Jump to content
Fly Fusion Forums

BurningChrome

Members
  • Posts

    820
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    51

Posts posted by BurningChrome

  1. 9 hours ago, DonAndersen said:

    The takeaway from the report is that it only took from 2003 when the samples were caught to 2017 for the disease to scatter to every water shed  tested.  Parks are working Johnson Lake but by the spread, the source  or sources could have been anywhere. The rivers tested are the most heavily visited rivers in Alberta.

    Also the next disease or invasive species will spread just as quickly unless people start cleaning their boats and gear properly between water bodies.

    • Like 1
  2. For the line you can put some drag on the reel and pull it off a bit at a time, then attach some heavy mono to the front and tie the mono to a doorknob. Pull it tight to stretch it a bit then reel it back on. For a leader just grab a couple feet of it at a time between your hands and pull or buy one of those leader straighteners.

  3. 1 hour ago, Taco said:

    yup

    Forgot to ask for a population estimate on pure strains left and criteria for defining pure strain.  

    They don't have any population numbers for anything. The numbers have been asked for and none were supplied. Their definition of pure strain is greater or equal to 99% and it's determined by pulling some fish and mapping their genome.

    1 hour ago, Bron said:

    Are they planning on nuking anything?

    Heh, I could be such a $#!+ disturber and say "yeah, the Bow and Highwood". They presented it more as something they're looking at, but didn't say it actually will happen or where. The context around it was similar similar projects in the States that they've been watching. Find a pure strain population upstream from a hybridized population that has a barrier between them. The hybridized population should have a barrier below it as well to separate them from other hybrids. Nuke hybrids then transplant some pure strains into that stretch.

    • Like 1
  4. On 3/4/2018 at 7:58 PM, Bron said:

    One easy change people can make is not growing mushrooms on their lawn all summer.  Drives me up the ****ing wall.

    top your shitty lawn off with some soil that retains water well and you barely have to give it anything.

    better yet, choose a landscape that requires even less water.

    Wonder how much more water per acre golf courses use compared to an acre of residential lawns.

  5. I think you're likely to find more ice the further down from the city you get. There's less ice in the city is because of the warm water coming out of the sewage treatment plants, especially Bonnybrook. If you don't know the river at all, now might not be the best time to try learning it by yourself. Maybe find someone who'll fish with you or hold off until the river clears up some more.

    • Like 2
  6. 2 hours ago, FinnDawg said:

    Who does a guy sign up with to help out and make sure these closures don’t happen in the future? Looks like there will be a lot of work ahead.

    http://www.backcountryhunters.ca/

     

    1 hour ago, Taco said:

    They gawdamned well better focus on habitat restoration. I actually was in favour of stream closures, not so much to protect species from C&R angling but to keep the sense of outrage in the forefront. Now I suspect the average headwaters angler will slide into complacency and can go back to worrying about keepin' up to the friggin'  Jones's

    Stay tuned, there's more coming around the habitat stuff. I'll push habitat restoration as much as I pushed for people to send letters against the closures. To be honest, I never even fish any of the rivers that were going to be closed. I got involved in this because I saw the absurdity of closing the rivers to angling without addressing habitat issues. 

    • Like 3
  7. Starting to get some coverage.

    http://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/alberta-anglers-fear-stream-closures-coming-blame-industry-recreation/wcm/d959eeb5-8c42-411b-943c-b9bd9cea7a27

    Funny how the AEP spokesman is quoted saying “No decisions regarding potential closures have been made at this time.” but this page:

    http://aep.alberta.ca/fish-wildlife/fisheries-management/north-central-native-trout-recovery/default.aspx

    clearly says for 2018 "Fishing closures begin, habitat restoration activities continue, fish and fish habitat assessments". Seems they may be starting to backpedal so keep the pressure on and keep sending in those letters. This isn't just about keeping the rivers open to angling, it's about making sure the real problems like habitat fragmentation and sedimentation get addressed.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  8. I've heard multiple people say they didn't fill out the survey and haven't paid much attention to this because they don't fish those streams. It's almost a guarantee that if they push this through due to angler complacency that closures will be coming to the SW streams next year again without addressing the larger issues of industry and OHV damage to habitat.

    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
  9. 1 hour ago, pokerfish said:

    Thanks guys.

    I wasnt clear in my first post, I was looking at the replacing the deer/elk in a stimulator pattern.

     

    I think you could still go with short rubber legs or spanflex/life-flex type stuff. If you stretch them when you tie them down they shouldn't add any more bulk than deer hair. Should be more durable than biots too.

  10. 12 minutes ago, TroutPanther said:

    Thanks for pointing me to their letter, as well as their mission statement. Their letter makes sense and I like some of their recommendation, but their “qualifying” reasons they listed for supporting the closure, in my view, (like wanting to see more enforcement, habitat restoration, etc.) could just as easily be seen as logic for not mandate a closure yet - wanting to see some of these actions before taking the step of shutting C&R down. 

    And that is pretty much the approach that BHA is taking as outlined in the letter I posted further up in this thread.

  11. 1 hour ago, TroutPanther said:

    That is surprising - With TU’s mandate (and its supporters largely being in the FF community) I thought they would be critical of a plan that appears on the surface to prioritize closures over other habitat rehabilitation. Maybe TU should survey its members re: priorities and support for closures. If TU supports closures on the Oldman & the like - depending on the circumstances - I might reconsider my support.

    I encourage you to read their position statement for yourself and make your own decision:

    https://tucanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/TUC-statement-on-NCNT-Jan-2018.pdf

    I used to be a board member with a local chapter and stepped down because of policies like this and I will no longer donate my time/money. TUC is not an angler's group, they're a cold water conservancy org whose membership mostly happens to be anglers.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 2
×
×
  • Create New...