Outside Bend

It isn't an either/or issue, both poaching and climate change threaten game and non-game species, and both must be addressed.

Stick the hook in the vise, perpendicular to the jaws, then slip the bead around the bend. Debarbing the hook also helps a great deal, and some hook models just don't lend themselves well to getting a bead around the bend. Some folks sell slotted beads which make the task easier.

From what I understand, Taney's food base is predominately midges and sowbugs. I'm sure you'd catch fish down there with pheasant tails, hare's ears, and other mayfly imitations, but probably not as many as you would imitating the most abundant trout foods. As for the rest of it, I think it has a lot more to do with the anglers than the fish. Folks tend to fish with what they're most confident in, and that varies among anglers. Some folks catch the snot out of fish using only hare's ears, PT nymphs, and other "traditional" nymph patterns. Other folks are big into midges, flashy attractor nymphs like the copper john, czech-style nymphs, san juan worms, whatever. It just depends on what the individual angler has the most faith in. The "hot patterns," you see at the local shop are just a guide, an angler's perspective of what's going on in a given fishery. It doesn't mean other patterns or tactics won't work, it's just a jumping-off point.

Climate- The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period. Weather- The state of the atmosphere at a place and time as regards heat, cloudiness, dryness, sunshine, wind, rain, etc. Apples & Oranges.

Excellent news. I wasn't aware of the SAFE Act, I'll have to pay more attention as it moves through the legislative process.

X2, nice job!

He isn't a saint, he's a baseball player. His job is to hit a ball really, really hard. He's not a role model, his job isn't to be lionized or worshipped. He's human, he's a guy, he's an employee, and at the end of the day he's motivated by the same things as anyone else. Frankly, he doesn't owe anything to St. Louis,or the Cardinals. While he was here he played hard, he proved his worth, he put up the numbers. Whether he's a great person, or whether or not he should move on, doesn't change that. I'm totally with exiledguide on this one. Pujols is a great ball player, he wants to be paid accordingly. If someone is willing to pay him more elsewhere, it'd be silly for him not to make the move. The St. Louis market doesn't have the same financial capacity as New York, Boston, Chicago or LA, and we couldn't pay him enough to stay. It's business. It's entertainment. That's life. And as great a player as he is/was, he's not the end-all, be-all for the Cardinals programs. Coming off a World Series victory with new management and their star player gone, there's so many unknowns I think this could be one of the more interesting Cardinals seasons we've seen in a while. Only time will tell...

Only one way to know if the fish will notice....

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but a vest/chest/fanny pack, some sort of receptacle to store all your fly boxes, tippet spools, shot, etc comes in handy. A wading staff if you need it. Oh, and a stringer

The state of Montana has very little to do with the operation of those dams. They can petition the operators for more (or less), water, but they're not the folks with the finger on the button, and the decision is much deeper than Montana deciding what happens in every downstream state. Like it or not, the dam and levee system on the Missouri River functioned as designed during this year's floods. It's not the fault of the COE, state, or federal governments that the floodplain has been developed, or if floodplain landowners developed a false sense of security since the dams have went up. They did what they were supposed to, and the reality is that without the dam/levee system, the flooding situation would have been far worse. Now back to your regularly scheduled programming It's my understsanding the case doesn't deal directly with public rights to stream access, but many groups see it as getting a foot in the door. If the public owns the stream bottom, the idea is it would make sense for the public to have some say in access, recreation, and management of those public resources.

Awesome! Glad to hear this part of the equation's been solved. As Justin said, it hasn't been easy, and it shows a great deal of perseverance and dedication on the part of folks from the Zoo, MDC, the Fish and Wildlife Agency, and several other agencies.

Same reason they MDC lies about the black helicopters parachuting in rattlesnakes and mountain lions.... It gives folks something to talk about

Nice fish! Rainbow trout are a pretty diverse species complex, and it gets pretty tough trying to determine their origin through coloration and spotting pattern. There's just so much variation in populations that it's tough for even seasoned taxonomists to figure out where a fish came from, or what part of the family tree it comes from, without consulting a range map. And the fish we see swimming in Crane today may look markedly different from those that were stocked 130 years ago. What we see in Crane today isn't a time capsule of the McCloud's genetic diversity- what we see in Crane is a suite of genetic traits which has allowed a non-native fish to persist in a midwestern spring creek for more than a century. The differences in coloration and spotting pattern may simply be the result of genetic adaptation to new environs, a distillate of the initial stockings' genetic diversity. For what it's worth, I don't put much stock into the McCloud strain (no pun intended). The idea of genetically distinct populations wasn't common until the last half of the 20th century, much less the last half of the 19th. Rainbow trout were rainbow trout, and fish managers probably mixed genetic material from redbands, coastal cutthroat, isolated populations of each, and steelhead- all of which occur in the McCloud drainage. Even Behnke writes that the "McCloud strain," is a mixture of steelhead and resident rainbow trout collected within that (McCloud) drainage. Even if you wanted to test the genetics of the fish in Crane, it's unlikely you could trace them back to a specific population of fish. And mistakes happen. Especially back then. Maps were bad. Directions were bad. I'm not sure how California is, but in Missouri, where you have a dozen Bear Creeks, a dozen Turkey Creeks, a handful of Muddy, Spring, Dry, Elk, and Short creeks, it's easy to get confused. A label could've fallen off in Omaha. they could've taken a wrong turn at Albuquerque. A fire. A flood. Locusts. Whatever it was, it wasn't their fault So in a roundabout way yeah, I don't put much stock into Crane's biggest claim to fame. But it's a beautiful place, and a beautiful fish, regardless.

I'd gladly throw in a couple bucks. But in all honesty, I'm not so concerned as to mount a whole campaign. That's sort of my point. There have been a number of threads on this issue over the course of the year. And yet with all those threads, those posts, and those views, MDC's position on the mountain lion issue hasn't moved an inch. The empirical evidence indicates this course of action isn't working. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. I don't know the best course of action, I just know this isn't it. Post something about it on their MDC website, or their Facebook page. Create some form letter and have a hundred or a thousand folks put it up there. Write an op/ed piece for your local paper or the Traveler or even the Conservationist- wasn't there a lady on here a while back who worked for some newspaper's outdoor section? Talk to your local conservation commissioners, join the Conservation Federation, start a position, work with your local NGO's like the Sierra Club. And if you feel passionately enough about it then yes, threaten litigation. EPA is sued all the time for failure to enforce its regulations. I'm not saying I know the best course of action. But continuing to do nothing only ensures one outcome.

MDC needs to enforce the law (policy, whatever), as it stands. I think any reasonable person would look at this case and determine it's harassment of a protected species, and that it should be prosecuted. If you guys feel that passionately about it, file a suit against the Department.

Good weekend all around, and the recently stocked browns helped pad the numbers Lots of fish on eggs, and I did well around Justin's place on buggers and yuk buggs, as well as high-sticking scuds and heavy nymphs along the deeper tubs. Some of the larger fish I caught (rainbows 13-14") came drifting nymphs only a rod-length or two from where I was wading. Saw a few redds, two with a pair of fish each, but most without occupants. Some eagles, some otters, some deer. Great group of folks, always a fun time, and I always learn something new...including how tough it is to keep some folks awake

A lot of those public servants have advanced degrees and 15-20 years of experience in their field, which isn't any cakewalk. Regardless of whether you're in the public or private sector, you have to pay competitively in order to attract talent. And to put it in perspective, private consultants with the same qualifications and experience as EPA regulators routinely make 2 and 3 times that amount. There are some lazy and inept government employees, just as there are lazy and inept employees in any business. But in my experience most of the folks working government jobs like EPA aren't there to sit on their arses and make boatloads of money- they see it as the best route to really effect change in their fields, either through policy, research, or enforcement. They have a lot of the same motivations as our military servicemen (want to give something back to country), and no one ever questions the motives of a high school kid with a 2.2 GPA who wants to go into the Marines. I respect your opinion Hank, and I'm sorry you've had bad outcomes working with EPA, there's certainly some turds in that punchbowl. But for all its faults,the current political climate means there's zero chance of seeing a retooled EPA with anything like the regulatory authority it currently has. If it's between a flawed EPA and no EPA, I'll take the former.

I suppose. But I'm not sure how much ~600 million in cuts will affect the math of a 15 TRILLION deficit. If our debt is a serious situation it should be treated seriously, and we should be tackling elephants in the room too (no pun intended). I'm all for responsible government spending. And the reality is these funds benefit landowners, they benefit sportsmen, the benefit the conservation crowd on the whole, they benefit the land, air, water, wildlife, and the local economy. But they've been unpopular in some philosophical circles since their inception, and I guess I wonder if this move to reduce deficits is genuine, or just a means of recalibrating the message in hopes of defunding programs some demographics have never approved of.

I've seen enough ditches and sinkholes filled with garbage, car body revetments, leaking septic systems, clearcuts/grazing/rowcrops right up to the streambank, and livestock in the stream channel to know land ownership and land stewardship are two very different things. Being able to sign a deed or a bank loan doesn't mean the landowner has the knowledge or skill to manage the land to meet their objectives, whether they be producing crops, livestock, or wildlife. Like it or not, a whole lot of land in this country is locked up in private ownership. Like it or not, that means the viability of many game and non-game species is going to require the existence of suitable habitat on private lands. Every farmer I've met responds very favorably to cash, and programs like CRP and WRP are incentives for landowners not to plow that prairie or fill in that wetland to plant more corn and soybeans. I'm a big proponent of easements too- I've used them quite a bit out west and have been able to hunt and fish places I'd otherwise have a snowball's chance of accessing. It's voluntary, it benefits farmers and landowners, and in my experience it helps foster relationships between landowners and sportsmen- groups like TU and Rocky Mountain Elk are much more likely to help with habitat enhancements, livestock fencing/watering, etc, when their members have a stake in the results. As issues like urban sprawl, development, water rights, gas/oil/mineral exploration and others gain greater prominence in our political discourse, it's going to be important that landowners have sportsmen's backs, and vice versa. IMO it doesn't need to be a political discussion. Removing these programs reduces the incentives landowners have to provide wildlife habitat on their properties. That could very well lead to reduced hunting and fishing opportunities on both private AND public areas. It's up to sportsmen to decide if that's acceptable.

I'm not categorically opposed to raising taxes, and if it were the only means of keeping the parks open, I'd pay additional sales tax (really I'd like to see a tax on developers- if you're bulldozing trees and naming streets after them, you ought to pay to preserve the county's green space. But that's probably a pipe dream ) It just seems as though this is being touted as the only way the county can possibly save money, and I simply don't buy it. There's been little discussion of furlough days, cuts to other departments, reducing salaries at the top, etc. Maybe those things have been discussed and I wasn't paying attention, but from what I've read and heard it seems like there hasn't been much exploration of alternative measures.

One word: Waynestock. I don't know much about the issue aside from what was on the St. Louis NPR station the other morning, but I guess I'd be more sympathetic to the county's budget woes if the county executive weren't being paid more than the governor of the state. Just sayin'

No system's perfect, and while I'm no fan of quick draw I can understand why MDC would think letting waterfowlers know if they can hunt ahead of time would be a benefit. Similar thing with the party rule- MDC's just trying to ensure the largest number of people get to hunt on a given day. Maybe a decent compromise would be alternating weeks- one week the party system/quick draw, the next week giving both parties and single hunters equal opportunity to draw a spot. May make regulations a bit more confusing, but over the course of the season it may level the playing field a bit. As far as creating more areas, I'd rather see MDC engage in sportsman's easements with private landowners. If MDC wants to purchase acreage for "real" wetland restoration- creating natural water regimes, restoring native flora and fauna, managing habitat for shorebirds, songbirds, herps, fish, etc, I could get behind that. But if the point is to flood cornfields to concentrate ducks, I'd rather see MDC work with private landowners to open up some of their property to public hunting. Maybe it's just a pipe dream (especially given the lucrative nature of waterfowl leases), but it's an idea. There's also a ton of acreage between the levees on our major riverways, much of which is publicly owned and essentially unmanaged from a wildlife perspective. Perhaps the Corps, MDC, Fish & Wildlife, DU, even Audobon Society and other orgs could get together to create some wetland habitat in these corridors.

Twitching/stripping soft hackles can be extremely effective, too.

You may also want to look into the X-caddis and the comparadun, both patterns are designed for calmer water where trout have more time to inspect the fly.

True, Missouri's state and federal lands are fantastic for hunting deer, turkey, and a number of other species. But my point was there's a whole ton of non-game critters out there that make this region truly unique, unlike any other ecosystem on the planet. I've wondered myself whether some of the Ozark's coolwater streams wouldn't be ideal for other species, but to me MDC's struck an adequate balance between native and non-native sportfish species.