Outside Bend

Thanks for that, about a half inch of snow/rain/sleet/ice/slush fell at my house today. I'm ready for spring.

Can't recommend guides, but you're right. The trout parks are an entirely different beast than a "big" wild trout river like the North Fork, and I'd definitely recommend going with a guide (or at least someone who's familiar with the fishery) if you want to be successful your first time out. Good luck!

Here's the op-ed piece I found, and I think it raises some interesting issues: http://mountainriverjournal.wordpress.com/ It's true COE is just another Federal project, but it does have revenue streams outside the federal budget- selling power to consumers is one example. My point is (and the point of the article) is that COE is responsible for the dams, and should be responsible for mitigation of the dams- not the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Funding for mitigation shouldn't come from outside agencies, it shouldn't come from state fish and game agencies, it shouldn't even necessarily come from sportsmen (if I had my druthers I'd rather it be smallie water)- it should come from the agency that created the scenario in the first place. The responsibility lies with COE and no one else. If that means the COE/Southwest Power have to raise their electricity rates to cover those cots, so be it.

It was brought up on another forum, and I think it's an excellent point: The Corps of Engineers (COE) dams are what wrecked warmwater Ozark fisheries. Yet from what I understand, the Fish and Wildlife Service is operating and footing the bill for the dams. Shouldn't the COE be paying for the cost of mitigating the mess it created? Why couldn't a small percentage of the profits generated by the Ozark dams be used to fund remediation for the problems created by those Ozark dams?

Makes sense to me that a 6wt would throw an underlined 5wt WF line easier than a DT 6wt line, just given the difference in tapers. Regardless it sounds like a neat rod, and I'll have to check it out!

The area around Lane Spring wouldn't be tough wading for an 8 year old...and if I remember correctly, there's a playground!

Maybe it's sick, but I like watching fish kill stuff. I like watching trout smash caddis or grasshoppers on top. I like watching browns pounce on hellgrammite or stonefly patterns from behind boulders. I like watching fish run down and kill zonkers or muddlers. I like watching white bass slash at crease flies. I like watching largemouth or smallies suck down sneaky petes. I like watching bluegills inspect foam spiders before nonchalantly pulling them under. Heck, I like drifting little parachutes ten feet below me on the Current just to watch a dozen shiners annihilate them. To me, the visual thrill of the take is the best part- it doesn't really matter how you achieve it.

I wish there were- I've caught some real brusiers down there!

To me, the value of the nuts-and-bolts, "I fished on stream X with lure Y and caught Q number fish in Z hole," aren't all that valuable to begin with. It's a matter of preference, but I always enjoy a good story over a sterile, clinical report of the day's fishing. A report is a snapshot in time of a constantly changing system, and just because mic caught 23 fish on zebra midges when it was 40 degrees and the stream was flowing at 12 CFS doesn't mean I'll catch 23 fish on zebra midges when it's 60 degrees this week and the stream is at 16 CFS. I've had days on the Current where every standard fly I've used and caught fish there in the past did nothing, and I've had days where my buddies and I have caught fish even though each of us was using something different- there was a trip this time last year where I was only catching fish on caddis dries, parachutes, and mohair leeches, a buddy was only catching them on griffith's gnats and zebra midges, a third was only catching then on copper johns, and a third was catching fish consistently on a #10 black cricket. In February. I know that scenario isn't typical for that stream, I'm not sure those results could be replicated, and I'm not sure the value of reporting those results. It reminds me of a story of a western fly shop owner who's favorite daily routine was waiting for anglers to come back after a day's fishing and report their catch. Some folks would swear soft-hackles were the only thing producing that day, others would say all they caught fish on where Pheasant Tail nympsh, others could only get bit using San Juan worms, others only wooly buggers, others only foam ants, etc. Patience and technique has a lot to do with it, as much or more so than the specific pattern you're using. Anyawy, IMO if you want to know what stream to fish, what patterns to use, and what holes or riffles to hit- your best bet is to hire a guide. A lot of the pleasure I derive from fishing is a result of solving the puzzles myself, not having the answers given to me. Unlike a guide I'm not compensated for my experience, and I derive no benefit from sharing everything I know, much less the very few places in the Ozarks I can fish and feel reasonably alone. So I keep a lot of it under my hat. That's not to say I'm not going to try and be helpful to folks on the stream, or on the forum. Personally I like Buzz's position- if you're curious to know where I was fishing, or what I was using, send me a PM.

I don't really have any malice towards the critters, as long as they're in the rivers they're supposed to be. I kinda liken it to the striped shiners I always catch on the North Fork- they're fun, and they can break up the monotony on a slow day, but I'm there to catch something else. As for the spotted bass/closed season question, I'd never thought about it. OTF's right, it doesn't make much sense. I could see identification being an issue- but if you're not sure it's a spot, don't kill it.

Here's some photos of lion tracks and scat I took while in Wyoming. FWIW, their poo smells like an untended litterbox

I prefer the roe, it's like eating 300 trout at once

Did you report it to MDC? It'd be interesting to get their opinion.

I'm not sure what guns and criminals have to do with didymo, and I'll admit a few of your substitutions were lost on me (you can't commit a gun crime without a gun, and you can't transport didymo via felt soles if you don't have felt soles- those should be intuitively obvious). Moreover, there are some societal benefits to guns- but that doesn't mean guns NEED to be everywhere. There's a happy medium between complete gun bans and giving every man, woman and child a gun regardless of their mental capacity or other issues. Similarly, society derives value from vehicles- there's a happy medium between roadless or pedestrian areas, and allowing people to have free reign over their vehicles and ATVS. There is no happy medium with didymo. Invasive didymo blooms present no benefits to ecosystems, economies, or society as a whole. Ten inches of didymo stalks blanketing stream bottoms present no benefits to ecosystems, economies, or society. Impaired native and sport fish communities present no benefits to ecosystems, economies, or society. The same with felt- there's no happy medium. There is no gray area. There is no effective way to clean and disinfect felt soles, period. There is no way to effectively kill 100% of the didymo cells present on and in felt soles, benefit. There are no benefits to felt soles which outweigh the potential damage they can do to our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems. If we start making exceptions, where does it stop? It's acceptable to introduce species via wading boots, but unacceptable to introduce species with a bait bucket? That's completely arbitrary. If it's acceptable for anglers to move invasive didymo from one place to another, what makes it unacceptable for other groups to introduce invasive zebra mussels, round gobies, spiny waterfleas, snakeheads, rusty crayfish, eurasian watermilfoil, common carp, northern pike, or whatever else they see fit? If it is acceptable for sport anglers to alter ecosystems and degrade fisheries, why wouldn't it be acceptable for commercial anglers or mining interests to alter ecosystems and degrade fisheries? If it's acceptable for anglers to use felt soles because alternatives are too expensive, what's to prevent CAFO's or municipalities to use the same argument to dump untreated waste into streams? As anglers, we are not exempt from the burdens of protecting our fisheries and aquatic ecosystems.

That's a slick car, and an excellent story!

Since words aren't working, I'll use pictures. Troutfiend- you're still arguing against a position no one is taking- that felt sole bans will solve ALL the issues surrounding didymo and invasive species. Until you guys can wrap your minds around that this discussion is just going to keep going around in circles.

And if we want to deal with hypotheticals, here's my one-act play (The scene opens on a cozy cabin on an early spring evening. It's still cool, and the fire in the potbellied stove is lit, as SIO3 sits in an easy chair, musing. Troutfiend enters and heads to the kitchen, opens the refrigerator, grabbing a beer, tracking muddy footprints across the floor in the process. SIO3: What the hell do you think you're doing?!? Troutfiend: (looks back at the footprints, then looks up puzzled) What? SIO3: You're tracking mud through the cabin! Troutfiend: (Looks at SIO3 quizzically....well yeah. I've been fishing all day. My jacket might be dirty. SIO3: Your jacket isn't tracking mud all through the house, your boots are! Troutfiend: (bends down sheepishly to untie his boots) You're missing my point. Since there may be dirt on my jacket, I'd be tracking dirt through the house regardless of whether I take my boots off at the door. Therefore, it's pointless to take my boots off. SIO3: Look at your boots! They're much dirtier than your jacket! Troutfiend: But that doesn't mean there isn't dirt on my jacket. SIO3: But if you took your boots off at the door, you'd be reducing the VOLUME of dirt you'd be spreading throughout the house! You're greatly reducing the chances of you tracking dirt and mud through the house! Troutfiend: We can't be sure of that- for one, there's lots of issues that haven't been resolved. What's the chemical composition of the mud? What is the optimal temperature for the mud's liquefaction? Is it silty mud, or loamy mud? Smectitic mud? Maybe it's like bentonite. Maybe there's some appealing fragrances associated with this mud. What is the rate of dessication associated with this mud? Until we answer those questions, we can't even be sure it was my boots that tracked that mud through the house. SIO3: (Looks at Troutfiend with disbelief) The chemical composition of the mud doesn't change the fact that you walked into the house with muddy boots, that you walked across the carpet to the kitchen in your muddy boots, and that some of the mud from your boots was transferred to the carpet. The evidence is right there in front of you! Look!??! See the mud? See your muddy boots?!? You don't seen any connection between your muddy boots and this muddy carpet?!? Troutfiend (sighs) I see the muddy boots. I see the mud. I understand that you think that by me wearing my muddy boots to get from the front door to the kitchen, some of the mud from my boots sloughed off onto the carpet, getting it dirty. I'm just saying there are other possible explanations that can't be ruled out, like the theory of continental drift. (Sighs again) Whatever. It's obvious you're not going to listen to my reasonable, well thought out arguments...it's a shame you've constructed this "wall of denial. (Morgan Freeman reads the credits as we watch SIO3 reach for the bottle of Maker's and a glass.

It's a cute story, but it's not based in reality- I rarely fish the White River tailwaters, I clean ALL my equipment between trips and drainages, if I were in the area I'd fish the NFoW a thousand times before I'd fish Bennett once, and if I wound up in the Meramec drainage it'd be much more likely I was smallmouth fishing Seriously though, the hypothetical rests on the premise that believe felt bans should be considered view it as a silver bullet- just change what footwear you can't spread didymo- as I've repeated ad nauseum, No one is making that claim. Here is what I'm saying, bolded, highlighted, as clear as I can make it: Felt soles can absorb live didymo cells. Felt soles can harbor live didymo cells for long periods of time. Sediment can be transported between streams via felt soles. Didymo lives in and on stream sediment. It is impossible to effectively disinfect felt-soled wading boot- unlike other parts of your wading boot, your wading staff, your rod, your reel, your fly line, your landing net, your boot laces, etc. If you remove felt soles from streams, the chances that live didymo will be spread from stream to stream via felt soled wading boots rapidly approaches zero.

I'm listening to your arguments and issues Troutfiend, they just don't hold any water. There's a ton of studies out there showing felt soles pick up live didymo cells, that felt soles can harbor live didymo cells for long periods of time, that felt soles are practically impossible to 100% disinfect after a trip to an infected stream, that rubber soles trap vastly fewer live didymo cells than felt soles (zero), that felt soles present unique challenges to cleaning and disinfection that aren't an issue with other fishing equipment, that fishermen can transport stream sediment between streams via their felt wading boot soles, that didymo is a benthic organism attached to that sediment, that didymo introductions are highly correlated to angler activity, that didymo can go undetected in streams for years before appearing as nuisance blooms, that didymo can negatively impact stream invertebrate communities, that didymo can impact water quality in streams, that didymo can produce shifts in biomass in streams, that didymo can produce shifts in fish communities in streams, that didymo has adapted from nutrient-poor, clear, high latitude streams in the northern hemisphere to exploit a broader range of habitats across the world....many biologists who have actually studied the issue, from the Fish & Wildlife Service, USGS, many other state and federal agencies, fish and wildlife agencies abroad, and NGO's have looked at and support the conclusions those studies have came to. It's not that I'm in denial, it's that there's a mountain of evidence to implicate felt soled wading boots in the spread of aquatic invasives, and you haven't provided any evidence to the contrary. Support your position with some evidence, and I'm happy to listen.

For what it's worth, I've enjoyed your posts, and would like to see more of them in the future. The forum is what you make it. Thanks for your time and effort, and I really hope you reconsider.

And just having those regulations in place can generate a great deal of compliance, if for no other reason than folks don't want to be caught breaking the law. I'll take 75% or even 50% compliance with a mandatory felt ban over 15% or 25% with a felt ban any day. It takes as much effort to see if an angler is wearing felt soled wading boots as it would to check if an angler is using barbless hooks, keeping undersized fish, keeping fish of the wrong species, or using nontoxic gear- all relatively common fisheries regulations. Should we go about implementing fisheries regulations based on what's easiest for the game warden to enforce, or based on what's best for the fishery? Again, no one is saying felt bans are the silver bullet, just one regulation in the tool kit to maintain the health of our fisheries. There's no gray zone. It's been proven felt soles pick up didymo cells. It's been proven didymo cells can remain viable in felt soles for quite some time. It's been proven felt wading boots can transport viable didymo cells from one stream to another. I can't say this enough times: eliminating felt soles eliminates a very large means by which didymo is moved from one stream to another. A lot of those questions red herrings. The questions you cite are about the life history and ecology of didymo, and they have nothing to do with whether didymo can be spread via felt wading soles- you're missing that distinction. The question "why hasn't didymo colonized MO streams?" and the question "Can didymo cells hitchhike from one stream to another via felt soles?" are entirely different. It's like saying we can't know mad cow disease is bad for us because we don't know enough about the breeding ecology of zebu in Tanzania...those questions are entirely separate. See? This is another red herring. Unless your boat is made of felt, and spends 10 hours a day dragging along the gravel...it's really not the same as a felt-soled wading boot. Felt boots present unique problems to disinfection, problems not associated with other fishing equipment, including boats. There ARE answers- there are reams of data supporting one position and not the other. The answers just make some folks uncomfortable...

That's pretty awesome- I've floated a couple stretches of the upper Big Piney and Jack's Fork, and wondered the volume that would be associated with a rockslide like that. Very cool!

Because felt soles can't transfer sediment from one stream to another? (it's been shown they can.) Because felt soles can't carry viable didymo cells and other invasive critters? (it's been shown they can.) Because felt soles are easy for anglers to completely disinfect? (it's been shown they're not.) Because we can't control wildlife hygiene? (We can't, but we know didymo invasions mirror people habits, not wildlife habits.) Because felt sole bans are unenforceable? (As unenforceable barbless hooks, unleaded flies/lures, and many other fishing regulations.) Because felt soles have been used for years without without incident (again, that doesn't preclude didymo invasions from ever happening, and even in its native range didymo can be innocuous for years before becoming an issue.) So what is it, exactly, that makes banning felt soles pointless?

The quote you reference was about the role education plays in preventing the spread of invasive species. In a nutshell I said there's a place for education, but all the education up to this moment really hasn't changed the discourse, so what's the point in continuing down that avenue? If education isn't getting the job done, perhaps it's time for legislation. I never claimed SIO3 is making anything up. How long didymo has been present in AR without incident is irrelevant- it's an issue NOW, it's affecting fisheries NOW, and the problem needs to be addressed NOW. And the claim that claim didymo won't spread to Missouri because it hasn't happened yet is silly- I haven't been in a car wreck yet, but that doesn't preclude me from being in a car wreck tomorrow. Unforseen events do happen. And as I said earlier, didymo has already demonstrated its ability to adapt and colonize areas very different from those where it's native.

My phone's really good at dropping calls. And sometimes it won't let you dial out, even if you have four bars. I can take bad pictures with it, but I can't send them anywhere. Nor can I view photos someone else sends me. It sucks juice like an eastside streetwalker. It has apparently decided to block calls from my mother, which isn't altogether bad I hate my phone, and I keep it as far away as possible as often as possible.