Crippled Caddis

Mark wrote: <--what is sad it that our streams that we have work the hardest to protect, we still allow to be polluted by such things as horse trail rides, livestock in the water upstream, and agricultural runoff.> The mark of intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. We, as a people and a nation, are failing the test. And the beat goes on, and on, and on------------ CC

On the spread of the Spotted Bass. While I'm hardly a fisheries biologist my take is that the warming up of the streams caused by habitat alterations is the #1 cause. Reading some research on the MDC website they tell us that Smallmouth start becoming stressed as water temps approach 80 degrees and die if it gets over 90 degrees. I've always believed that Spots could withstand higher temps and do well in water too warm for Smallies. And largemouth flourish in water too warm for Spots. In my Simple Simon way of thinking I find it analogous to the portions of a stream that trout choose. The Brook trout, being a fish that prefers, even needs, cold water, inhabit the tiny, icy headwaters of streams. The Rainbows can tolerate slightly warmer water so they utilize the areas downstream of the colder headwaters. Brown trout, being even less temperature specific can tolerate the slower, warmer water as the stream widens, flattens out and warms up. So in my simple thought processes I see the Smallmouth as analogous to the Brookie, the Spots occupying the niche of the Rainbows and the Largemouth as being the Brown trout of the warmwater world. It is the result of habitat destruction and resulting warmer water that has decimated Brook trout populations in their traditional range and I think we're seeing exactly the same thing in the case of the Smallmouth of the Ozarks. If a specie surrenders it's ecological niche there will always be another that will fill the vacancy. Just my dos centavos. CC

Hold that lamp high Ol' Son! Good'un Terry!!!

Troutchaser wrote: <Any suggestions?> Check your e-mail.

Terry wrote: <Hmmmm... I wonder if that is the case in Arkansas? I own the Land Grant property my GGGGF acquired in 1862...> Highly doubtful. The provisions for admission were quite common and waterways were the public thoroughfares of both commerce and private travel. Now, had it been in the family since it was Spanish-----;o)

Jeremy wrote: <The only thing I do different is tie it on a bigger hook and keep the body a size 20. That way I don't lose fish because of the hook being too small.> Right on! I started tying midges on a 2XS hook a couple of sizes larger with either a straight eye or turned up eye @ 20 years ago for the same reasons as you. It makes a tremendous difference in missed strikes. It's one of those common sense things that is so obvious that it often gets passed over.

Don wrote: <The following is from the Lousiana sportsman:> Thanks Don. I'm sure that is the case Terry referenced above. It is instructional insofar as it illustrates the vagueness of both the existing body of law and the contradictory decisions of the two judges in the case. Not only did they contradict each other but they both contradicted themselves in various aspects of the case. This is the true level of the application of navigability law in the country. As such it should be a warning to anyone that getting involved in any manner in a dispute concerning public access rights to waters on private property falls well within the lose/lose category. It is also illustrative that the entire reason for waterways being deemed public property lies in the phrase, "shall be common highways and forever free", under which provision Mississippi was admitted to the union. Were that test administered to current reality I think it would fail. While waterways were indeed used as public routes of commerce in an earlier era few today serve that purpose and those that do aren't the ones that sportsmen and recreational floaters use to any great extent. From that standpoint I'm not at all certain that we, as sportsmen, would be well served by a definitive court decision that took current public needs into consideration. It may well be that we should be glad that the older law is still honored in most cases and that we will be better served by not 'rocking the boat'. CC

<The more you get into western ranch country, Beverage, you will find this to be the case. You will also find more and longer stretches of streams that bisect a single property owner's land instead of having separate owners on each bank. This is why angler access is generally a bigger deal the further West you go in the US.> To open the can of worms a bit wider Texas grandfathers Spanish Land Grant properties that are still in the original family. That means that the property owner through whose Land Grant the river flows owns the river in its entirety. State or federal navigability laws do NOT apply. While I don't KNOW it to be the case I would suspect the same may well apply in N.M., Ariz., & Calif. as well. In short the only thing you can generalize about in regard to public rights to flowing waters is that there is NO consistency nor firm body of national law. As SM pointed out in an earlier post anything or everything can apply or not apply from federal to local jurisdiction. Don't make the mistake of betting your life on the information you recieved from Okla. That is the opinion of ONE person in the Dept. of Wildlife and represents ONLY his understanding of state law which may or may not be honored by local jurisdictions. When in any doubt whatsoever (and there is ALWAYS doubt) remember the right of way metaphor posted above by another correspondant. CC

MrsDucky wrote: <A lot of old remedies and old wive's tales hold some truth.> You might be surprised to know how many ethnologists and socialists---er, sociologists the major drug industries have sifting the earth for tribal (i.e.: 'witch doctor') and 'medicine woman remedies using local plants. Just a discovery here and there from the gleanings of the folk remedies can earn, quite literally, billions. You didn't REALLY think Pfizer, et al, were just 'greenies' for supporting the various 'save the rain forest' groups did you? ;o)

Many thanks Al. Wonderful bit of writing and a signifigant historical overview of man's depredations on just one aquatic eco-system. As Hank pointed out it needs to be published and IMO the house organ of the MO DNR is the place it should see light. I hope you will consider submitting it to them. Whether the guts to print it exists at that level is a different matter entirely. But the decision on that would be a revealing bit of data itself. Please consider sharing it with a wider audience. CC

Terry wrote: <So the question is, what do the courts consider "commercial purposes?"> I feel it a safe bet that the intent was to denote use as a public thoroughfare for commerce since it is a 'navagability' issue. Another, broader interpretation would transgress the rule of 'original intent'. Of course we've seen it amply demonstrated by SCOTUS that the doctrine of 'original intent' in the case of the 1st & 2nd Amendments can be perverted or ignored with impunity by a complicit court intent on rewriting the Constitution by judicial fiat. CC ---------------*--------------- "There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court." --Thomas Jefferson

Al wrote: <the court said that, for the purposes of recreational navigability, the stream is usable by the public if it was ever used in the past for commerce, which the court further went on to say that if it had ever been used in the past to float logs to market, among other uses.> A lot of marginal streams were used to float logs to market, especially by tie choppers. Logs or finished ties were stockpiled on the bank to await Spring floodwaters; at that time they were rolled in and followed downstream to markets. There were a LOT of one and two man operations that had only marginal streams to use so it's just possible that far more small streams have been used for commercial purposes than at first appears likely.

<If you're coming up to the intersection and have the right of way and go into it thinking you have the right of way and the semitractor trailer rig runs over you then you're still dead whether you had the right of way or not.> That sums up the bottom line very well indeed. And reminds me of a barracks argument I witnessed in basic training between a little guy from California and a huge, black, slow talking Baptist preacher from Alabama. The California lad finally became so excited that he was literally jumpimg up and down shouting "I'm right, I'm right!. The preacher looked down at him and issued the finest quelch line I've ever heard, "So was Jesus but they crucified Him".

Al wrote: <I'll continue later.> Please do!

<Old fly gear could almost be a continual category all by itself.> It is! It is! Check out the 'Fishing Fiberglass Fly Rods' board at: <http://p097.ezboard.com/ffiberglassflyroddersfrm9?page=2> Lots of retrograde renegades there!;o)

John wrote: <The Arkansas tailwaters are riparian rights water.> That may be a case where federal law applies since waters that come under the purview of the Corp of Engineers are exempt from states rights issues if I recall some of my reading properly. Do you know if that is the case in that instance? CC

Terry wrote" <If you enter a "navigable" waterway by means of a public access----you can navigate any portion of the waterway by foot or watercraft up to and including the "high water level"> That is the general accepted interpretation of the law in most jurisdictions. But as with most aspects of life 'the Devil is in the details'. In this case the 'details' are that federal court decisions have varied so much that there is no firm body of law to bind local jurisdiction. As a consequence decisions are often so arbitrary that one can only assume the judge owes a political debt to the landowner. THAT is where the wicket gets sticky. Edit: Whoops---neglected to mention one of the other 'details'. In most cases 'navigable waters' is a states rights issue anyway so federal guidlines, such as they are, become moot in any case.:0( CC

<what exactly is poke sallet? i have never heard of this before.> Transplanted Yankee, huh?;o) Any Suth'unuh knows that Poke sallet is a potherb prepared by boiling the leaves of the wild Poke plant in several exchanges of water to remove the toxic elements. It can then be eaten as is or combined with eggs as Terry suggests. I like it with 'pepper sauce' which is Jalapena peppers steeped in a bath of vinegar. Only the vinegar is used to sprinkle as a condiment---the container may be topped up with vinegar when low and the peppers will impart their fire to many cycles. It has a zestful punch! Terry: The oldtimers took a pokeberry a day (known to be poisonous!) as a remedy for arthritus. Can't say I could recommend it tho I have tried the regimen without ill effect. CC

Greg asked: <Anyone else use or own either of these oldies but goodies??> Don't own that particular rod but would steal yours if the opportunity arose.;o) I do fish the Fenwick FF79 which is the 8', 6 wt. It is generally accepted as one of the best they ever turned out. I've been using the Medalists and various clones labelled as Shakespeare or South Bend since I trolled off of the poopdeck of the Ark. They were the standard of the sport for generations and are still highly functional practical tools. They balance the older, heavier bamboo and fiberglass rods well and the spools are hollow specifically so you can add lead shot to achieve proper balance. If properly maintained they yield no advantage to the modern, high-zoot, high-dollar disc drag reels which have a long way to go before they bring to hand as many big fish, both salt and fresh, as the Medalists.

<Here is the pic a few of you have asked for.> Been tying that for years both as a jig and fly. Didn't know it had a name. I just combined materials and colors I knew to be effective and used them to make something that catches fish. Proving once again that there's little new under the flytying sun.;o)

<So where can I get one of these in Springberg. I looked at bass pro (I remember them a long time ago.) Any other ideas? I hate buying stuff online....> I got mine at the W-M in Mt. Home. So I know they are in their product line.

<And no long sleeves unless you're one of them young whupper-snappers... A white Sunday-go-to-meetin' shirt is an acceptable substitute for the plaid wool. And "Country Gentleman" in the pipe is an option for the PA.> Wrong Sardine breath! No 'Country Gentleman' would wear short sleeves. Nor would a white shirt be accorded respect. Scare the fish off don't you know? Khaki or a light flannel however are completely acceptable. 'Velvet' would be another permissable replacement for the PA including the can.

Dano wrote: <Excellent commentary CC! That should be required reading in any Biology class. Thanks for the insights.> Thanks Bud. Even tho I recycled some prior material I worked my behind off to try to assemble it in a logical and transparent sequence. It's an admittedly gloomy prospect predicated on the basic nature on man. Being a cynic is depressing.;o)

<I have yet to be able to find a definite answer> The definitive answer is that there IS no definitive answer. The laws regarding 'navigable waters' vary from state to state. He!!---they even vary from judge to judge! It is one of the larger can of worms you'll ever open. Federal court decisions have provided no firm guidelines. Ask for legal opinions from attorneys or other members of the bar and get ready for some of the fanciest moves you've ever witnessed as they dance around the subject like a ballet dancer on speed. It's a subject I've had an interest in for well over 40 years without discovering anything more definitive than what I've already mentioned.( Good luck! CC

First: Thanks to Al for taking the time and making the not inconsiderable effort to share his records, expertise, wisdom and 'ponderings' on a subject as obviously dear to his heart as my own. Second: FWIW, my own feeling is that habitat alteration is by far the leading cause in the deteriating Smallmouth fisheries of the Ozarks. The alterations wrought by the ever-growing population of the region can only grow worse with time without a fundamental sea change in the way the public views and treats the world around us. I simply don't foresee that being likely for a couple of reasons. The most basic being the resource exploitive nature of the economy of the Ozarks since the advent of European influence in the region. The first European settlers to the region at first took up the aboriginal hunter/gatherer lifestyle in order to assure basic survival. That survival mode mindset is now so thoroughly ingrained in the Ozark psyche that the taking of fish and game is done without regard to the health of the resource. It is very much a "take it while you can" attitude that hearkens to times that literally starved many to death or out of the region starting with the very first settlers, becoming a crucial, and cruel, fact in post Civil War reconstruction and hitting another generation within less than a century with the advent of the Depression era that lingered on the Ozard Plateau well into the 50s of the past century. It will require the re-education of several generations to reprogram that way of thought even if the reality that caused it doesn't reoccur as is all-too-likely as man outbreeds his food base. Once survival was relatively assured the profit principle turned to exploiting such natural resources as were available in order to acquire the cash neccessary to rise above the most basic survival level. In the Ozarks that meant one of two things----timber or minerals since farming the poor soils was mostly limited to subsistance level agriculture except in the few and limited fertile river floodplains. As Al notes the exploitation of the leadbelt (the only signifigant exploitable mineral except for the rocks themselves) has been the cause of mass habitat alteration inimitable to fish and wildlife in every area it has touched. But it can't hold a candle to the changes wrought by timbering if for no other reason than the extent of the geographical area it affected in comparison to mining. And while herculean labors (and environmental damage) were performed by men, mules and crosscut saws in pursuit of profit by both individuals and a rapacious lumber industry it was as nothing compared to what has happened since WW2. The almost total rape of the eco-systems of the Ozark Plateau subsequent to the arrival of the chainsaw and the Caterpillar removed the canopy from the streams that held back the brutality of the sun. The denuding of the hillsides allowed the deep forest duff build-up that acted as a sponge to hold the rains back and slowly release them to the aquifers to be themselves washed down the steep slopes into the streams, followed soon by the tiny amount of soil that had been slowly building between the ancient rocks for uncounted eons. Both duff and soil soon choked the gravels, sufficating the spawning beds of both fish and the insects at the base of the food chain. But even those intrusive gravels were soon scoured by the floods resulting from the missing duff that no longer slowed the effect of rains on the hillsides. More gravel and rock soon followed duff and soil into the streambeds, shallowing and choking the deep pools, allowing the effects of sun and flood to further degrade the habitat. Streams of clear, cold sparkling waters running through riffle and pool within the memory of living man now are faint, sad ghosts of the systems that once nurtured flourishing aquatic communities. Without the duff to sponge up, hold back and slowly release the rainfall to recharge the aquifers the groundwater levels were so reduced that the springs that once maintained both flows and temperatures to levels conducive to the health of the historic eco-systems of the streams simple ceased to flow. How many old-timers have you heard tell of springs that once gushed forth in what are now arid gulleys? But the streams had hardly had time to adjust to the new reality before man once more assaulted them. Demand for paved roads to replace the ofttimes impassable and always dusty gravel lanes and roads was fueled by the new prosperity that brought tourist dollars to the region and sufficient income to area residents to allow them to buy shiny new modes of transport that they wanted to KEEP shiny. So gravel washing operations sprang up on the streams to feed the insatiable hunger for gravel to feed the pavers. No efforts were made, or even contemplated, to do other than return the silt washed from the gravel to the stream. Those aquatic lifeforms not already wiped out or brought to the point of extinction were smothered and suffocated under a burden of silt that literally killed even the aquatic vegetation that had once provided harbor, safety, grazing and reproductive habitat for the benthic organisms from which sprang all higher lifeforms in the aquatic chain. While gravel washing didn't happen in all of the streams it did in far too many of the very best and Ozark sportsmen still fight a losing battle on Crooked Creek in North Arkansas, once the most productive and renowned Smallmouth fishery of the entire region. It's a bleak and sad picture I paint, made even worse by the influx of ever more people to the region. Each one, perhaps unintentionally and inadvertantly, adds to the burden of environmental alteration and degradation by their very presence. It is unavoidable. I number myself among that horde. We all leave footprints of one sort or another, virtually all of which sully the breast of 'Mother Nature' in greater or lesser degree. In some measure we are all guilty of loving the resource to death no matter how pure or laudable our intent. Until man heeds the injunction to husband the earth by He who gave it to us it will only get worse. The increasing secularization of our society makes that prospect grow dimmer each day. That it is possible to reverse the damage wrought by the hand of man is undeniable. One has only to look at the evidence. The areas that are now protected such as the Current & Jacks Fork, 11 Point, Buffalo and the Irish Wilderness were the first areas decimated by man. The supreme irony is that it was that ruin that has saved them. Having extracted the last $ of profit from the timber and minerals business interests abandoned them and they reverted to state or federal entities simply because they had became so 'worthless' that the owners no longer paid the taxes. They were abandoned and forgotten. By both man and government. And with man out of the equation nature reclaimed them, time healed them and man finally awoke to the splendor to which they had returned and set them aside as worth saving. How sad that the splendor wasn't recognized and set aside before the rape. Perhaps more penetratingly---how long before it is allowed to resume? CC