Jump to content
OzarkAnglers.Com Forum

Flyfisher for men

Members
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flyfisher for men

  1. I've eaten them numerous times, and I'll repeat what a lot of others have said. The meat tends to be more course, and many do cut out the red part of the filet, although I never found that a problem for the taste (you could do one filet with and one without as an experiment and see what you like). We always fried them breaded.We first tried them when I was a kid and Dad kept a couple to try. They didn't turn out well. An old timer told him the key was not taking any belly meat. We were careful the next time to do as he says, and that evidently gave good results, because we ate them frequently after that. We always avoided the belly meat. I'll second that the smaller ones are better eating. (smaller is relative--say up to 24 inches). We once watched a guy catch a monster that was around 20 pounds, and he gave it to us. I don't remember the actual eating, but my Dad has a very strong memory that the filet was "oily" and not good eating. We avoided the really big ones after that. I have been told they make good substitutes in blackened redfish recipes. Also, sort of on the lines of "poor man's lobster," it's been claimed that if you boil a piece, it will allow you to make an imitation shrimp cocktail. Blackened drum and "shrimp" cocktail are on my bucket list. I'll try to remember to post results if the covid virus ever lets me out to catch one.
  2. You're probably hitting on at least a part of the truth here. While I'm perfectly ok with things, it does make me wonder if it might be worth another look.
  3. This is one thing about the trout parks. You get to know some nice folks. I had a similar thing going at a campground at Bennett Spring. Sadly for me, the owners sold the campground and moved to Florida for retirement last I heard. I was on good terms with them, and a number of the retirees there. God bless 'em all, wherever they are.
  4. It would be interesting to see and hear that if possible. I was hoping to get to Montauk this summer for the first time, but that is obviously postponed indefinitely due to the virus.
  5. Unfortunately, I don't know about Lt. Agnew aside from what's listed above. Glad you enjoyed the info.
  6. I got this in an email text from an official in the Missouri Department of Conservation "These types of fishing zones have been in place for many years and were set up as a way to separate anglers with varied fishing techniques. The zone restrictions are a simple way to provide varied fishing opportunities to as many anglers as possible. Typically lure restrictions are used to aid population dynamics but in the case of trout parks there is a hatchery which stocks the stream nightly from March 1 to October 31." I didn't press for any more details, so that's all I have. Since he mentions separating types of anglers, I presume that means things like giving the flyfishermen more room.
  7. In NE Kansas. We're under a statewide order to stay at home.
  8. Good for you! Unfortunately for me, access to the white bass here is restricted due to stay at home orders.
  9. This is my concern about my one specific fishing goal this year: a June trip to Montauk State Park. My guess is that we won't be dealing with the virus by then, but you never know.
  10. I overlooked this. Now that you mention it, I think I may have heard that somewhere along the line. It makes sense.
  11. No comment. Do you have any insight into the reasons for the variances in the regulations at the trout parks? That's the question I ask in the thread.
  12. All of these qualify for what I'm thinking---I used to the phrase "good experience" earlier, and that might not be the best choice of words. What the restrictions can do is promote "different strokes for different folks," offer something reasonably pleasant for a varied group of users, make a body of water more fishable for different groups, etc.
  13. That's been my understanding. I presume it has something to do with the private ownership of the actual park.
  14. You may be right on that. I haven't fished all of them, but it rings a bell. Why that is the case is exactly why I started the thread. My guess is it has to do with helping kids to fish at BSSP.
  15. Your guess is as good as any. It matters to me mainly to satisfy my burning curiosity. Along the lines of what you say, though, tackle restrictions can, in theory, promote a good experience. e.g. "Fly only" to promote catch and release or to give fly rodders plenty of room for their casting by directing bait fisherman to another area of a park.
  16. The trout parks all have various bait/lure/fly zones, but they are not consistent from park to park. Anyone know the reasoning or why such a varied system? For instance, Roaring River appears to have an artificial-only section, and you can use soft plastics in that area. By contrast, Bennett Spring lumps soft plastics with bait in a separate zone. For reference: Roaring River: "From the hatchery to the posted sign at the mouth of Dry Hollow Creek, only artificial lures, soft plastic baits and flies are permitted...No putty-dough baits, other natural baits or foods may be used in this area." https://mostateparks.com/page/54247/fishing Bennett Spring: "From the whistle bridge to the Niangua River. Only soft plastic bait (unscented), natural and scented bait are permitted. All flies and artificial lures are prohibited, even if natural bait or scent has been added." https://mostateparks.com/page/54109/fishing
  17. Thanks, I find all of this very interesting. I'll check it out the next time I'm there.
  18. I think its misinformation. It would have to be totally new for this season. I haven't heard anything about it.
  19. I'm hearing this about the Cabelas fly shop, although I haven't seen it with my own eyes as yet.
  20. For anyone who might be interested, here is the official report of the Battle of Inman Hollow, July 7 1862. Since I understand Stevenson's Mill was in the present park boundaries (it was later burned and replaced), it sounds like Major Gallup led a detachment of the Third Missouri Cavalry right through the present park to the mouth of the hollow. Then they went northeast up the hollow for three miles where they fought the battle. One thing thats a little disturbing is the lack of wounded. In a typical battle there's normally four or five wounded for every man killed. I have also run across a statement written a few months later from a soldier at nearby Salem saying that company Q of the Third Missouri Cavalry kept the guerrillas in the area in "wholesome terror," and "rarely take prisoners." (This is in Inside War by Michael Fellman, p. 77). Company Q is not listed as one that actually fought in the battle, but this still leaves me wondering if some atrocities might have occurred. There was a lot of that sort of thing in Missouri in the war. In any case, here's the official report and a link to the original source. https://ehistory.osu.edu/books/official-records/019/0152 JULY 7, 1862.- Skirmish at Inman Hollow, Mo. Report of Major Henry A. Gallup, Third Missouri Cavalry. SIR: In pursuance of Special Orders, Numbers 21, from these headquarters, I took command of a detachment of 205 men of Companies B, D, G, and H, and proceeded to Crow's Station, arriving there at 1 a, m, on Sunday. The next morning I sent Company G, in charge of Sergeant Haines, with the wagons, direct to Salem, and proceeded with the other three companies to Stevenson's Mill, on the Current River, leaving a detachment of 15 men at Spring Creek, to reconnoiter and get such information as was to be obtained of the whereabouts of any rebel force that was in that vicinity. Monday morning, the 7th instant, I sent Lieutenant Avery back to Spring Creek with Company H, to go from that place to Salem, and proceeded down the river with the two remaining companies to the mouth of Inman Hollow. Learning that several bands of rebels had been seen the night before about the head of this Hollow, and receiving information that there was a rebel camp, 200 strong, in that vicinity, I proceeded up the Hollow-searching closely for indications of an enemy. After proceeding about 3 miles 5 rebels were discovered getting corn from a barn on the road-side. Lieutenant Agnew, with the advance guard, drove them into the camp on the opposite side of the road, closely followed by Company B, Captain Glover commanding, charging the camp at full speed. The rebels fled precipitately, leaving coats, blankets, and arms on the ground. Owing to the distance at which they heard the firing from the house, they were flying in every direction when we arrived at their camp. We succeeded, however,, in killing 11, mortally wounding 1, and taking 1 prisoner, with several horses and mules. Their arms we were obliged to destroy, as we had no means of transportation. Two Hall's carbines, 1 German carbine, and 1 revolver pistol were saved. From Inman Hollow we marched to Salem, and encamped for the night. On Tuesday morning I left Company H, with several horses of other companies, unable to travel for want of shoes, and proceeded direct to these headquarters, having directed Lieutenant Avery to proceed to this place on Wednesday following. I am, colonel, your obedient servant, H. A. GALLUP, Major Third Missouri Cavalry.
  21. Even better. It's still worth a look, since you are still likely to greater velocities than other factory ammo, based on load data I've seen. The powder formulation plays into it, too. It is a bit more expensive, and that might not be worth it if you're only taking shots at 100 yards.
  22. Thank you, Gavin. I will hopefully be at Montauk this summer and might check it out. I can certainly do some research knowing the name.
  23. Check out Hornaday's leverevolution ammo on their website. If you are not familiar with it, the bullets have rubberized tips that allow you to use the pointed bullets in a tubular magazine. If memory serves, the 160 grainers run something like 3" high at a 100 yards and dead on at 200 yards.
  24. In an old thread in the Montauk state park section (see below), I came across a couple references to a "civil war battlefield campground" out past the Eagle's park near the turn off toward Tan Vat. (this campground itself sounds like it was insubstantial, defunct, a remnant, etc.) Anyone familiar with the local tradition? I haven't located any information about a skirmish or civil war campsite near the present park (at least not on the 'net). I'll check some books and old records later. The references are in this thread: http://forums.ozarkanglers.com/topic/25084-helpwhere-to-camp/?tab=comments#comment-163203
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.