Outside Bend

I read the blog- I'm sure there are situations where agents misbehave, and where the public feels they've been slighted. Some of the regulations are tough to comprehend, and I don't think people should be punished when they're trying to do the right thing. But any time you have an organization of thousands- be it MDC, the DMV, Ameren or Wal-Mart- there's gonna be some turds in the punch bowl. IMO that's all Dablemont's saying- there's some agents that don't know the regs as they should, are misbehaving, or have a Napolean complex- and none of those are unique to MDC. And there's enough inaccuracies in Mr. Dablemont's blog posts to make me take anything he writes with a grain of salt. IMO he's just not making a case it's an institutional problem- just a few bad actors. I wouldn't mind a citizen board, but the Conservation Federation already has a whole lot of say in the direction of MDC- and it's open to everyone. Seems another review panel may be redundant.

X2 Buff- Any way we can get a transcript/audio/some documentation of the issues? Something more specific?

You're right- it's a public park. And if the liveries wanted the same level of access afforded all other taxpayers, I'd be fine with it. Paying taxes means you get to access in a public park, not that you're entitled to conduct business in the park. I pay taxes, I don't get paid $15 a head shuttling floaters. Al pays taxes, doesn't mean he gets to set up a studio in the hatchery. Cricket pays taxes, doesn't mean he gets to hawk cars in the parking lot. The park is for recreation, not business- and I don't see why the liveries should receive preferential treatment.

I dunno about "infested." In the past ten years I've seen maybe four cottonmouths, split between the Jacks Fork and the James. Given the thousands of folks out using our rivers each season, and the relatively few snakebites which have occurred, I'd say it's a little overblown. Judging by the trespass thread, snakes aren't nearly as dangerous as the other PEOPLE out on the stream

I went to the show last year in St. Louis, and came away thinking RagTag would be ideal for that sort of thing. I'll put it on my calendar!

You're fine.

The big thing about the lower Gasconade is finding decent habitat, but there's good smallies at least as far down as Fredericksburg Ferry. Bell Chute's a good start, you can find many of the other MDC accesses here: http://newmdcgis.mdc.mo.gov/Boat%20Ramps/ There's a lot of private ramps on the Gasconade, it may be worth your while to play around on Google Earth, too.

I'm not sure how well it'll hold, I haven't been able to get 'em out on the water yet. But once it's on the head it has about the same look and consistency as Shoe-goo or the other silicone products, so I'm hoping it'll work about the same. Plus it already has the glitter in it (I'm attracted to shiny objects), and there's less of an issue with working time- once the stuff's hardened you can still hit it with the metal tip of the hot-glue gun and reshape it as you need.

I honestly don't know a whole lot about the situation, but maybe the private liveries are getting a bit of a free ride? DNR pays for maintenance, trash service, latrine service, law enforcement...the private liveries profit from the access, without paying any of the associated costs. Maybe?

I've heard good things about the new TFO BVK- the blanks are pretty cheap, and you may want to look into them.

Spray adhesive (Super 77) works pretty well for sandwiching foam sheets together. A bunch of fly shops now carry body cutters- basically metal punches that'll cut the foam into the desired shape. They're not too tough to make yourself, either. Hobby Lobby and other craft stores are great- I've been able to pick up glass beads, wool roving for tying streamers and muddler heads, all sorts of yarn and other stuff. Recently found some hot-glue sticks impregnated with pearlescent glitter, have been using those to spin up some airhead-style bass flies. Link for the body cutters: http://www.feather-craft.com/wecs.php?store=feacraft&action=searchadvanced&advancedsearch_word_modifier=phrase&advancedsearch_words=body+cutter&x=0&y=0

If my budget had been slashed and I had to lay off a bunch of workers, I'd be looking to recoup those losses, too. But I suppose that's just me being greedy.

I think you're more likely to be attacked by your own heart than to be attacked by a mountain lion. I may even be able to find some statistics to back up that claim.

Glad to hear there's some restrictions in place bknopf- and please know I'm not trying to demonize you. I understand the draw of rivers, and if I had the scratch, it'd be tough to say no to a place on the NFOW. In the end, I think everyone involved in these discussions has the best interest of the river at heart. Justin- You're right that the Eleven Point has little, if any development on the mainstem. But the Eleven Point has been impacted by municipal sewage discharge, gravel mining, logging, livestock, and other land-use practices, just as the NFOW has. I agree with you that the problems are spread throughout the watershed. But the cabins are part of the watershed. IMO denuded land is denuded land, whether the cause is overgrazing, a clearcut, or construction. Cabins aren't the only issue in the watershed, probably not even the biggest issue- but there's no reason to divorce their impacts from those of other factors in the watershed. Brian- I cut my teeth fishing urban streams in St. Louis county- basically glorified storm drains. House after house, deeply incised banks, places the health department doesn't advise whole-body contact. It ain't about the aesthetics for me I'm not advocating going back to the 1950's- I've went through enough fish kill reports to know that wasn't the boon of Ozark water quality Nor am I saying we need to return the entire watershed to it's native state. Nor am I saying we need to have a moratorium on streamside development. Nor am I saying we need to protect streams to the point they're unusable for recreation. They're red herrings. Development on the NFOW is going to happen regardless of my opinion. I'm saying that the development should be done with an eye towards protecting the stream that drew people there in the first place. Protecting groundwater, protecting riparian habitat, fencing livestock, managing runoff and waste, instituting responsible logging practices, managing erosion, etc. I'm not sure it requires gov't intervention- as you and Justin say, folks live there because they love the river. They may just not be aware how land practices influence that river, and how some of those influences can be mitigated. I may have mentioned it before, but I think a consortium of interested parties- landowners, anglers, canoe liveries, floaters, guides...who could educate landowners and the public about best land management practices...I think it'd be a great asset for the watershed as a whole. You're a guide, right Brian? I'm assuming you practice C&R with your clients, at least to some extent. I'm assuming you practice C&R because you recognize a resource can be used without compromising its integrity. That's exactly what I'm advocating, just on a larger scale. We can catch trout without destroying trout populations, just as we can develop a watershed without destroying that watershed's fisheries and ecology. Bigredbirdfan- I'm glad you found time for this thread, as your posts are consistently positive, constructive, and informative. I'm glad you took the time to read, understand, and analyze my position. After all, saying "I expect development in the NOFW watershed to continue," is exactly like saying "I want the NOFW to look as it did 200 years ago." Or how "I'd like to see responsible development of the NOFW watershed," really means "I want to see no development in the NOFW watershed." Most of all, I really appreciate you shedding light on how "eco-crusades," like protecting water quality and fish habitat are wreaking havoc on our streams. I sure hope you continue to provide these invaluable insights.

I think we all agree on a lot of the issues involved here (part I). I definitely agree that the rainbow fishery on the NFOW is phenomenal. I'm not sure what that means, though, in terms of water quality. Rainbows are pretty durable critters, effected more by dissolved oxygen than anything- they thrive on six continents, in streams from sea level to over ten thousand feet, and over a broad spectrum of water quality variables (temperature, pH, salinity, etc). It could be that rainbows do well in NFOW because of the water quality. It could also be because rainbows are resilient, adaptable organisms. I couldn't say for certain, but using a non-native organism to assess the health of a stream seems like pretty shaky science. IMO it'd be like saying "kudzu and feral hog densities indicate healthy southern forests," or "asian carp densities show Missouri River is on the rebound!" There's a handful of pollution sensitive native fish, mussels, and amphibians whose populations in the NFOW are in pretty serious decline. There's one non-native species (trout), which appears to be doing pretty well. There's no arguing that NFOW water quality as-is supports a lot of trout. But something about the NFOW water quality as-is isn't supporting the rest of the NFOW ecosystem.

High nutrient concentrations may not be as great for the imperiled native species present in the NFOW (including the hellbender) as they are for non-native sport fishes. It's not just about trout. And high nutrient loads are only one symptom of development. More nitrogen and phosphorous may be great for algae, inverts and trout fry- but the associated chemicals (pesticides, herbicides, heavy metals, salts, petroleum compounds, pharmaceuticals) aren't. Removing canopy cover warms water temps, interfering with spawning and other life-history characteristics. Cutting riparian zones alters hydrology- wider, shallower streams, more fine sediment, shifting gravel bars, flashier hydrographs. Impervious surfaces and well drilling impact groundwater flow and recharging of the aquifer. Watershed development impacts a whole lot more than the nutrient level of streams, and history has shown we drastically underestimate the impacts of development on our waterways. I'm not anti- development, I just think it needs to be done thoughtfully. There's no shortage of Ozark streams impaired because folks didn't pause to think about the ramifications of their actions. The NOFW is a phenomenal resource, one of the last best float streams still largely in private hands, but it won't remain such unless folks take an interest in protecting it. We should take the lessons we've learned from the White, the Meramec, the Huzzah, the Gasconade, & others, and apply them to the NFOW as well...that's all I'm saying. That, and I don't understand why on earth someone, drawn by the scenic beauty of an Ozark stream, would buy a lot, slick it off and build their own Fortress of Solitude. Seems antithetical to me, like showing everyone how much I love my house by making stool in the foyer. Maybe that's just me, though.

Very cool, glad to see things like this happening on our Ozark streams!

Any covenant or other restrictions to protect the riverbank/riparian corridor?

Haha, point taken. But introducing legislation like this presupposes that the legislature has some say in how the state's fish and wildlife are managed. They don't. The people of the state (who these guys are supposed to represent), voted in favor of creating that arrangement. Let's have the legislature focus on issues it DOES have control over- there's plenty of them. Even if these legislators did have some say in game management, there's no reason for this particular legislation. The bill's language is almost identical to MDC policy, except you don't have to pretend the lion was about to eat you or your steer before you blast it. Seems pretty redundant to me. As I said- I really doubt any of the bills will get anywhere, but it's a situation worth watching. At minimum its a dog-and-pony show that costs state agencies and taxpayers, and takes time from more significant legislative endeavors. Edit: I was thinking about this in the grocery check-out line (poor planning on my part, going the day before Super Bowl). IMO letting our legislators know we don't support these bills is great. But I also think we should go deeper- make sure they know we're aware these efforts are unconstitutional, and that they represent a waste of legislator's time and taxpayer's money.

Not the same senator who initiated all the handfishing bills, but he's in the same philosophical camp. Very interested in the state's agriculture sector, not particularly interested in conservation/resource stewardship, and would like to have MDC under their thumb. The legislation has absolutely nothing to do with mountain lions, or protecting Missourians, for that matter. It's just another attempt to usurp MDC's authority, to have our state's resources managed by politicians as opposed to scientists. There's a lot of this sort of thing floating around this year, hopefully none of it gets any stream. But it is worth keeping an eye on...

That was me Mic, & put it on my tab

Posted mine yesterday, forgot to include the recipe. I'll post one on here this afternoon.

I like the idea of a float in. I just don't know if it would have the desired outcome. If it's like Chief says, and most landowners are fine with floating save one turd, floating a hundred canoes down the stream may wind up making more enemies than friends. I'll admit I don't know the law that well- but it may be possible for a landowner to file a nuisance suit regarding such an event. I'd definitely let local law enforcement, prosecuting attorneys, and constituent groups know about the event- but in a state which values private property rights, turning it into a media circus may galvanize support on the opposing side, too. IMO it'd be best to take a pragmatic approach. Find support amongst other user groups, elected and appointed officials, walk softly but carry a big stick, and most of all- try and keep the issue from polarizing into another landowners vs. sportsmen argument. There's enough landowners out there hunting, fishing, and floating public waterways that I think the heartburn faced by many western (and eastern states), could possibly be avoided here.

I see your point, but IMO it's a fairly weak argument. Most PETA folks don't care if you're fishing with one hook or fishing with five hooks- they want a ban on all fishing, period. And if anglers are genuinely concerned about the impression they make to animal rights groups, they should probably quit pulling fish out of 30+ feet of water, or any number of techniques or activities that can be pretty tough on the fish. All gears and techniques have their pro's and their cons, and all gears and techniques are going to damage fish at one level or another. Whether A-rigs do more damage than other gears I don't know, and I haven't seen enough information one way or the other to make an informed decision, and support banning them or not.

Not sure how. In two decades the diatom has been spread from its native range to systems throughout North America, Asia, South America and New Zealand. I'd call that rapid transmission. If you take no measures to treat gear, it's possible for viable didymo cells to persist for weeks or even months. If you freeze your gear, or heat your gear, or disinfect your gear, It may only take hours or minutes for those didymo cells to be killed. It's not that I'm all over the place. It's that, not surprisingly- different treatments have varying levels of efficacy.