Jump to content
OzarkAnglers.Com Forum

tjm

Fishing Buddy
  • Content Count

    1,519
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    tjm reacted to fishinwrench in For the Bike Lovers amognst us!   
    If all proceeds go to charity it shouldn't matter who buys them, they should strive to sell as many tickets as possible, regardless.   
    Great deal though, somebody could spend 1-2k on tickets and have a real good chance at making some serious dough. 👍
  2. Like
    tjm reacted to Al Agnew in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    Nope.  I can tell you whether any of the floatable rivers in the Ozarks are too low to float or not simply by looking at cfs and median flow.  I don't have to know anything else about them.  And here's another story...I floated the John Day River last summer.  The John Day is in Oregon and is a different river from any in the Ozarks, and it definitely gets too low to float by late summer, as the agricultural interests take most of the water in it.  We were worried it would be too low by the time our trip was planned.  So I kept watching the gauge.  I KNEW that we needed 150 cfs or more to float it in canoes.  Why?  Because I knew that it wasn't THAT much different from Ozark streams, a riffle/pool stream with riffles about the same width as the middle Meramec.  But the last time I'd floated it had been in 1998, and that was before I even knew about real time river gauges.  We also knew one other thing...it takes 500 cfs to be  able to get a raft down the one big rapid.  So as the time approached, the river was dropping below that 500 cfs figure, so we knew it was getting iffy for taking a raft, but it was still going to be plenty of water to float a canoe.  We ended up taking the raft, at 400 cfs, and yes, it was tough getting down that one rapid and a couple others, but we made it.  I never looked at the level in feet on the gauge.
    And I'll make you a bet, although you'll have to remember it when the rivers get a little low.  PIck a river over on your side of the state, since I've only floated streams like the upper Niangua once or twice.  PIck a time when it may or may not be low.  Ask me if it's floatable.  I'll tell you almost exactly how easy it will be to float it just by looking at the cfs and median flow.  Here's how, if you don't care to make the bet:
    As a rule of thumb, it takes 75 cfs for any stream in the Ozarks to be at least marginally floatable...that is, you can get down most riffles in a lightly loaded canoe without scraping bottom all the time.  150 cfs will make it easily floatable.  But the first thing I'll look at is the median flow for that date.  If the median flow is, say, 70 cfs, then I'll know that stream normally gets marginally floatable during that time of the year.  If the median is close to that 150 cfs mark, then I know that stream is normally easily floatable that time of year.  If the median is over 300 cfs, it's pretty much gonna be floatable year-round, and if it's over 500 cfs, it's normally jet-boatable that time of year.  So then I look at the cfs it's actually flowing.  Say it normally flows 70 cfs, and it's now flowing 75 cfs.  That means it's close to normal, and floatable without too much scraping bottom.  But if it's, say, 50 cfs, then I know it's low, and at 50 cfs I'm gonna be scraping bottom in a lot of the riffles and probably having to walk a few.  If it's 30 cfs I know I'll be scraping bottom or walking nearly every riffle.
    But what if it normally flows 150 cfs, and now it's flowing 75 cfs?  Well, that means it's really low, and although you'd normally float it very easily, you might be having to really pick your lines and you'll still be scraping bottom  quite a bit, but you'll be able to get through it.
    Note that we're not talking rivers the size of the Mississippi here, nor creeks that barely have enough water to wade.  We're only discussing actual streams that are floatable at least part of the year.  In the Ozarks, on every one of those streams my rule of thumb holds true.  
    And by the way, you're wrong about 1.5 feet being enough water to float on every stream.  That does not mean that the riffles are 1.5 feet deep.  It doesn't mean that ANYWHERE on the river is necessarily 1.5 feet deep.  All it means is 1.5 feet on the gauge. Most real time river gauges, to simplify, use a tube attached to a vertical or steep surface, like a bridge piling, with the bottom of the tube in the water below the lowest level the river is ever expected to reach.  The bottom of the tube is 0.0 feet on the gauge.  There are openings below the waterline that allow water into the tube, and water pressure pushes the water within the tube up to the level of the stream's surface on the outside.  There is a float inside the tube that records the level, which goes to a remote recording station, usually updating every 15 minutes.  There are different mechanisms in some gauges, but they all give the level in feet at the gauge itself.  They don't measure depth, they measure level.  Depending upon the placement of the gauge, 1.5 feet might be a foot above dead low water, or 6 inches above dead low water, or it might be dead low water itself.
  3. Like
    tjm reacted to siusaluki in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    They go negative on some rivers, especially large rivers like the Missouri and Mississippi.  When it’s -1.5 at one gauge the miss is still flowing 250,000 cfs or more.  One river near me would still be be 3.0 feet on the gauge if the riffles ran dry.  All that it tells you is the height of that gauge station and the water level in that location. Gauge heights are more useful in flood situations.
     
     I know what 150 cfs looks like anywhere I go.
  4. Like
    tjm reacted to Devan S. in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    Gage height would be highly dependent on the location measured which is only understood from first hand knowledge. There is no way to glean that information readily from the data publish on the USGS sites. Measure 1.5' in a "deep" hole and your in trouble, 1.5' in a shallow riffle no matter the width and your probably okay. The problem isn't necessarily related to gage height when it nears zero. It's what do you do when the water level is 2-4 ft. Most people with little to know reasonable knowledge would assume that 4ft would be an easy float but if that is measured in a hole then it may or may not mean anything since you could in theory have a hole 4 ft. deep with almost little to no flow in or out. 
    Both measurements are useful but without the "rest" of the story gage height can and will be misleading. CFS is handy because they already give you the mean, median data to understand if flow is high or low compared to historical data. CFS easily translates all along a stream while gage height is highly localized. 

    Once your familiar with a stream, then it ultimately doesn't matter what you use because you likely have enough knowledge to determine if something is float able or not. 
  5. Like
    tjm reacted to Al Agnew in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    Sure it is, and I do use the height in feet to see how the river level has changed after a rain.  For instance, I look at the flow in cfs graph first (always).  It immediately tells me, for instance, that the river has been around normal flow (the little triangles on the graph signify normal flow) until yesterday, and then jumped up.  At that point, I look at the height in feet graph to see how high it jumped, because that's easier to visualize than knowing it jumped up 400 cfs.  But 1.5 feet as a given level right now on that stream is NOT the same as 1.5 feet on a different stream.  But 150 cfs on one stream is exactly the same flow as 150 cfs on any other stream.  Having used the flow in cfs for many years, I can picture in my mind what 150 cfs looks like--how deep the riffles will be and therefore how easy it will be to float.  I've gotten good enough at it that if I walk up to a stream and look at a riffle when it's normal or low or even somewhat high, I can tell you with about a 10% error margin how many cfs it's flowing.
  6. Like
    tjm got a reaction from Flysmallie in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    In any gauge, the gauge height  is the measure of discharge rate, so in essence they tell the same thing. Trouble is that not all streams are created equal- one might be 3' wide and another might be 300' wide, width x height  are the limiting factors to how much volume can pass in given time. So, a 6" difference in height might   be a slight increase on one stream or it might be a major increase on another stream. The USGS keeps data on the discharge column in CFS for many years and the median flow in CFS is recorded on their graphs so that it is easy to compare with the recent instantaneous value. Because over time width of the stream or the flow speed may change, they don't report historical gauge data, so there is no way to guess how current gauge height relates to "normal"  from 2 or 10 years ago. 
    It's not so much the current reading of CFS that is important to me , it is how that compares to historical readings that tell me if the river is out it's banks.
  7. Like
    tjm got a reaction from Daryk Campbell Sr in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    In any gauge, the gauge height  is the measure of discharge rate, so in essence they tell the same thing. Trouble is that not all streams are created equal- one might be 3' wide and another might be 300' wide, width x height  are the limiting factors to how much volume can pass in given time. So, a 6" difference in height might   be a slight increase on one stream or it might be a major increase on another stream. The USGS keeps data on the discharge column in CFS for many years and the median flow in CFS is recorded on their graphs so that it is easy to compare with the recent instantaneous value. Because over time width of the stream or the flow speed may change, they don't report historical gauge data, so there is no way to guess how current gauge height relates to "normal"  from 2 or 10 years ago. 
    It's not so much the current reading of CFS that is important to me , it is how that compares to historical readings that tell me if the river is out it's banks.
  8. Thanks
    tjm got a reaction from Devan S. in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    In any gauge, the gauge height  is the measure of discharge rate, so in essence they tell the same thing. Trouble is that not all streams are created equal- one might be 3' wide and another might be 300' wide, width x height  are the limiting factors to how much volume can pass in given time. So, a 6" difference in height might   be a slight increase on one stream or it might be a major increase on another stream. The USGS keeps data on the discharge column in CFS for many years and the median flow in CFS is recorded on their graphs so that it is easy to compare with the recent instantaneous value. Because over time width of the stream or the flow speed may change, they don't report historical gauge data, so there is no way to guess how current gauge height relates to "normal"  from 2 or 10 years ago. 
    It's not so much the current reading of CFS that is important to me , it is how that compares to historical readings that tell me if the river is out it's banks.
  9. Thanks
    tjm reacted to Al Agnew in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    Just one thing I'd change or clarify from tjm's advice...look at the median flow, not the mean flow, to get an approximation of what is normal flow for that particular time is.  
    For an indepth tutorial of how to get the most from the USGS real time river gauges, you can check out my three part article on the subject in my new blog.  Just go to: 
    riversandart.blogspot.com
    You'll find the three parts under August, 2019.
  10. Thanks
    tjm got a reaction from laker67 in Old slang term   
    in 1916 gas was 21.5 cents/gal and up union brick layers got 65 cents/hour-$30/week; today bricklayers get ~$26/hour; for gas to be equivalent it would cost ~$8.96/gallon. Of course there was a shortage of gas that year and a war in Europe cutting off supplies from German and Austrian refineries, and a revolution in Mexico that cut off any fuel from there. I recall Dad and others talking about 20 cent a gallon gas when wages were a $1/day, maybe in the '30s.
  11. Like
    tjm reacted to fishinwrench in Fly line cleaning, process and products?   
    Ok well the RIO Agent X stuff is really REALLY good.   It drives me crazy to let it soak all night long because once I start cleaning line I just wanna get it done the same evening, but it feels like it's gonna last quite awhile.   
    The micro abrasive cloth that comes in the kit does a great job of scrubbing off the crud too.  Alot of what I thought was cracked line was just baked on crud.  It smoothed up nice.  👍
  12. Thanks
    tjm got a reaction from bfishn in Doors?   
    Fix the settling problem. In general though of the 3-4000 doors I installed,  Sliders had lots fewer problems than French doors. Mostly because sliders have built in slop of about 3/4" and swinging doors have about an 1/8".  Smaller tolerance binds sooner. On the other hand sliders are almost impossible to secure, if that's a concern.
  13. Like
    tjm reacted to Flysmallie in Is Salt Water Worth It?   
    That’s why you just throw them on ice. No need for a livewell, 
  14. Like
    tjm reacted to Johnsfolly in Is Salt Water Worth It?   
    I feel that the saltwater fish eat better than most freshwater fish. But if you don't want to bother with rinsing gear then don't bother with saltwater.
  15. Like
    tjm got a reaction from MidwestfishMick in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    I check some of these almost daily and you can compare current reading with historic and mean flows to see just how blown out the crick is today.  https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mo/nwis/rt
  16. Like
    tjm got a reaction from MidwestfishMick in CFS vs Gauge Height Debate   
    I'd look at two things, nearby affordable lodging and multiple easy accesses allowing  relatively short floats. I've been mighty cold in March. Especially when wet.
    It seems to me that March is when all my streams go through the annual flood of the Century cycle, so you might want other nearby entertainment. There may be a reason that most reports are summertime reports.
  17. Like
    tjm got a reaction from snagged in outlet 3 in Tying for the Enjoyment   
    I have no idea what that is. I asked about a base because a base of thread gives friction and a slightly uneven non-slick surface so that materials tied in over it can be bound between the layers of thread, I have seen new tyers try to tie over a bare slick hook shank, resulting in materials moving. Any of those should catch a fish, although the olive color would be one I would chose. Carry on.
  18. Like
    tjm got a reaction from snagged in outlet 3 in Tying for the Enjoyment   
    Are you laying down a good thread base prior to tying in the feathers?  ... and are they pulling out or breaking off? some marabou is more fragile than it should be.
  19. Like
    tjm got a reaction from snagged in outlet 3 in Holy cow   
    I don't know about there but down here the ground is super saturated and any measurable rain will cause the hills to leak. 2" in the last rain caused runoff equivalent to what 6-7" might in spring/summer. Still have wet weather springs running full tilt days later.
  20. Haha
    tjm reacted to fishinwrench in Fly line cleaning, process and products?   
    I don't have a chemist friend yet.  I figured it would smell and feel like something I was familiar with, but it doesn't.  
    It's gonna get stupid around here later when my wife finds out that I stole 2 of her panty liners to "buff my flyline" with. 😂
  21. Haha
    tjm got a reaction from Daryk Campbell Sr in Why Do Europeans Make Carp Fishing So Hard?   
    yeah, I remember catching trout in Idaho on dough balls and on bare hooks fished with willer limbs, now all them pork eaters have them trained to only get caught on $1100 fly rods with size #36 hooks
    Making it harder does two things, It justifies buying extravagant toys and it allows the fisher person to exercise his ego inflation genes. If I was better at fishing I might try catching a carp.
  22. Haha
    tjm reacted to fishinwrench in Setting The Hook   
    Yeah you'll seldom see pitchers partying with catchers.  One just gives the other the finger....and the other just nods.  
  23. Like
    tjm got a reaction from fishinwrench in Fly line cleaning, process and products?   
    That Sunray description sounds like Albolene or Coconut oil... I've used that to clean with also    What ever you put on either needs to dry hard like RainX or weather strip spray or it needs to be rubbed off with paper towel or coffee filter so that it doesn't gab a bunch of new dirt, The little "Cleaning Pads" that one line company or two have supplied actually made my lines nice for an hour or two but resulted in dirtier lines after a few hours because they left a dirt grabbing film. Made me wonder if they wanted to wear my line out with cleaning so that I would buy another.  Well thinking about this I remember years ago running my line over a bar of Ivory soap to clean it while camped, and I think the wax? glycerin? in the soap made that line cast better for a while, but it could be just getting the dirt off made it better.
  24. Like
    tjm reacted to ollie in Fly and jig tying questions   
    When I got started trying back in 2001 the man who showed me how well jigs could catch trout didn't have any of his jigs painted on the head and I watched him and his wife C&R well over 100 trout at RR in a day. That being said back then I'm not so sure the paint technology was as good as now. Theory is the paint will chip off eventually after bumping the bottom. Brad Wright gave me a couple that he tied and they didn't have paint on the head as well. How many flies do you see that the head is painted? I have always been in that crowd that thinks it is more for the tier than the fish. The fish I am holding was from the NFOW caught on an olive jig I tie with no paint on the head. Plus I am lazy and just don't want to do it!
  25. Like
    tjm got a reaction from fishinwrench in Fly line cleaning, process and products?   
    other things I've seen recommended= Rain-X windshield dressing - Mucilin green label is a silicon paste line dressing; hair conditioner containing silicone-- I've used Albolene smeared on and wiped/polished off with paper towels
    basic dish soap/H2O 50-50 to clean will do as much good as anything, i use a couple 20 year old lines
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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