Hayduke-2-O

Posting just to be sharing information may very well be the only reason some folks post... but I'm a long way from being convinced of that. Sharing information for the sake of sharing would be very generous indeed, and perhaps there are a few out there who are genuinely that generous. But, it seems far more likely to me that the information sharers are those who want to be known for having information, they want to be identified by the fishing community. Perhaps somehow being acknowledged for having information makes them feel good about themselves, or nurses their self esteem as a fisherman, and in some cases it even seems worth sacrificing their honey holes (and the honey holes of others who would rather catch the fish than be known for them). Personally, it is far more rewarding for me to actually catch the fish than to be acknowledged for it. Maybe that makes me a "lurker" too, but fewer secrets means more lines in the water, and more lines in the water means fewer honey holes. And even in I'm not generous with information, I am generous with genuine admiration and appreciation for all the other "lurkers" out there who love to fish more than they love to talk. Just my opinion though.

I think I am going to have to add "red Backcountry Outfitters hat" to my list of essential gear Excellent fish, fellas. Well done.

Just my opinion, fellas... didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I respect everyone's opinions and will certainly consider much of what has been said before I stare too long next time . I also know how important it is to maintain a positive atmosphere on the water... especially at a place as crowded as Taney. But I am a long way from just tolerating violations on the off chance I might upset someone. Besides, those who take legally should be confident with what they keep as well as why they keep it. They are just as entitled to do what they like as anyone (provided it's legal). It's been a hoot. Out.

I would venture to say that there are many of use who would like to see the upper end of the slot increase to 24'' or 25'', as well as a single-barbless-hook regulation implemented. If I had to chose, however, I would have to chose the single-barbless-hook rule. I have only been flyfishing a few years, and I will admit that I was very reluctant to sacrifice the security of a barb... but as my skill increased and I started seeing how buggered up the fish's mouths were, my hesitency was replaced with a feeling of obligation to go barbless. Besides, barbless is so much easier to deal with.

Made a quick detour yesterday on the way to Taney to check out the dam. Mostly just looked at the area 100yds below the dam on "river right" (the rogue-chuckin' stretch) and didn't see any fish in the water... that is certainly not to say that there were none, just that we didn't see them if they were in there. The water was only about 12-18'' deep... unbelievable. I wish I would have looked at more water down "stream"... if there are trout in there the change would be a welcome, albeit temporary, addition to Taney fishing.

I will be the first to admit that I look at people keeping fish- not to make them uncomfortable, but to make sure the fish are not in the slot. Just yesterday (Sunday) I noticed a fella spin fishing successfully, and immediately putting each caught fish on a stringer (he was at the rebar hole). After hearing him ask his buddy if the fish he had just caught was a rainbow or a brown, I looked at the stringer I also noticed a jar of salmon eggs (yeah, I know), so I approached him. I told him, in an obviously hushed and non-antagonistic voice, that what he was doing was very illegal. It turned out that he had just purchased his MO license and was completely unaware of the regs... he didn't even have a ruler of any kind. I loaned him mine, he measured then released the fish and was grateful to me for letting him know. (Anecdotal, I know, but relevant.) Personally, I am fine with people keeping <12'' fish, but there is nothing wrong with tactful enforcement of the regulations... even if doing so makes some folks a little uncomfortable. I am surprized no one has discussed the supply/demand aspects of Taney's ecology and how that relates to keeping fish. The rule of thumb for trophic structures is base 10. That is, the total biomass of aquatic insects, scuds, sowbugs, etc (everything that these trout eat) has to be 10 times greater than the biomass of the trout in order for the population to be sustained. (Likewise, there has to be enough of the right kinds of periphyton and algae to sustain the "trout food" populations.) So, the best I can figure is something like this: by not keeping fish, the demand for "trout food" remains high and distributed over a wide range of trout sizes. Basically, all the fish have to compete for all the food. From this perspective, having a lot of fish will make it harder for any single fish to acquire enough resources to reach trophy size. On the other hand, I am a long way from being convinced that the big (15lbs+) fish in taney got that way without a hardy amount of fish guts in their diet. I don't know a lot, and I am aware that Taney's ecology is probably far more complicated than that, but I think it is important to realize that MDC understands Taney's ecology (hopefully) and that the management methods depend on a "put and take" system.

Well, I'm not much of a snake "hugger" (on purpose, anyway), but I have helped collect cottonmouths and I'd just like to offer what little I learned... in an effort to spare your (and anyone else's) hairy ankles. Once we spotted one, usually on "debris jams" (mini log jams from high water events usually above the bank) or on rocks or over hanging limbs, we had to stalk them with about as much stealth as is required to fish for the rainbows. Nearly all of them tried to flee, and some escaped... but the only times they got aggressive was when grabbed them with the snake tool. Something to keep in mind while your trying to get your fly untangled... or perhaps you could employ a piece from "the nifty fifty" on your leader.

While it is absolutely true that the Crane creek area harbors a large population of cottonmouths, they are pretty elusive and are not aggressive unless they have to be (like if they are about to be stepped upon). It does not surprise me that some anglers who accept the challenges of Crane creek have not seen them... my hope is that when encounters do occur, we can all have the same respect for the native cottonmouth as we have for the non-native McCloud rainbows. Everything has it's role. (P.S. From Crane, Springfield is probably the closest source of medical attention.)

I suppose it depends on what is considered easily wadable. Most of the time I have spent on the little sac has been during the spring white bass runs... so, obviously the higher water makes for difficult wading (on ther lower stretches), although there are occasional sand bars and shallows. As other white bassers can probably attest, bank access will allow some fishing and a wader can find enough water for a good day... you just might have to walk the bank in between areas. However, the bridges (215 and Taylor) are good put-in and take-out areas for canoes. Another thing to consider if you are chasing smallies, the water is pretty turbid... which I think is the case all year, not just in the spring. Good luck.

How early is too early to begin pursuing walleye below powersite? There are stories of "oldtimers" from "back in the day" who would begin as early as mid-december. I also understand that the water below powersite is very low... but is that the only thing we're waiting on?

It's true. Duncan will have you looking for more than fish from the River... and more than birds from the trees.