tieflyer

Made an appeal for action on an issue to Ms Phillips. The response gave clear indication she is heavily if not totally reliant upon long entrenched civil servants for answers and personally, woefully under informed on recreational part of her portfolio. Doubtless this will change in time as her knowledge grows but in the meantime if appealing to government on any issues be prepared for old timy stone walling that smells strongly of the old timy bureaucracy.

One might wish to consider, Furniture Maker, John Morel, right here in Calgary (kinda...on the edges of) as many of Calgary's elite have done. He does not advertise personally; his praises are sung by those who have entered in a search by typing in above.

thanks Doc, The "pinch" got me onto a search for same and came up with this link http://www.speypages.com/speyclave/95-hooks-feathers-floss/23973-perfect-mallard-wings-every-time-use-cheater-piece.html the back and forth therein nails the question nicely

Need suggestions for mounting *%+@*!*"!*!}^! bronze mallard wings on a (basball bat was the 453 'learn how to' method). Prefer any method not documented in the last 143 books on how to mount bronze mallard wings...yes, and did try superglue.

Prompted by the discussion on this subject abandoned on Dec 15th, I wanted to pass personal views. I heard back from the Ministers office ...more like her communication rep...with what was basically a,."you just don't understand; things are under control; US guides pay big fees ($79...Cdn); this is an old boring topic (I assume to the deputy minister or lessor beast within the dept); go away.",.......reply to my suggestion for licensing guides and banning 'foreign' guides. First; enforcement for our recreational resources esp on OUR river is pathetic. (Perhaps I should have started with that one first). Second, fees don't prevent the importation of bad things. Third; riparian/protection along our river is non-existent, development a free for all for the first song and dance king that comes along. I'm concerned we are rapidly destroying the Bow river in perhaps the reverse order to the above three and the feed back to my 'false cast', into the NEW governments lap didn't amount to even a false 'take'. Regulations seem to favor "how I can make a buck" approach to river management with no more than patronizing gestures to science. To put a realistic focus on this, I can assure anyone the aquatic insect life flights in June, July and August are but a tiny fraction of what they were in 1980 when I first started fishing the Bow. I can't remember what the last year was that I wore a bandana over my face to ward off swarms of caddis and mayflies. Does anyone even carry a bandana anymore? New Regs? I don't believe we will see real substance under any government let alone the 'new guys'; their scared of their own shadows!

lower down is better and 1st week of Sept a turning point as trout head further d.stream

Aboslutely no doubt this came about due to a government prepared to govern. Next step for fisheries is guide qualification, limiting #'s of same and closing the door on 'foreign' guides.

Found the detail below at allaboutvision.com (Ah! but before reading want to remind all to think on skin cancer prevention???? Don't forget the SUNSCREEN and neck or balaclava sun blockers) A: Typically, most sunwear lenses will be UV absorptive to some degree. If lenses are marked CR-39R plastic, about 88 percent of UV light is absorbed. If sunglasses contain polycarbonate lenses, UV absorption will be 100 percent. All better quality non-prescription polarized sunglasses sold through optical stores are 100 percent UV absorbing. For the very inexpensive polarized sunglass — thin, bent sheet polarized types provide UV absorption. Lenses that are polycarbonate are usually UV absorptive. However, many cheap sunglasses use a material called triacetate. This material absorbs only about 40 percent of the UV rays. Lenses may also be made of other acrylic materials, which will vary from partially to fully absorbent. Q: What is the best color for prescription sunglass lenses? I was given red, and I do not think they are very protective. Plus, they change the color of things, and there are red spots in them. — J.N., Pennsylvania A: Sunglass lens colors are really a personal preference. As you noticed, some change your perceptions of color, brightness and contrast, and some don't.The most important feature to look for in a sunglass lens is how much UV radiation it absorbs — you want 100 percent for maximum protection. It is also important to get lenses that are ground rather than punched, to minimize distortion. A color we call neutral density gray will darken the world but not change your color perceptions. The lens tint I prefer in my sunglasses is called G-15, which is a combination of gray and green. It is the original tint that Bausch + Lomb used in their Ray-Ban sunglasses for pilots. —

OK, This time I actually concentrated as I re-read the post... Dry fly; right. Kinda like getting a true grasp of a posted topic...Concentrate on where that fly is. It may be your simply not concentrating on where that fly is, the trout takes it and dives, swallowing the fly. Even if you lose sight of the fly if your focused on where that fly SHOULD be, your prior recognition of the speed and proximity of the fly will help you recognize a take... all that and one thousand more days of F'fing and you'll never ever miss another trout take...(most of the time...sometimes...rarely)

Try this method of staying in touch with the end of your line; once the fly is running and there's tension on the entire line, including retrieval, tick the line with your second finger every few seconds...just a light tick will let you know if there's a visitor.

I have a leather reel case design for that one. Do contact me if I've tickled your fancy.

After 50 years fly fishing I've arrived to the, "PRE", category; starting first application of EFUDEX, today. Highly recommend sunscreen as an alternative, fellas.

Arrgh! You just gave away the hottest spot on the Bow!

leather fly rod case from robertcochrane.com

I fell in the Bow in...Jan/1986. Had to do the 200 yd dash, soaked. Been content with waiting until April ever since.

sorts out the trolls quickly, doesn't it?

partner for outings? I'm a senior, expert dry fly afficianodo/instructor (non pro). You'd be mature, neophyte to expert, ideally living in NE Calgary.

Is this not something that should be reported to political sources, RCMP and Forestry in B.C.? The description of the process seems to suggest actions that warrant investigation for criminal charges against the guides as well as CO's.

On Saturday volunteer extraordinaire and friend to the world Ed (Ming) Lee passed away. Ed was a passionate fly fisherman, a people collector, a protector of nature and a fine fly fisherman, known to many of us throughout Alberta and B.C.

They will turn the Bow into a Northern version of the Mississippi. Might as well call in US Corp of Engineers. High River project will simply transfer the problem downstream. The only step worse from here would be to put Danielle in charge.

A salute to a fascinating Cochrane fly fisherman and author, Guy Woods, whose, "Fly Fishing and Other Stuff". Guy's book documents his one man crusade to restore so many small streams in and around Calgary. I'd long ago given up on the idea of stream restoration in Alberta but Guy's book revealed not only the fact there are many determined individuals and small groups throughout Alberta dedicating time, effort and ingenuity to preserving flowing waters into the future but also, how they're doing it... (may even become inspiration for this deaf, beat up senior to lend a hand this year...yeh...a legacy; I like that)

Small wonder... EDMONTON - Federal officials and independent experts say Alberta’s plan to protect provincial rivers won’t work, and could even accelerate environmental damage, new documents show. Internal government emails reveal the federal government “disassociated” itself from Alberta’s water conservation plan and quietly sent letters of concern, because its experts believed the province’s plan was “insufficient” to keep rivers healthy. A government-funded consultant’s report said the plan “fails to propose any meaningful measures” to protect aquatic environments, while government scientists predicted it would result in “significant” and “serious” degradation of fisheries. “If you care deeply about our water ... you would be very shocked to see how this market-based plan has failed to address the fundamental crisis that’s happening,” said Bill Moore-Kilgannon of Public Interest Alberta. “The government has ignored it for ideological and political reasons — some people stand to make massive amounts of money from this, from selling something they were given for free, something that belongs to Albertans, just like the air.” Government normally keeps such documents secret but they became public when they surfaced in a lawsuit. Moore-Kilgannon obtained them and released them to The Journal. Alberta Environment spokesman Chris Bourdeau said the government consulted a wide variety of experts and had to make tough decisions. “At the end of the day, a decision needed to be made that represented all perspectives,” he said. “Ensuring that we could, to the best of our ability, protect the aquatic ecosystems but at the same time recognize that water is needed by communities that exist on the rivers.” The internal records provide a window into government discussions in the years and months leading up to the August 2006 release of the Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin. That plan is still in place. It put a cap on new water licences for the strained Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan River basins, a move that earned praise from environmental groups and criticism from those worried constraints on water would undermine economic growth. At the time, then-environment minister Guy Boutilier told the legislature the plan would “protect the basin’s aquatic environment.” But internal communications suggest otherwise. For example, a draft government plan dated April 16, 2005, said that “even with an allocation cap, it is expected the deterioration of the aquatic environment will continue as the existing licences divert more water to the full extent of their allocations.” In a draft presentation, provincial experts asked whether existing licences should be respected and whether the province should start identifying “preferred uses” for water. A March 2006 report by independent environmental consulting firm Gartner Lee harshly criticized the government’s plan for the three rivers, saying they will remain “degraded and unhealthy” unless conservation objectives are applied to existing licences. “The plan fails to propose any meaningful measures or strategies which would fulfil the government’s commitment to protect the aquatic environment,” the report said. Regarding the relatively healthy Red Deer River, the Gartner Lee report said the province’s allocation limit is “too high” and in at least one case is actually “facilitating the degradation of the river aquatic environment,” adding: “This is not allowed under the Water Act.” An internal government study predicts the Red Deer River will suffer “a serious decline in fish populations” and “a measurable decline in ... abundance of all species” under the provincial plan. Finally, the records reveal the federal government withdrew from the steering committee, sent two letters to province expressing concern the plan would not work, and warned it may impose its own conditions or demand an environmental impact assessment. “The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) ... is now disassociating from the plan due to concerns that the water conservation objectives are insufficient to protect the aquatic environment,” a minister’s report said. Chris Bourdeau said federal government’s input was valuable and they remained an “observer” on the steering committee. “The DFO, obviously they are looking at it from a very specific side, protecting fish habitat,” he said. “They realized that the requirements for full protection of the aquatic ecosystem would be difficult to guarantee that we would be able to meet.” Asked why the former environment minister told Albertans the plan would protect the aquatic environment when several reports said it wouldn’t, Bourdeau asked: “Is it as black and white as protecting or not protecting? We’ve done as much as we can to create water conservation objectives that allow as much water as possible to remain in the river.” He said the province moved ahead with the cap despite the concerns because Alberta communities and municipalities need water, and the government had to make difficult decisions to balance competing needs. “Water conservation objectives need to be set in a way that finds that balance between all the needs,” he said. “Protecting the aquatic ecosystem is one of those needs. Tough decisions need to be made that reflect that balance.” In practical terms, the government’s decision to implement a cap on new water licences created a water market in Alberta. Now, for the first time, Albertans who hold water licences can sell the water they don’t use to others who need it. As a result, water licences that were only half-used can now be fully used. The government must approve such sales, and has the power to hold back some of the water and leave it in the river. Water Matters, a charity group dedicated to protecting watersheds, reports that as of December 2010, the province has approved 54 transfers totalling 17.5 million cubic metres or roughly the amount of water in 7,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. It has held back a total of 1.1 million cubic metres, about six per cent, or 440 Olympic-sized swimming pools. “The fact that they’re allowing these water transfers to happen drastically increases the use of the water, that’s the whole purpose of the water markets,” Moore-Kilgannon said. “It allows the market, in a completely uncontrolled way, to pull way more water out of the river than even exists. “It is about the money, not the environment. That is clear.” He said Albertans must recognize that the province’s market ideology will mean that in time, “those with the deepest pockets” will control Alberta’s water, just as they do in Chile and Australia. “These documents put the lie to all their PR spin, that water markets are about conservation. It shows they are moving ahead based on ideology rather than clear science and common sense.” Bourdeau disputed Moore-Kilgannon’s claim that the market increases the amount of water taken from rivers, saying consumption changes year by year and it is impossible to draw a direct correlation between the two. kkleiss@edmontonjournal.com

I loath Conservatives. Clear enough? Here is a tiny dribble of information as to why; squeezed out of political orifices so vile they are content with the destruction of Alberta, lacking courage of conviction they deny access to the blundering, criminally stupid legacy they leave you, youth of Alberta. (Copied and pasted here because Conservatives best friends, Calgary Herald, will be sure and make this one disappear) EDMONTON — Federal officials and independent experts say Alberta's plan to protect provincial rivers won't work, and could even open the door to further damage, new documents show. Internal government emails and reports reveal the federal government "disassociated" itself from Alberta's water conservation plan and quietly sent letters of concern because its experts believed the province's plan was "insufficient" to keep rivers healthy. Further, a government-funded report from an independent consultant says plans to protect rivers in the overtaxed South Saskatchewan River Basin are inadequate and may even encourage deterioration. The records also show government scientists predicted the plan would result in "significant" and "serious" degradation of fisheries on the Red Deer River. "If you care deeply about our water . . . you would be very shocked to see how this plan has failed to address the fundamental crisis that's happening," said Bill Moore-Kilgannon of Public Interest Alberta. "The government has ignored it for ideological and political reasons — some people stand to make massive amounts of money from this, from selling something they were given for free, something that belongs to Albertans, just like the air." Government normally keeps these documents secret but they became public when the provincial government submitted them as exhibits in an ongoing lawsuit. Moore-Kilgannon obtained them and released them to The Edmonton Journal. Alberta Environment spokesman Chris Bordeau said the government consulted a variety of experts and had to make tough decisions. "At the end of the day a decision needed to be made that represented all perspectives," he said. "Ensuring that we could, to the best of our ability, protect the aquatic ecosystems but at the same time recognize that water is needed by communities that exist on the rivers." The internal records provide a window into government discussions in years and months leading up to the August 2006 release of the Water Management Plan for the South Saskatchewan River Basin. That plan is still in place. It put a cap on new water licences for the strained Bow, Oldman and South Saskatchewan River basins, a move that earned praise from environmental groups and criticism from those worried constraints on water would undermine economic growth. At the time, then-environment minister Guy Boutilier told the legislature the plan would "protect the basin's aquatic environment." But internal communications suggest otherwise. For example, a draft government plan dated April 16, 2005, says that "even with an allocation cap, it is expected the deterioration of the aquatic environment will continue as the existing licences divert more water to the full extent of their allocations." In a draft presentation, provincial experts asked whether existing licences should be respected and whether the province should start identifying "preferred uses" for water. A March 2006 report by independent environmental consulting firm Gartner Lee harshly criticizes the government's plan for the three struggling rivers, saying they will remain "degraded and unhealthy" unless conservation objectives are applied to existing licences. "The plan fails to propose any meaningful measures or strategies which would fulfil the government's commitment to protect the aquatic environment," the report says. Regarding the relatively healthy Red Deer River, the Gartner Lee report says the province's allocation limit is "too high" and in at least one case is actually "facilitating the degradation of the river aquatic environment," adding: "This is not allowed under the Water Act." Internal government studies also predict the Red Deer River will suffer "a serious decline in fish populations" and "a measurable decline in . . . abundance of all species" under the provincial plan. Finally, the records reveal the federal government withdrew from the steering committee, sent two letters to government expressing concern the plan would not work, and warned it may impose its own conditions or demand an environmental impact assessment. "The Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) . . . is now disassociating from the plan due to concerns that the water conservation objectives are insufficient to protect the aquatic environment," a Minister's Report says. Government spokesman Chris Bordeau said the federal government's input was valuable and they remained an "observer" on the steering committee. "The DFO, obviously they are looking at it from a very specific side, protecting fish habitat," he said. "They realized that the requirements for full protection of the aquatic ecosystem would be difficult to guarantee that we would be able to meet." Asked why the former environment minister told Albertans the plan would protect the aquatic environment when several reports said it wouldn't, Bourdeau asked "is it as black and white as protecting or not protecting? We've done as much as we can to create water conservation objectives that allow as much water as possible to remain in the river." In practical terms, the cap on new water licences created a water market in Alberta. Now, Albertans who hold water licences can sell the water they don't use to others who need it. As a result, water licences that were only half-used can now be fully used. The government must approve these sales, and has the power to hold back some of the water and put it in the river. kkleiss@edmontonjournal.com

The bottom line on this never ending subject is the quest to LIMIT guides and outfitter numbers and then limit river access in as many way's possible so that guides and outfitters profiteer, have first access to all waters and everybody else foots the bill (license for this, license for that, more justification for "private landowners" building right up to the rivers edge and claiming, "property rights", over high water rights). so that Alberta finally becomes much like B.C., thanks to the guides and outfitters. I'm all for limiting guides. Hell I'm all for limiting boats. But, to have government pay for it eventually means guiding and outfitting become part of the welfare state that guides and outfitters like to disparage and whine about as they puff up, boasting about last frontier, "real men", baloney, and divine more reasons to make water inaccessible without a professional guide. If you want to make it work don't do this for selfish reasons; put the rivers and Alberta first and foremost...and keep retailers and other obscure entities ("outfitters", quasi middlemen sucking more blood) the heck out of it.