Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > Fly-Fishing Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:45 AM
Bushrat's Avatar
Bushrat Bushrat is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clamlinguine View Post
I sure hope we get to eat the fish out of the mid Ram again. They taste great, are good size, and there are so many of them. It's such beautiful water, it's a shame this area has been wasted on faux fishermen for so long.
I wonder why it hasn't been cleaned out like the streams that allowed fish to be kept. Open it to two fish limit, give it three years and you will be lucky to catch three fish a day and the biggest one will be 10" long. With the fishing pressure it sees today I doubt it would take that long.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-03-2018, 06:58 PM
Don Andersen Don Andersen is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Central Alberta
Posts: 1,239
Default

Fly theory,
There is some population evidence on the lower Ram says the Bull population is stable or increasing.
As far as I am aware there there never has been any population runs on the Clearwater or N. Sask.
The closures are based on a guess or ignored evidence.

And the greatest evidence of how Anglers have been screwed over is Falls Creek. Angler's got banned, logging continued, OHV activity barely curtained.
Falls is the primary spawning stream for Bulls on the N. Sask.

Don
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-13-2018, 09:50 AM
clamlinguine clamlinguine is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushrat View Post
I wonder why it hasn't been cleaned out like the streams that allowed fish to be kept. Open it to two fish limit, give it three years and you will be lucky to catch three fish a day and the biggest one will be 10" long. With the fishing pressure it sees today I doubt it would take that long.
On good days we used to catch our limits on the mid Ram right up until it's closure. I believe the limit back then was 4 over 12". You couldn't rely on catching much in the first few holes beside access points though.

I do approve of a two fish limit of over 14". Maybe even one over !4", and one over 16" would be cool.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 01-16-2018, 08:51 AM
smitty9 smitty9 is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 406
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by clamlinguine View Post
You couldn't rely on catching much in the first few holes beside access points though.
Most. Ironic. Post. Ever.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 01-17-2018, 11:31 AM
clamlinguine clamlinguine is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Sherwood Park
Posts: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by smitty9 View Post
Most. Ironic. Post. Ever.
Ironic in what way? You mean closing entire river systems in order to repopulate a few holes next to the road?

OK.....nevermind....smh.

Last edited by clamlinguine; 01-17-2018 at 11:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.