Sparkplug

Don, to be clear, I'm not advocating for the stocking of walleye or pike to address the invasives issue in BIR, or any other waterbody for that matter. I acknowledge your perspective that the stocking of pike into a former trout lake to take care of perch is a form of reward for the illegal stocking of perch, turning a former trout waterbody into a pike/perch fishery instead. I thought that browns were the most (high) temperature-tolerant of the trout, and hence could have the best potential to grow in our relatively shallow/warm prairie lakes/reservoirs into fish-eating predators.

Thanks all for the additional comments on the "invasives" here. If they are carp at around 10" length, then wouldn't a larger predator species like pike or walleye be better suited to dealing with these, than trout (other than lake trout or bulls)? Of course there would be juvenile carp around as well for the trout, but if the issue with the carp is prolific breeding, you'd want to take out more adults, wouldn't you (and hence the larger predator species)?

Pardon my unfamiliarity with this fishery, but what are the "invasives" that we are talking about here? Conceptually, using more piscivorous trout species to control invasives (if the invasives are in fact fish of some sort) is interesting. I'm no fisheries biologist, but is it not true that any trout/char species (browns, brookies included) need to be a certain size before they are primarily piscivorous? Anybody know if certain trout/char species have a preference for particular invasives, so that a stocking program might be tailored to the invasives presence in that waterbody?

Thanks, interesting. Do you think it is being taken as a scud or damsel imitation? What size do you normally tie it in? One way to weight it but not fatten it up too much might be to tie in a strip of weight wire down the back of the hook shank. Gary Lafontaine tied a scud in this manner that he figured rolled over on its back when at rest, and righted itself when pulled, hence broadcasting the flashback.

Personally, I tie what I use/have need for in my fishing. My principal enjoyment in fly tying comes from innovation, tweaking "standard" patterns with different materials, color combos, etc. All of my most effective patterns have come from this. The basic skills/techniques involved are fairly universal, regardless of what you are tying. So unless you have ambitions to become a commercial tier and feel a need to be able to pound out any and all sorts of flies, I don't think you would be "hindering progression" if you only tied streamers or dries, to the exclusion of nymphs. I'd say tie what you enjoy tying, and can/will need and use in your fishing.

Let's not forget Enmax's new Shepard power plant. The plant uses water that would otherwise have been discharged from Bonnybrook back into the river. Now, that water is instead routed to Shepard, where the majority of it is evaporated in the plant's cooling tower. Not a drop back into the Bow. As such, it is a net massive withdrawal of water from the Bow. Modern combined cycle plants like this are now being built with air cooling elsewhere. There's no reason why Shepard couldn't have been built with air cooling, instead of this huge consumptive use of Bow River water. The plant's cooling tower plume is a fixture on the horizon in SE Calgary; all that water going up into the sky, rather than back into our Bow.

Further to the BS/WB question above, this season I fished a tandem rig, with a large (#10) backswimmer pattern up front, tied to run back-down through the water, and a #16 water boatman pattern (swimming back-up) on the dropper. Both patterns had foam in them, to give relatively neutral buoyancy/very moderate sink. The whole mess was fished on a floating line, with the rapid short pull retrieve started as soon as the flies hit the water. Somewhat surprisingly, the results were about even, in terms of number of fish that took the backswimmer versus the water boatman. There seemed to be far more WB in the water than backswimmers, but given that the hookup results were about even, I'm glad I fished the tandem rig.

Very nice. You like the Radian? Trying to decide between that, and the NRX

As we're approaching fall, I'd like to get some thoughts from my fellow tiers about backswimmers and water boatmen. Last season I did well on a boatman pattern in size 14, mottled rubber legs, body of gold/silver crystal chenille, back of tan foam (marked with black marker), and an amber glass bead head. Fished with a 2-3" rapid strip, as soon as it was plopped into the water on a floating line, it got hit hard. I recently read about backswimmers, as the larger and less numerous cousins of the water boatmen, and how your odds are improved by fishing a tandem train of a backswimmer (in the size 10-12 range) in front, and water boatman trailing behind. Anyone have some recommendations as to backswimmer pattern ideas? I understand that they swim on their backs (hence the name), so patterns should be tied such that the back runs like a keel. Any thoughts as to whether backswimmers (or WB) are better tied as buoyant patterns, and fished on a sinking or sink-tip line, so as to give a bob upwards on the pauses in the retrieves? Thanks Sparkplug

It's not so much "power demand", as it is TransAlta's use of the K-system hydro plants. The K-system hydro plants total less than 50 MW of generation capacity; Alberta daily demand peaks at around 10,000 MW. The K-system hydro plants are inconsequential to meeting demand in the province. Their primary benefit these days is to TransAlta, who dispatch them in response to the (hourly) price of electricity in the province, essentially at their discretion (and to their economic benefit). As consequences, the lake levels and river flows fluctuate wildly. Glenmore, at least, is not subject to this hourly fluctuation, but rather is managed on a more seasonal basis. It is not drawn down over the winter nearly to the same extent as the K-system reservoirs. The challenge with Glenmore is all the residential development downstream, and flood protection of that. There is no valid technical reason why the K-system hydro units could not be operated in a more stable mode, closer to true run-of-river (subject to some flood protection/water storage seasonal considerations). A case would have to be made to AEP that changes to the hydro operating licenses to stabilize lake levels/river flow rates was in the public interest.

A number of years back I watched a kid pull a rainbow from the lower lake, which his dad then weighed on a hand scale - pulled it down to 12 lbs. The dams don't have to come out. Nor do the turbines - simply changing their operating license to have them operate as more run-of-river could significantly stabilize lake levels and better establish and maintain littoral zones. I'm not a fisheries biologist, but I can't help but wonder what the potential of these lakes could be if the water levels were more stable. We have other dams/reservoirs in the province that are operated in this more stable level mode (e.g., Glenmore Reservoir), so it certainly can be done.

Though not really an answer to your question, Don, a follow-on question might be how good UKL and LKL (and Barrier L as well, I suppose) would be if hydro operations there were managed differently (i.e., on more of a run-of-river basis) to maintain more consistent lake levels. Much has changed in the electric industry/market in Alberta in the last couple of decades, such that these units now are virtually inconsequential to the market and/or power system stability in S Alberta - today, from an electrical output standpoint, they pretty much serve only to line TransAlta's pocket, to the detriment of the fishery. Yes, there are still flood control benefits, but I think there still is a substantial opportunity here to further stabilize lake levels (and thereby improve the fishery) by further restriction of the hydro unit operating fluctuations. Today, TransAlta can virtually do as they please. Stabilization of lake levels and enhancement of the fisheries in the lakes is likely far more in the public interest than seeing TransAlta's pockets lined.

Fully agree with Troutlover's concept, buoyant flies (streamers) on short leaders, full sink line. For some reason the best color combo for me on the walleye is purple over yellow.

Discussion of extent of infestation of Asian crap - perhaps should be in "Not Fishing Related" forum, under heading of Canada trade imbalance/deficit

Caught in a man-made pond in S Alberta. History has it that the pond and surrounding land used to be private ranchlands long ago, and owner at that time may have stocked this pond with these things, whatever they are. No way for them to get in/out of this pond naturally. I still like Lornce's thought re Dolly Vardens. As best I can tell from the original photos, no black spots on the dorsal fin, so not likely a Brookie.

Thanks Lornce, I hadn't thought about a Dolly until you mentioned it. A zoom-in on the original photos shows no black spots on the dorsal fin. In looking into Dolly vs. A/C, I found that Dollies generally have (i) smaller spots than A/C's, (ii) thicker caudal peduncle (body "connection" to tail), and (iii) less forked tail than an A/C. So looks to me like a Dolly.

Not an IT techie, so my apologies in advance if this post doesn't work, and for the poor quality photos. However, I need some help identifying this fish - arctic char or brookie? There were no vermiculations on its back, just spots (all yellow), and belly color was decidedly red. Any thoughts? Thanks

At that time of year, between regs and ice/snow, your options may be somewhat limited. The Athabasca usually is fairly low and clear in May (though that can change quickly with weather) and as such may be a good bet, especially if you're looking for a "pretty casual stop and go" opportunity, as opposed to more of a time and effort commitment. Per last year's regs (which of course don't necessarily mean anything for this season), the stretch from headwaters down to the 12 Mile Bridge (on Hwy 16 E of Jasper) was open in May. In this stretch (d/s of Athabasca Falls), the Athabasca at the mouths of the Miette, Maligne and Snaring are all readily accessible and could be good places to try.

Thanks Don. To my mind, the perch question is a tough call - I appreciate your point about retention amounting to condoning an illegal act. But what is the alternative? Do we just write off Struble as having been permanently lost to the perch, or are there other alternatives that could eliminate the perch population and at least create a chance of this lake being restored to its previous trout glory? If Struble were to somehow be rid of perch, I wonder what the risk is of repeat illegal stocking. I don't know the history here, but I would imagine that the lakes were stocked with perch some time ago, i.e., pre-internet times...maybe today, things might be different, in terms of the risk of illegal perch stocking? Maybe that's just naive, and it's almost a given that if one or more of these lakes were to be rid of perch, they'd just get illegally stocked again anyways. But maybe...one or two high-awareness "rehab" initiatives might have a chance of success (vs. 0, in their current state). It's the old Wayne Gretzky quote - "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take".

Born and raised in Edmonton, Dad taught me to fish chasing pike west of town. Got into fly fishing in my early teens; bought my first rig with allowance money from Reg Denny's old shop, a clearance-barrel Daiwa. I taught myself to tie flies with Helen Shaw's book and my Dad's metalworking vise in the garage - learned to tie "lefthanded" as a result, as the door swing in the garage was right into the right hand side of the vise. For many of those early years I tied flies using Mom's sewing thread, yarn I could scrounge, and elastic from my ginch waistbands (Mom could never understand why I went through ginch at the rate I did). Am a gearhead by trade, did my engineering at the U of A, then moved to Pincher Creek to flyfish there for a few years, er, I mean work in sour gas production. Moved to Calgary in '96 and have lived and fished here since. Have worked in the energy industry my entire career, most of it in natural gas and power generation (have we talked about a campaign to get TransAlta to run the Kananaskis units more as run-of-river, to stabilize lake levels?). Currently run a small alternative energy company, which between that and the family, cuts into fishin' time. But recently moved to a community lake in Calgary and have quite enjoyed the convenience of chasing trout in my backyard.

The issue is with the characterization, often used by governments to try to garner support for pipelines like TMPL, that the pipe will open access to "lucrative" new markets. Asia is not a "lucrative" new market for Canadian crude; generally it is/will be a lower margin market than the USGC. So, why expand a pipeline like TMPL, and put the BC coast at incremental risk, when expansion of pipe capacity to the USGC (e.g., Keystone XL) instead would result in similar/better margins for our heavy crudes, and doesn't bring with it the marine risk?

Had to laugh, the very first vise I ever had as a kid many moons ago was "hecho en Mexico". A rather crude device by today's standards, but got the job done nonetheless. I agree with the comments re not bringing back foreign road kill or animal matter generally speaking. Train wreck at Customs, any way you look at it.

Just a correction, with the proposed TMPL expansion, tanker traffic would increase to about 35 tankers per month, not per day. Most tankers are 1+ million bbls capacity; the combined transfer capacity of the existing TMPL and proposed expansion is about 1.2 million bbl/d, so enough to fill a tanker per day or so. On the topic of refining in Alberta, there is no economic basis for this, as there is no large market for incremental refined products in W Canada, and other jurisdictions have their own refining capacity - hence they want crude (at crude prices), not refined products. All that said, if I lived in the Lower Mainland, I'd probably be out there protesting against the TMPL expansion too. The story of "lucrative" markets for Alberta bitumen in Asia is basically BS; the Asians buy heavy crude from the cheapest sources globally (e.g., Middle East), and certainly won't be paying any premium for Canadian crudes. The biggest and best market for incremental Canadian crude (i.e., oil sands dilbit) remains the USGC, and TMPL expansion doesn't do much of anything for that.

The pattern that worked well for me as a chironomid larva attractor was: Hook: Tiemco 2499SPBL, size 12 Tail: UV pink marabou, pinched Body: holographic purple flashabou (coated once ribbed) Rib: maroon wire Collar: UV purple ice dub Bead: 7/64 pearl white

If you love the red/claret, try it in purple. Did a lot of of chironomid larvae fishing this season on stillwaters, with both red and purple variants on the same rig. Didn't seem to matter if the purple was on the point or up top, it outfished the red by about 3:1 or more.