seanbritt

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!

95% of your corks (whether on a custom built or off-the rack rod) will have filler in it. The manufacturers simply use glue and cork dust to fill the irregularities/holes, which is why they often come out quickly after use. In fact, I have a new 5wt flight that has a few holes (just got it for x-mas). The best advice I've received, and which I now use, is wood filler. Much stronger and longer lasting. However, be sure to clean your cork first to ensure you're filling all the holes. A simply cleaner is 50% bleach/50% water. Scrub, rinse with water, dry overnight. Then do your filling.

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.

It will likely be eons before AB does anything like ban felt soles.

Dune, there have been lots of studies on mortality rates of fish and the chief causes. While bait/baitless, barbed/barbless do play a factor, there are other factors that are much more significant, including "play time" or the amount of time it takes one to land a fish. Essentially the longer it takes you to play a fish, the higher the mortality rate. Also, the more time spent out of water also increases chances of mortality. Surprisingly, there is little to no difference from an Idaho State Gov. study on barbed vs. barbless, which is why I believe they brought back the allowance of barbed. The issue of "play time" is why I often am disappointed in the anglers on the Bow who think it is cool and fun to play a 22" rainbow on a 2-3wt rod for long periods of time. I say, use the proper equipment to get the job done...a 5-6wt is perfect, will let you "feel" the fish quite nicely and allow you to get the fish to shore quickly. In my opinion, the more skilled angler is the one who can catch the big one and bring it to shore/release the fastest....not the longest! Here is the link to one study that illustrates the issue of "play time": http://www.acuteangling.com/Reference/C&RMortality.html (note the range of species in the study) Here is a summary of the study from Idaho: Barbed Hook Restrictions in Catch-and-Release Trout Fisheries: A Social Issue D. J. SCHILL and R. L. SCARPELLA Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1414 East Locust Lane, Nampa, Idaho 83686, USA Abstract.—We summarized results of past studies that directly compared hooking mortality of resident (nonanadromous) salmonids caught and released with barbed or barbless hooks. Barbed hooks produced lower hooking mortality in two of four comparisons with flies and in three of five comparisons with lures. Only 1 of 11 comparisons resulted in statistically significant differences in hooking mortality. In that instance, barbless baited hooks caused significantly less mortality than barbed hooks, but experimented design concerns limited the utility of this finding. Mean hooking mortality rates from past lure studies were slightly higher for barbed hooks than barbless ones, but the opposite was true for flies. For flies and lures combined, mean hooking mortality was 4.5% for barbed hooks and 4.2% for barbless hooks. Combination of test statistics from individual studies by gear type via meta-analysis yielded nonsignificant results for barbed versus barbless flies, lures, or flies and lures combined. We conclude that the use of barbed or barbless flies or lures plays no role in subsequent mortality of trout caught and released by anglers. Because natural mortality rates for wild trout in streams commonly range from 30% to 65% annually, a 0.3% mean difference in hooking mortality for the two hook types is irrelevant at the population level, even when fish are subjected to repeated capture. Based on existing mortality studies, there is no biological basis for barbed hook restrictions in artificial fly and lure fisheries for resident trout. Restricting barbed hooks appears to be a social issue. Managers proposing new special regulations to the angling public should consider the social costs of implementing barbed hook restrictions that produce no demonstrable biological gain. You will see from the chart within the study that barbed/baited is highest mortality. I tried to cut/paste, but file is to large....

I would go to Fish Creek Park. There are very little of the ice shelves left, making it one of the safest places in the city right now. Also, last weekend was pretty good. Fish were in all kinds of water-seams and slow. They were also in both deep and medium depth water, with a nice mid-twenty brown coming out of about 3-4' of water about 5' from shore! All fish caught were active, with only a few being skinny/wintery. The rest were surprisingly hefty. Water clarity last weekend was great, Sat. about 4'+ and Sun. muddying up slightly to 2-3'. I suspect vis. will stay about the same/disspiate with the melt we've had this week. However, they were hungry eating worms, princes, copper johns, and caddis larva/pupae.

I've fished the 6wt Ridgeline tactical trout and just put a Ridgeline tactical trout with the new supple coating on my 5wt. I really like it. Because the ridge technology puts less surface area on your guides, it reduces friction and allows the line to shoot faster/smoother. While the old coating produced very little memory, the new supple coating reduces it to next to nothing. While memory has never been an issue for me during the summer, it often becomes a challenge for me in the winter. Not so with this line! Also, it lasts like the energizer bunny. I only got about 100 or so days out of my GPX before I had to toss it due to cracks, etc. Not so with the ridgeline. They also have a pretty good warranty against cracks, etc.

Looks like Water Matters is giving a talk tonight if anyone is interested. Here is what a friend forwarded me this AM: FEBRUARY SPEAKER EVENT TONIGHT, Wednesday, February 10th Joe Obad from Water Matters will be speaking about his report on securing source water protection in southern Alberta http://www.water-matters-org/ Deville's in Arts Central (SE corner of second level - 100 7th Ave SW) Doors open at 5:30 p.m., speaker starts at 6:00 p.m. Socializing & Networking 7:00 pm - 8:00 pm http://www.devillecoffee.ca/ Event is free for members $5 for non-members. A lifetime YEP Membership is $30 and can be purchased at the door.

Great news, thanks for passing it along! I thought something was suspicious when they asked to send in high res photos Congrats to the other guys as well! I haven't seen the issue/photos yet, but heard from a friend they're pretty good. Will have to make it to the shop to pick up my copy!

I'd be willing to donate two old vices I have kicking around and might be able to scrape up one or two others from some buddies. PM me an address where I can send it to. Do you need any materials? I just read in a recent magazine of accredited college courses focused on fly-fishing and tying. I think this is a great idea and applaud you for getting the younger generation into it! Anything we as a community can do to help is the least we can do.

Sun, interesting question about what is the hardest thing to give up. I would have to say my own personal car. While Calgary has a public transit system, needless to say it is less than stellar. Also, coordinating the fishing trips and "quickies" to the river become more challenging when there is 1 vehicle and more than one user.

Despite vowing not to continue on this thread, I must. Here are a 10 simple things we do as a family and you may consider as well: 1. Use one car. We use the bus and train as much as we can and unfortunately cannot afford a hybrid but have a 4-cylinder compact that gets good gas mileage. 2. Buy locally. We go to the farmer's market or community to buy locally. This is one of the biggest efforts one can make. Rather than buy imported kiwi's from New Zealand, buy some carrots from Innisfail. 3. Turn off lights/electronics when not in use. They make these great timers and even have remote controlled power surges now. 4. Insulate your windows/house to reduce heat release. 5. Offset your power by purchasing wind power via a company like bullfrog. 6. Visit your library instead of buying new books. 7. Use reuseable bags. 8. Recycle. 9. Replace any old light bulbs with energy effecient ones. 10. Use rechargeable batteries. You may ask yourself, how do these litttle things help? Well, its a cumulative effect. Not only will little things save energy, etc. but save you money as well! By and far though, #2 will have the biggest impact and help local economies as well....

Wanna split a lotto 649 ticket or two?

If I've learned anything from this board, and particularly the posts regarding climate change, is that I'd rather spend my time actually doing something to help the climate change situation than spend time trying to educate those who cannot be about the situation. Enjoy the rest of the self-debate!

I agree with headscan that in whatever you do, make sure its enjoyable. I was tying a fair number of flies going through a set list, but then it became tedious. Now I try to just have fun. Mostly that is re-stocking the go-to's @ 12 per fly (vary my sizes). Then I try new variations or new patters of the fly. Just because something worked last year or last week or yesterday doesn't mean it will work tomorrow and having that slight variation may be the key! But yeah, just have fun!

I was in Fish Creek today and there were a good amount of guys out. Had little luck (a few on, none landed) with nymphs in a few runs, but saw some guys pull in a few with streamers. Visibility is ok, probably around 2' or so. Definetely watch out for the ice shelves, but I found most of the spots I could actually wade and be fine. No slush which was awesome! Either way, great day to get out and good luck tomorrow!

Hey Tungsten- I often go over my buddies to tie and simply use an old kleenex box for my discards (I have a vice with a pedestal). I like the kleenex box because the plastic over the hole/opening allows feathers to go in but not out. Also, its cheap!

Awesome benches guys! I love all the organizational components. Puts my $20 bench to shame! Next house guess I'll have to upgrade (and now I've got some inspiration!).

Spent the last week re-stocking coppers and princes, next up will be PTs and chironomids. I enjoyed taking a break to try a dry for the contest though!

Nice PTs, I like the rubber legs....often makes em deadly!

Meant to get this photo up this summer, but was away. Last winter I built myself a fly-tying bench for $20. I had the pine (table top), pegboard (found at a construction site!), and Ikea narrow shelves. All I had to do was buy the legs from Ikea, and I had myself a bench! I like the pegboard, because I can easily keep track of my tools. You'll see I have drawers to the left (also from Ikea!) that I keep feathers, dubbing, etc. in. Thought it may help folks with ideas in the event that are looking to build one this winter during the cold days....