. (That's the last date for imagery in Jasper.) So the icefield glacier has receded back in those 60 years since I was first there and lost a few square kilometers. In the past 100 years a few more square km were lost. Sounds like a lot and makes for sensational media coverage. But recent ice melting is hardly anything compared to the past when warming had to have been rapid and not in man's hand. (See diagram below made with data/diagrams from the Geological Survey of Canada. The area of Alberta is 661,848 sq. km. About 13,000 years ago, there were about 500,000 sq kms of ice covering Alberta. About 11,000 years ago, there were about 70,000 sq km of ice in NE Alberta. Over about 2,000 years (a mere 20 centuries), about 430,000 sq km of ice disappeared or an average of about 21,000 sq km per century. This melted area per century was more than the entire area of Banff, Jasper and Waterton Lakes National Parks...in the past century we've lost a tiny (tiny) fraction of that. And yet some are claiming today's melt is big. I was in Jasper 60 years ago and whereas there is some ice loss since then, it is insignificant compared to the ice loss in similar times periods way back when. We run a pretty good chance of entering a cooling period, which of course will be far more devastating to mankind than a bit of recent warming. Warm is good. Warm is productive. Warm increases biodiversity. Cold? Not so much. People will die by the tens of millions when we enter the next ice age...whether it is like the LIA or the last major glaciation. I'll miss it. Like Schindler said, this is about conservation in an age of rapidly growing population. We need to learn from the idiots in California that is in a 4-year drought. And it is not the worst drought in California's history. Here. But the drought is having a huge impact for two reasons. California's population has doubled in the past 40 years and there have been no (or few) new reservoirs. “Despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled.” So we need to take action. Wasting billions on pretending to solve the wrong problem (with CCS and carbon taxes), will cause massive long-term harm to Albertans. We need to conserve water and find ways to store water as we (well not me for sure) approach 2100 AD. Pretending we can cool the earth is a hair-brained idea that is wasting now trillions of dollars globally. Locally and globally we need mitigation projects to deal with vulnerability and increase population growth. Schindler is partly correct. But one suspects he still believes in the wrong cause. How many of us will block water-storage methods like has been done on California? We will probably be just as stupid as Californians. For those who believe Schindler are you prepared to do something to conserve and store water. Unlikely. Well THAT got a bit carried away. Oh well. Best to all. Clive PS: Probably some typos I'll worry about another day after I come back from fishing.

(Sorry .. long post.) Mitchell was a great guy and I was honoured to know him and be his friend .. like everyone who knew him. (We used to chat on the phone a few times a year. He answered the phone, "Mitchell here.") I first met Barry (oh gosh) maybe in the late 80s...something like that. I had written or was going to write something for AFG so dropped in to meet him and Ann. Over the years I stopped in for a visit now and then. As Don and others have noted he was a mover and shaker on many fish habitat projects. In the 90s, he made it his mission to fish every East Slopes stream in Alberta. Back then (help me here Don) the limits were five trout with no size limits. Well Mitchell was pissed after his one-man survey and wrote an 18-page letter to fisheries managers. He was not overly polite and used some strong language. But his point was made and within a few months the east slope regs were changed. (Damn, sure wish I had a copy of that letter. ☺ I think it is where the expression, "Ripped 'em a new one" came from. ) Barry had heard rumours about fishing down south, so in 2006 he made a trip to fish with adc and me. We had a ball. In 2007, he came again and this time declared something like. "You know Schaupmeyer, I've been publishing this rag for 30 years and it is about time I was on the cover." So we set out on a mission of getting a decent snapshot of Mitchell for the 2008 AFG. Mission accomplished. Was funny .. Andersen pay attention here...someone wrote me that spring and asked, "Hey is that the world-famous Don Andersen on the front cover?" Barry never did reveal who was on the cover on his "To the angler" annual editorial. A lot of folks knew Mitchell, but of course many did not. 2008 AFG cover Cover shot candidate ... At Bullshead...fitting shot for beedhead. He could be like a kid when fishing...see below. This was so so funny. He thought some of our southern streams we so easy to get around on. He said they were "like walking down a sidewalk" compared to the bushwhacking he did in the West County. I will never forget this afternoon. Mitchell stood on one small reach (and did not move more than 50 feet for 90 minutes or so) and landed fish after fish and had a ball. RIP Barry Mitchell 1947 - 2015

Shane, Gary and all... A real shocker for us all. His folks, children and significant other will be devastated. Love that "rod retrieval" story Shane. Hilarious. Not much to add. He was a good soul. As my bro says, "One of the good ones." He was rough along the edges ... just like some of us old farts who he always laughed at when we were being geezer like. "You old guys are crazy old coots." Oh geez, the phone calls!? More than once, after spending 30 minutes on the phone with him, I'd say, "Jeff I gotta run," And he'd say, "Goddamit Schaupmeyer, every time I call, yer in a rush!" Take care everyone. Clive Peace to you too, Jeff.

Where I once chased hexes, a Tom Thumb would work. Send be an email and I'll show you a "comparahex " I tied and it worked well. I may have an old link. Will look. Clive

"Eco-Friendly Electricity in RVs" Nice ... I can feel the planet cooling as we speak. We need more cooling. No, wait ... (Just being a dork on a snowy Saturday morn. Not that I need more practice.)

Hi guys. Can we start a new, pinned 2014 Bullshead thread ? The current thread is 4 years old and perhaps needs to be locked and a new thread started. Thanks, Clive

Modern medicine can help you guys ...

Agreed that all anglers should at least have a WIN card..at least the old buggers like me.

Glad to see folks commenting on lack of enforcement. GREAT to see the increases for non Albertans. About time. Right now residents subsidize tourists. Bah. 1. Please provide your feedback on the proposed levy increase. We take your comments seriously, so please be constructive. -- I am a senior and don't pay a penny! I would gladly pay for a fishing license. -- Start charging ALL non residents....it is utter nonsense that under 16s do not need a license in Alberta. i.e a German or Japanese tourist <16 years fishes for free. This is just wrong and maddening. -- increase license fees for all non residents anglers by 100% NOW. I pay |$60 for a BC license!! And they pay the same as me here. Nonsense and maddening! I am not happy about this and responses from ESRD ministers over the years are absolute nonsense. I ain't happy about this as you can tell! -- all increases should go toward current ACA activities and enforcement. See below. 2. Tell us what conservation work you would like to see your levy dollars support. ACA does great work. Thanks! But all of the habitat, research work and aeration is for nothing since we have de facto zero enforcement of fisheries in Alberta. It is a disgrace. I am aware that it is not ACA's role but surely the ACA board of governors has some clout with ESRD and the Solicitor Gen offices. Enforcement is complex and now under the Sol Gen department but ACA can apply pressure to get enforcement increased. Why waste my license fees on research when poachers can openly break fishing laws with close to 100% certainty that they will not be caught! This HAS to be a major concern of ACA so the board needs to address this and using the excuse "it is not our mandate" does not cut it. ... Clive Schaupmeyer Coaldale, Alberta

Naturally the fish will survive. However, the fish are likley to be skinnier; fewer of them and some will be beaten up. After the 1995 floods, the Crowsnest took 2 or 3 years to come around. (Or was it 4 or 5 years?) It beat the snot out of the fish and one year's crop was lost. It will have an affect for sure. Has to. Some fish will be trapped inland as water recedes and they will die. Some will end up in SK. You may notice a difference later this year and in 2014. On the other hand, sometimes a good scouring will pay off in the long run. Who knows? Clive

Rick Hope it clears up. I had bad bout of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo in Nova Scotia two yrs ago and in Chile 4 years ago. I had it earlier and since one or two times, but not as bad. The bad times were associated with flying and colds. See here. I followed the "Positional exercises of Brandt and Daroff" and I was cured in two days! Amazing. And I was basket case (more so than normal) for days before. Was so bad when I started the excercises I actually could not do them the room spun so badly. Good luck. Clive

Kinda truck you driving Mike?

bcube I spent a few hours with a Stream Watch officer in 2008 or 2009. Was a lot of fun and educational. "it gives every CO an opportunity to go investigate someone." Yes, that's a reasonable point but can also force the officer to waste time. What I learned during my ride-along was that officers can see a lot from the bush with a pair of binoculars. They can quickly get a sense about technique. i.e whether bait is being used. They can't check licenses from a distance nor see a stringer of fish in the bush...but they can get a sense of probabilities and make a decision to move in to investigate .... or move along to the next hole. They can probably get a bigger bang for their efforts if they do not have to approach every angler to check for barbs. They can make a fast call based on probabilities and years of experience. From a distance...what is the likelihood that guy/gal in waders and a fishing vest and spinning rod with a Mepps on the line has a stringer of fish in the bush .. compared to (say) a guy with a lawn chair and forked stick. They can see this stuff from 400 m off. Their decisions are obviously not always correct. An officer who does not check every angler can spy on 30 anglers a day. An officer who checks everyone might only see ten anglers per day. I am making these numbers up. Let's say 10% of ALL anglers are breaking a law. An officer approaches ten per shift and busts one. But an officer who mainly spies may see 30 anglers and decide to approach just 3 or 4 high-risk anglers ... and he might bust two or three of them. Get my point? That's basically what the officer I drove with did: observe; decide; move in or move along. (And he did that even when barbs were banned.) Probabilities. Cost benefit. Was interesting though....dress and gear was no indication of barb or debarb. We met a couple of Orvis-catalog-model types who forgot to debarb. "Oh gee,I always debarb officer. I just put this one on and .. blah blah grovel" Was funny. Clive

Am I just 'slow' or can't read properly? (Now there's an opening... ) Don said, I caught an elderly cut outta the livingstone a couple of years ago with a broken jaw, one eye missing, both mandibles gone. This fish was really beat up. With barbless, some if not all the damage wouldn't have happened. I don't get these sentences. We were barbless a couple of years ago and for many years before that. So this means barbed or barbless, there will be fish damage. It's about the handling and cumulative effects of C&R. That fish had probably been caught 30 times in five years. Who knows? Before everyone jumps all over me, I debarbed years before it was law...at least hooks larger than about #14..whatever. (Thank god, as about 20 years ago I embedded a 3/0 pike fly hook in the back of my hand..down to the bend! It popped out easily.) I continue to debarb hooks. I'll have to think about it again when I tie some #20 BWOs...but then again I have 200 tiny PMDs, chocolate spinners and BWOs in my fly boxes and they are all debarbed. I think we have bigger fish to fry ... more important stuff than spending time and money to regulate a barbless law. Folks are openly using bait, and ignoring the size and day-limit regs in the upper Oldman and it will just get worse with the new "zero-trout" limits. Kinda silly wasting time busting asses because some guy didn't pinch down the barb on a #16 mayfly. dutchie said it well recently: do what your heart tells you to do. And let the fish cops worry about more important stuff. If we are so damn concerned about fish damage then we should stop fishing ... or at least ban C&R. Wait for it. Clive

ÜberFly It's your electrodynamic personality interfering with the wifi waves. Happens to me all the time. Clive PS: Good luck I hate this crap when it happens.

plumeja Yeah grinr is right. If you have to buy the felts anyway then buy them and a $6 can of contact cement. Use lots of cement. You may want to put two coats on the felts. Make sure the boots re dry and remove all old felt and use a grinder or rasp to clean the soles. Get them pretty clean but leave a tad rough. Follow directions on the cement. Hammer the felts in place when the cement is ready and wrap with rope or tape for a few hours--even tho contact cement is "instant" it may separate. I did two pairs three years ago...still good. Lasted longer than the factory felts. Clive

TerryH? Get yer new license yet? :P Geezerism has its rewards. Clive the Bastard

I watched some of the video. Enough to watch the guy almost fall over right at the start. Why is this discussion even taking place? This is patently a dangerous device for fishing on rivers or any of our lakes where howling winds can start without warning. At the risk of pissing people off, this is utterly insane ... X19. Just another yuppy "trinket of the week!" Go crazy and buy two or three.

Kinda funny how we ALL (me included) worry about the dear little fishies when (to quote others) C&R fishing is really a blood sport that involves fish being injured and dying intentionally or not. (I rant on about silly barbless laws and the use of bait where there are size limits. Others say "my" way is better than "your" way.) Yet we are all maiming and killing fish one way or another. (Yeah me and you.) Efforts to mitigate fish injury and mortality are welcome, but if our hearts were really in the best interests of fish, we'd not fish other than for sustenance. Right? Bastards all of us. Oh right, we are the environmental "hall monitors" who keep track of the fisheries because fish health is the indicator of environmental health. It is our duty and there are costs involved in this important work. Yeah, that's it. Is it spring yet?

Preface: I had debarbed all FF hooks larger than about #12 for years before the barbless regs. Lots of folks were doing this. It made little sense to debarb a #18 midge dry or pupa hook. It sitll makes little sense. We had all learned to live with barbless, but since the debate has been opened again why not discuss it? IMHO, it would be folly for ESRD to waste time re-implimenting the barbless reg that had no (or little) basis in the scientific literature anyway especialy compared to the effects of bait on fish nortality. That's why there has been a bait ban in a lot of mountain streams for decades. Our bios knew how destructive bait was to fish. Barbless makes little sense when we consider that Alberta allows the use of bait where there are size limits in effect. Lakes containing pike are the most obvious example here. But way back when walleye all of a sudden "collapsed," many lakes had zero limit on walleye but of cousre bait was still allowed. The walleye dudes said they only tight lined so walleye never took the hooks deeply when they were using leeches on the bottom bouncers. Yeah, whatever. Bait and zero limits or bait and size limits are a huge contradiction. But by God we had to debarb hooks. How many of you know you can legally still use bait on the Crowsnest River? Yup, tis so. From the 2013 regs: the river upstream of East Hillcrest Bridge ... l Aug. 16 to Oct. 31 – Trout limit 2; Cutthroat and Rainbow over 30 cm; Mountain Whitefish limit 5 over 30 cm; Maggots are the only bait allowed and only in the river. You could put six maggots in a barbed #12 treble hook and fish legally in the Crowsnest River (as described above.) And if you caught a 28-cm rainbow on this rig you would have to release it. (That no one does this is not the point: the point is that it is legal.) In Alberta, it is still legal to use bait (say) for pike when there are size limits which of course is utter nonsense and has always been since 1998 or so when the size limits for pike were put in place. I am not knocking the use of bait so much as knocking the fact that allowing bait in water where there are size limits is nonsense. Yet, until recently (and for many years) all hooks had to be debarbed. I made the photo below years ago when the regs were changed and it exemplifies the idiocy of some of Alberta's fishing regulations. (Don't get me going on the "spring closure." Why am I still bitching about his nonsense after 15 years? A big WTF.) This is a FF board, but the story below exemplifies some of the problems with fishing regs. And we can't blame ESRD/FMB staff. They are pressured by angling groups. Here's how the "slack line" fishing method works. (Years ago this is how most bait anglers fished from shore in the Brooks area. I cannot say how widely it is used today.) An angler impaled a 8-inch smelt on a huge treble hook and tossed it out and fed out extra line so the line was slack. The angler would watch the line for movement and sometimes would attached a piece of flagging tape to the line. If they detected a pike taking the bait, they watched the line and waited until several feet of line had been taken out thus indicating the pike had swallowed the bait. Then they set the hook. If the pike was under 63 cm it had to be released. (Ever tried to removed a treble hook from the gullet of a pike? Without blood?) All legal. Unless of course the 5/0 treble had barbs ... well not any more. The photo captions assumes that barbs are illegal.

There are two mentions in this year's regs. Legaly there is no barbless law in Alberta anymore. Minister's message Page 2 We have always valued the strong conservation ethic of Alberta’s anglers. This year, we are asking for your help by continuing to use barbless hooks while we evaluate options to address the barbless hook regulation. Important Changes and Notices for 2013 Page 4 In 2012, during an amendment of the Alberta Fishery Regulations, 1998, the Federal government inadvertently removed the provision prohibiting the use of barbed hooks. This rendered the barbless-only requirement when angling in Alberta unenforceable. The intent is to restore the legislation at the earliest opportunity. Until this occurs, anglers are asked to continue to voluntarily comply with the spirit and intent of the barbless-only regulation and refrain from the use of barbed hooks.

Good Lord ... "First off I need to apologize for all the negative thoughts I used to have ... Well now I see the light ..." Sounds like a confession. :lol: Sorry, but I could not resist. I owed you one from last fall when I posted a shot of test net fishing. I am not convinced .. yet. Good on you for taking it up. Clive

Great fish Paula and a nice photo. Thanks for posting. Please excuse the crap IQ on the old scanned prints below. Firedog. In one way I agree with you in that there is a ton o' BS regarding fish sizes in this board and in streams and lakes. Paula's fish looks about right to me. But unless a fish is taped (as Paula's was), then sizes are usually out by 10+%. 20-inch trout are instantly 22 inches unless taped. (In the case of Paula's fish it might seem larger than 19 inches.) But it is also not a good idea to question photos. (Well okay these days maybe every photo should be questioned! ) Sure they can be manipulated, but even unadjusted they can also be deceiving. Years ago, I showed the photo on the left to an old-time salmon angler who placed the size at close to 20 pounds...remember it is a coho. Well it was not 20 pounds by far. But my question to you Firedog is what is the size of the two fish in these photos? (Both the man and woman are about the same height.) Clive