seanbritt

I see where you are going with this and see both sides of the argument. Many maps already have the "public knowledge" areas you suggest. Just curious as to what additional benefit you see this adding to what's already out there, if you are truly just seeking the "public knowledge" areas?

siverdoc has the perfect answer. the best way to catch fish is develop a relationship with the water you are fishing and the only way to do that is log on many hours and try everything and anything. eventually you'll find something that works for you.

Also, if you just want to catch fish, rig san juan to san jun to san juan. You might get a hit or two.

Jim McLennan has a hatch chart in his book, Fly Fishing Western Trout Streams. You can buy it in local shops or visit his website: http://www.mclennanflyfishing.com/flyfishi...routstreams.htm Very informative book. Also, have you done a search on this site for popular flies? I know this is a common topic that comes up again and again. Best bet if you're struggling is to hire a guide either from the board or a local shop for a few hours or a day. That way you can get some one on one time with an expert and get into some fish!

Hey all, I know the recent rain has likely dampened many folks' outings, but as your heading out to your favorite streams just a reminder that our furry friends are out as well. Here is an accurately informative, and pretty funny, short video reminding folks of dos/donts: http://www.howcast.com/videos/100020-How-T...e-a-Bear-Attack

Gorgeous fish, congrats!

FNG and others make a good point, if people get written up but never convicted, how will that deter them from doing it again? While I'm all for education, I believe the best kind is one that kicks you in the a*&, whether it be your wallet or gear. How many of us know when to do/not do something, but until we actually mess up do we learn our lesson (e.g. speeding tickets, etc.). I would be all for paying extra $$ for my license (we have the cheapest deal in Canada!), as long as 100% of those extra funds go into enforcement and protection of our rivers. Also, perhaps we need to look at the system. I'm not sure what the process is, but perhaps once a CO catches someone they hand out a ticket and take their gear away (like a drunk driver). Then, the only reason why a person would not pay the fine is if they contested it in court-like a traffic ticket. Make it more CO favorable and less poacher favorable.

Well said. Its like any relationship, it has its ups and downs, but in the end the ups far outweigh the latter!

I'll echo what Ulmo and Fred said about Amundson, absolutely great rod for the price point. When our shop started carrying them, I tested out the Wind Warrior in nasty conditions. The type of day where I saw folks come to the river, try casting for about 10 minutes, then leave. It performed very well. Here is a little review I wrote up: The Amundson 5wt, 10ft, Wind Warrior is a great introductory rod for individuals who are fishing medium-big water and are looking to spend time nymphing or throwing streamers. The extra foot makes mending line quite easy, however, this extra length also adds some weight and stiffness to the rod from the reel seat to about the second or third guide. Not to worry though, there is plenty of flex in the upper third of the rod making it quite enjoyable when fighting a Bow River brown or rainbow! Although I didn't test it on dry flies, the third of the shaft should provide sufficient flex for presenting a tasty dry fly when the opportunity presents itself, making it a great all-around introductory rod. When working it this fall, I had the opportunity to test it in windy conditions and it proved to slightly outcast my Sage FLi 9ft 6wt, likely due to the extra stiffness and length. Thus, the Wind Warrior truly held up to its name and performed when other anglers gave in to the elements.

I think the main thing is realizing the situation and keeping it in mind for the future. I'm fairly new on oars and during a float one day was coming down a side a bit close to where I fish with a friend/fishing buddy. In fact, it was a spot he introduced to me. Anyhow, as I'm rowing by I realize I'm too close to the folks on shore and begin to move away. Little did I realize that my buddy was on shore and prompted to joke and give me sH*&. Anyhow, realizing what I had done and not wanting to ruin the friendship I called him the next day and apologized. In the end, we didn't loose sleep over it and remain friends and fishing buddies.

Jigsaw and others made some great points. First, no matter what river it is, the more you spend time on the water to develop a relationship to the river the better you will become at getting to know it, the hatches, and hopefully improve your skills in the meantime. Also, it totally depends on the style of fishing. I nymph 95% of the time, and fish predominantly fish under the water, therefore my chances increase. When I first started I was VERY overwhelmed. I went with a guy who essentially caught a fish every dozen or so casts. Granted, he's one of the best anglers I know and has written articles and a book on fly-fishing, but nonetheless, it made me feel a bit out of place, frustrated, and bummed. But then I began reading some things on this board, learning from others, and simply spending LOTS of time on the water (50-100 days/year, depending on work schedule). This not only helped my skills, but my confidence as well. I almost ignored this thread because of the effect that it may, as well as many other threads (specifically the "river reports") has on folks: creates a sense of competition. While some folks have that point of view of our sport, I believe most of us here will say that isn't the primary reason we go out every week. Its not about the number and size of fish, what gear you own, who your fishing buddies are, how many days you go out, how many flies you own, what fancy trick you can do with your stick, etc. Its about the river, the fish, and the experience.....

Looking at the log books I would say about 2-3/hr on an avg. day. A good day would be 4-5/hr and a phenomenal once a year day would be anything over that. That said, the ratios change depending upon a 2 hour day or a 6 hour day. Best day of the year was landing 10, hooking 12 in 1.5 hours.

Has the province ever tried some type of volunteer ranger program? I know there are legality issues, but there are countless numbers of us on the river every day. In essence, we are the "frontline" encountering poachers, etc. and it makes reasonable sense to provide some type of outlet for us to be able to help conserve our resources.

x3 Not only have I personally used macs since 1996 with no issues, but have been at 2 companies (and no, I'm not a graphic designer) that only use macs.

I have a lot of stuff sent to me by friends/family in the US. I simply have them put on the declaration form "gift" and under value "$50" even if its over. If I order something, I'll have it shipped to them, then on to me. Often much cheaper, even going through a middle person, as the shipping is cheaper from US to US vs. US to Canada.

I second what Colin said. There is a variety of quality out there and any of the local smaller shops should have the higher quality stuff. I've had flies come undone before when I've bought less than quality stuff. Its funny, no matter what the product the old saying of "you get what you pay for" is typically a good rule to go by.

I have last year's version of the Cloudveil jacket and love it. The angled cuffs are nice because it doesn't interfere with casting. The neoprene cuffs cinch up and allow you to stick your arm under water without getting wet. I can easily fit wallet/keys/camera/phone and fly boxes in the four waterproof zippered pockets. The d-ring is perfect for hanging your net, and there is an extra zipper in the back that allows you to stash another layer if you're traveling light. Also, the hood has a small brim that acts like a hat when raining and sheds water nicely off your head.

Here is the chart I use: 1/16=size 18,20,22 5/64=16,18,20 3/32=14,16,18 7/64=12,14,16 1/8=10,12,14 5/32=8,10,12 3/16=6,8,10

I would agree with cardinalfan that if you take a beginner course, you can test out some different set ups and the instructor can help point you into the general direction that is best for you (fast action, medium action, etc.). Then, the good local fly shops will take the time and cast a range of different setups in your style, often picking ones at different price points, etc.. Then, whatever feels the best and works the best you should go with. Its a heck of a lot better than buying something without testing it first. This is THE tool you use in fly fishing and it is very important to get the one that is best for you...just remember, it doesn't have to be the most expensive or the best name!

Awesome video boys! -Sean

Not sure about most of you, but I much prefer science over heresay, even though I back up many of my own arguments with heresay. However, I like to see actual documents when it comes to critical issues, unlike the method of opinion-which is the predominant method of justification on this board. Here is the table from the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) report on how the number 1,000 was generated. For the full report, go here: http://intranet.iucn.org/webfiles/doc/SSC/...tGuidelines.pdf. The report even deals with how to calculate critical population numbers for fisheries. Table 2.1. Summary of the five criteria (A-E) used to evaluate if a taxon belongs in a threatened category (Critically Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable). Use any of the criteria A-E Critically Endangered Endangered Vulnerable A. Population reduction Declines measured over the longer of 10 years or 3 generations A1 > 90% > 70% > 50% A2, A3 & A4 > 80% > 50% > 30% A1. Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of the reduction are clearly reversible AND understood AND ceased based on and specifying any of the following: (a) direct observation ( an index of abundance appropriate to the taxon © a decline in area of occupancy (AOO), extent of occurrence (EOO) and/or habitat quality (d) actual or potential levels of exploitation (e) effects of introduced taxa, hybridisation, pathogens, pollutants, competitors or parasites. A2. Population reduction observed, estimated, inferred, or suspected in the past where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on any of (a) to (e) under A1 A3. Population reduction projected or suspected to be met in the future (up to a maximum of 100 years) based on any of ( to (e) under A1. A4. An observed, estimated, inferred, projected or suspected population reduction (up to a maximum of 100 years) where the time period must include both the past and the future, and where the causes of reduction may not have ceased OR may not be understood OR may not be reversible, based on any of (a) to (e) under A1. B. Geographic range in the form of either B1 (extent of occurrence) OR B2 (area of occupancy) B1. Either extent of occurrence < 100 km2 < 5,000 km2 < 20,000 km2 B2. or area of occupancy < 10 km2 < 500 km2 < 2,000 km2 and 2 of the following 3: (a) severely fragmented or # locations = 1 ≤ 5 ≤ 10 ( continuing decline in (i) extent of occurrence (ii) area of occupancy, (iii) area, extent and/or quality of habitat, (iv) number of locations or subpopulations and (v) number of mature individuals. © extreme fluctuations in any of (i) extent of occurrence, (ii) area of occupancy, (iii) number of locations or subpopulations and (iv) number of mature individuals. C. Small population size and decline Number of mature individuals < 250 < 2,500 < 10,000 and either C1 or C2: C1. An estimated continuing decline of at least 25% in 3 years 20% in 5 years 10% in 10 years up to a maximum of 100 years or 1 generation or 2 generations or 3 generations C2. A continuing decline and (a) and/or ( (a i) # mature individuals in largest subpopulation < 50 < 250 < 1,000 (a ii) or % mature individuals in one subpopulation = 90-100% 95-100% 100% ( extreme fluctuations in the number of mature individuals D. Very small or restricted population Either (1) number of mature individuals < 50 < 250 < 1,000 or (2) restricted area of occupancy na na typically: AOO < 20km2 or # locations ≤5 E. Quantitative Analysis Indicating the probability of extinction 50% in 10 years 20% in 20 years 10% in 100 years in the wild to be at least or 3 generations or 5 generations (100 years max) (100 years max)

I used to work for one of the major organizations who is against the grizzly bear hunt (www.y2y.net), and I can guarantee you that they are NOT of the frame of mind of anti-hunting or anti-fishing. In fact, they have a hunting and fishing policy. The Executive Director is probably the best angler I know and is author of the book, Fishing for Buffalo. He also is a reputable hunter. The key here is sustainable. IF the population is sustainable, yes, hunting/fishing is okay. If the population is NOT sustainable (and leave it to the experts to define this term, not joe public), then the proper management options should be put in place to protect it for future use/generations. Look at Ontario's Aurora Trout. They have made a great comeback, due to great management practices, and now anglers can enjoy. Same with AB grizzlies. All experts (except those affiliated with hunting lobbyists) agree that 1,000 is the key number for a healthy population--and keep in mind that grizzlies roam long distances, so you can't distinguish "local" populations that are okay to hunt in this situation. Anyhow, with the new numbers put out recently, we are well below that. With proper management, suspension of hunt, pro-active multi-use planning initiatives for the landscape, transportation mitigation efforts, etc., the population can bounce back and the hunt can resume. While I don't hunt and would never hunt, I think individuals have the right to do so, if the population can sustain it. If there were an unsustainable number of trout in the Bow River would you allow a harvest?

I think we need time to see how this will play out. As we saw in 2009, he voted in one of the most impressive nature bills in U.S. history, protecting over 1,100 miles in 86 rivers for anglers, rafters, and the public (http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/press-releases/2009/president-obama-signs.html). This was known as the historic Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 and designated 86 new Wild and Scenic Rivers, totaling over 1,100 miles in Oregon, Idaho, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, California, and Massachusetts. Also, the fact that he enjoyed himself on the East Gallatin, in a hole I know very well, shows that he supports our sport!

Friend just forwarded me this interesting link from the Nature Conservancy: http://www.nature.org/multimedia/features/art30481.html It looks like they are working to come up with solutions to provide hydropower with more minimal impacts to riversheds and fisheries. That would be one heck of an accomplishment!

I haven't read any scientific studies on this subject, but in looking at my past logs I find that I certainly do catch more whities in winter/spring. Having said that, it's usually when I find myself in a whitie "holdup." What I mean by that is that there are certain stretches of the river that for some reason or another simply have more whitefish. This winter has been an exception to years past with browns/bows topping the charts.