Outside Bend

This thread is about as engaging as "What shade of chartreuse is best for the James River Arm in August?" Most conservation issues are interwoven with politics, and so it's not surprising a forum titled "Conservation Issues," is going to stir up some political debate. The personal attacks and mudslinging do nothing to win allies or further the discussion. That said, I think a lot of the personal digs are in the offended parties' head- I'm sure there have been times when I've written things that come off as condescending or personal, although I'm simply trying to further the discussion and/or trying to see the issue from someone else's perspective. And to be honest, acting like an adult goes both ways. If you're genuinely upset about someone's attitude or behavior, or feel like you're being unfairly attacked, address it directly- shoot 'em a PM, figure it out between the two of you, as opposed to the nebulous musings about the "general tone of the board," which seem to appear every few weeks. Work it out yourselves, I genuinely don't care for the drama. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a good forum is about user-generated content, and this forum will be about whatever its members are interested in. I'd love to see the board be a bit more civil, and if that's what folks are interested in, that's what will happen. That said, a lot of more interesting and thoughtful posts on this board come from folks who occasionally go off the deep end, and I'd hate to see the monotony that would result if those folks left for greener pastures.

I believe "possession," is the same as "creeled." If you intend on taking the fish home, it's within your possession.

Recieved TC's flies and all the bugs are ready to go, I'll start mailing them off tomorrow. Thanks for playing guys, and thank you for your patience. There's lots of good stuff in this one.

If the state hatchery system were in trouble, the first thing I'd cut is the program to provide warmwater fish for private landowners. While bass, bluegill, and channel catfish are native, the use of public money to provide private fisheries doesn't seem ideal- plus the state's warmwater bass/bluegill/catfish hatcheries really are competing with private business. To me privatization is a bad idea if you want to keep fishing opportunities available to a wide swath of anglers- just look at the places charging $500 or more for a day's fishing, or private retreats where a weekend on the water can cost thousands. If a private entity is providing the fish, there's no reason to think they won't try to maximize their profits by restricting access or other means.

Not sure about Grand Lake, but they grow pretty rapidly in MO reservoirs. They can't reproduce very successfully, mostly as a result of dams on the Osage River. There's some natural recruitment in the Missouri and the other large rivers, though.

Aside from the fact that COE ought to be funding the hatcheries, privatization of public resources always makes me nervous. A private entity will be looking to maximize profits, and could easily price lots of anglers out of their sport. Plus it calls into question whether the state would continue managing the fisheries, or whether they too would be privatized. The hatcheries aren't ideal, but there's no doubt they produce a huge economic benefit to an area of the country that isn't that economically prosperous, and they do it with little cost to anglers on the whole. If you take the hatcheries out of the equation, all that disappears. There are other things to look at- spawning habitat/recruitment, reducing harvest levels, even eliminating stocking of brookies and cutthroat. But there's a lot riding on quality trout fisheries in the MO and Arkansas tailwaters, and it may be that those fisheries can't be maintained without the hatcheries.

I'd check out Justin Spencer's outfit (Sunburst Ranch)- cheap camping and great folks, and excellent wade fishing right in the campground. As far as flies- big stonefly imitations (#4-8 Pat's rubberlegs, girdle bugs, etc), pheasant tail nymphs, eggs, san juan worms, copper johns, prince nymphs, wooly buggers, mohair leeches, and zonkers have all worked well for me. Have fun!

I'm not sure of any rookeries, but I do know Shepherd of the Hills hatchery has a lot of issues with herons in their raceways. You may be able to pick the hatchery manager's brains, or even sweet-talk them into letting you get some stool samples.

Good deal. I'm headed out for a weekend camping trip Friday afternoon, I'll start sending out folks flies early next week.

You'll need a passport to get into Quetico, and firewood isn't allowed across the Canadian border. You may try to check out some of the package deals provided by local outfitters- often they can provide everything you need (canoe, tent, sleeping bag, food, camp stoves, waterproof gear bags, etc) for as little as $50/night. It can be a lot cheaper, and less hassle, then rounding up and packing your own gear. I've been to Boundary waters in June and had excellent smallmouth, walleye, and pike fishing, my guess is the same would hold true for Quetico. But I'd get on the phone or look up some local guides and outfitters and pick their brains on it.

PM sent.

Ness' and mine are about the same- mine's currently saying 36, although typically it's more like 8-15.

Here's Lake Mead. Note the "bathtub ring," which developed as a result of extended drought. That's why you draw water from the bottom of the dam, not the top- if the lake level falls below the turbine intake, power generators are screwed. Even if you could overcome that and manage the tailwaters as coolwater fisheries, it doesn't ensure things revert back to the fisheries before the dams went in. You've had lots of changes to the landscape- land clearing, urbanization, the creation of nutrient sinks in the reservoirs- and the tailwaters today receive many times more angling pressure than they did in the 30's or 40's.

Did you ask the MDC folks why fishing wasn't allowed? A lot of times when they've renovated a pond or lake, they close fishing for a while just to allow the new fishery to become established.

Haha, no worries TC. I'm cranking out a few dozen soft hackles to replace the ones lost in the mail for a swap on another board. #$%! Happens.

That's awesome!

On an average day you're absolutely right- cities don't have that sort of police:citizen ratio. But opening day isn't a typical crowd for the trout parks- it's like a city hosting a Memorial Day/ 4th of July/ New Year's event- events where they do up police presence.

Wi-Fi is probably cheaper than a cleaning station and other repairs. Greatest benefit for the least cost, and all that business. Jus' sayin.

I've been waiting to see if Troutcommander's flies showed up, sadly not yet. I've been thinking I'll send them out this week since trout season's opening, and I'm feeling guilty having them stare me in the face on my living room coffee table

From spots. That doesn't make spots native to the Meramec- in fact you could point to it as more evidence spots aren't native, given that where the two species occur together, you don't see much interbreeding. Either way, it only shifts the question a bit- if spots are native to the Meramec, and spots and smallies can interbreed, why wasn't anyone finding hybrids in the decades before the 1970's, when water conditions would've been much more hospitable to spots? It just doesn't make sense that fishereis folks would be able to detect other large, uncommon species like white catfish and northern pike in the watershed, but not spotted bass. Jus' sayin. If you repeatedly sample excellent spotted bass habitat and repeatedly find no spotted bass, what are the chances you're missing those spotted bass over and over again over the course of decades? Not very likely...

For starters, it doesn't really make sense that Pflieger's methods would be able to sample all centrarchid species well, except for spotted bass. And if habitat's the issue, spots would've exploded earlier in the history of the Ozarks, when logging and open range made the rivers warmer and more turbid. And when those issues were addressed- when fields returned to forests and efforts were made address sedimentation- you'd expect to see declines in spotted bass populations as habitat reverted to something more suitable to smallies. Neither of those things happened. When the hypothesis doesn't fit the observed results...

Are the trout parks open two weeks before the opener?

Thanks SIO3, that's what I was trying to get at

But we shouldn't have to look at state funding. AR Game and Fish, the MO Department of Conservation- they didn't put the dams up. They didn't alter the stream habitat. They didn't alter the habitat to the point where native fisheries can't exist. The state, the anglers, the business owners- they shouldn't be on the hook to meet the Corps' obligations. If the COE wants to pay the states to raise the fish, that's fine by me. If the COE wants to pay private entities to raise the fish, that's fine too. But I think the feds owe it to the people of that area to live up to their end of the bargain.

They could, but folks are making the argument they're not obligated to. The Corps put up the dams, the Corps created the problem, the Corps should be charged with finding and funding a solution. Is it fair to hold the trout docks, lodges, and guides' feet to the fire for a problem the feds (specifically the Corps) created? Is it fair to have those folks pay for a program the Corps committed itself to? To me, the argument could be made you're just passing the buck from the folks who made the lemons to the folks making lemonade.