Outside Bend

I'm gonna go ahead and call BS on this. Despite the unequivocal fact that didymo has altered many fisheries and aquatic ecosystems, folks still don't believe it's enough of a threat to justify changing some of their habits. Despite the unequivocal fact that didymo has spread to popular fishing streams throughout the world, folks still don't believe it's anglers spreading didymo. Despite the unequivocal fact that felt soldes can carry didymo cells from stream to stream, folks still don't believe there's an issue with felt soles. Despite the unequivocal fact that felt soles are the most difficult piece of fishing equipment to clean and disinfect, folks still don't believe felt soles present issues unique issues not found in landing nets, waders, bootlaces, etc. The fact that this conversation is still going on is Exhibit A in how the educational messages of various state and federal agencies as well as a number of NGO's isn't working- if it were, we'd all be on the same page. IMO we've tried the education route, and it's got us about 30% of where we need to be. Sometimes you need the carrot as well as the stick.

Guys- Didymo has already demonstrated its ability to adapt to and colonize habitats very different from those in its native range. Just because it hasn't taken hold in Missouri streams doesn't mean it won't. My guess is that if MDC felt didymo wasn't a threat, they wouldn't go to the trouble of scheduling meetings and proposing a ban on felt. If the agency in charge of the state's fisheries is worried about didymo, it seems to me the anglers using those fisheries ought to be worried about it, too. Here's what AR Game and Fish managers have to say about didymo's effects on fish condition below Bull Shoals: "The relative weight of brown trout below Bull Shoals dam in November 2006 was the lowest that has ever been recorded. Relative weight for both brown and rainbow trout have been falling in Bull Shoals tailwater since 2004, which coincides with the appearance of the invasive algae, didymo. This decrease in relative weight has been documented in other trout waters around the world where didymo has occurred. It is believed that blooms of didymo in upper Bull Shoals tailwater have had the predicted detrimental effect on trout forage and trout foraging. " Is this really a game of roulette we want to play with our fisheries? Troutfiend- The chances of being caught without a license in MO are pretty low, yet most folks still buy the license. The chances of folks being caught using bait in a Blue Ribbon section, or keeping too many, or keeping undersized fish- they're all pretty low. That doesn't prevent us from putting those regs on the books, and often times just the possibility of being caught in the wrong keeps folks honest.

We've been on this merry-go-round before, but I do think it's an important topic, so I'll try again... The logic is easy- felt carries invasives. Remove the felt soles, and you remove one way invasives get into the stream. Nothing's keeping didymo cells from attaching to your waders, nets, or other gear. But felt soles are MUCH, MUCH tougher to clean, to get a 100% kill, than those other pieces of equipment. Studies have shown that after repeated washings, there are still viable didymo cells in felt soles. If they're there, they can colonize another stream. I've always though this was a silly argument. If waterfowl absorbed water, they wouldn't fly. Not only that, it doesn't explain the distribution of didymo- why it appears predominately in destination trout fisheries, why it appears on streams where fishing is allowed but is absent in nearby streams where fishing isn't. Either this wildlife are following anglers around like the Pied Piper, or they're not a major vector for transmitting didymo. Even ignoring all that, it seems silly to make the argument that, since we can't control one way didymo may be spread, we shouldn't bother controlling one way didymo is definitely spread. We can't control the impact wildlife has on our fisheries, but we CAN control the impact WE have on our fisheries. And if we can, why shouldn't we? Absolutely no one is saying that banning felt soles will eliminate the problem, just that they greatly alleviate it. I respectfully disagree- the issue is keeping didymo from invading our streams. Certainly education plays a key role- teaching anglers how to clean all their gear. But felt soles can't be cleaned effectively, period. The risks associated with didymo, whirling disease, and other invasives, is just too great to keep doing things the way we have. We don't know that there IS a way to rid a system of didymo once it's present, at least without destroying that system in the process. What we DO know is what WE can do to keep it from getting there in the first place. To me, there just is no flip side, there are no benefits to having didymo in streams, there are no benefits of felt soles which outweigh the potential damage to fisheries, there are no disadvantages to rubber soles which can't be overcome by careful wading. It's really that simple.

Many of the federal hatcheries produce imperiled and endangered species- freshwater mussels, hellbenders, game and non-game fishes. IMO that's their best attribute, but you can't deny churning out thousands of trout a year has some pretty hefty economic impacts, and in places that may not see much economic activities otherwise. What really concerns me is the precedent set- if hatcheries can be defunded under the banner of "fiscal responsibility," what's stopping folks from defunding other important conservation measures? Why couldn't they defund recovery of eastern brook trout, or westslope, golden, greenback, or apache trout? Niangua darters? Ozark hellbenders? Lots of federal dollars go into researching how The Topic That Shall Not Be Mentioned is affecting vulnerable species, and how managers can help preserve those species despite changes caused by The Topic That Shall Not Be Mentioned. What happens if someone decides that research isn't in the economic best interest of the country...what happens to those species at risk? To me it could be one more step down the very bad path, of basing our priorities on dollars versus diversity. That's as close as I'm willing to get to the line for now

Chernobyl ants immediately come to mind, though I'm not sure how many small-stream fish are going to be willing to attack it. Maybe a foam beetle or ant with a bright topside, or strip of bright foam on top?

Folks who can't make the meetings can still contact members of the Conservation Commission, as well as the Conservation Federation, and voice their opinions.

True, but at least MDC is doing something to tackle the issue- there's now no excuse, they're making it as convenient as humanly possible for folks to do the right thing. Whether they will is an entirely different issue- and given there are so many trash cans at the parks and so much trash never seems to make it to them, I'm not holding my breath. But it's a good sign, at least.

You're putting the cart before the horse- Simms et al came out with rubber soles because governments were eyeing felt bans, governments are not looking at felt bans because Simms et al have developed rubber soles. Safety is a big concern, and there are places where they just don't work as well as felt. It's inconvenient, but wading carefully or avoiding those slick spots helps quite a lot. To me, preserving and maintaining quality fisheries is the larger issue, and felt soles just provide too great an opportunity to transmit invasives. Not busting your arse on a stream is all well and good, but if the tradeoff is wading through streams choked with rock snot for the opportunity to catch a few starving fish, I'm don't think felt soles are worth it. Managers are already documenting declines in brown trout condition on the Arkansas tailwaters, coinciding with the invasion of didymo in their waters. What it really boils down to is: Do you want this in your stream? Do you want this in your favorite fishing waters? If not, do everything you can to keep it from getting there. If that means cleaning all your gear religiously, clean it. If that means switching to rubber soles, switch to rubber soles. It's no different than any other regulation (C&R, length limits, closed seasons, barbless, take your pick) designed to maintain quality fisheries.

Where is anyone saying that? I see where MDC is saying didymo is a threat to our stream fisheries. I see where MDC is saying felt soles transport didymo. I don't see anywhere MDC is saying your felt soles, which have never left the state, are transporting didymo. Fair point, but cold, stable spring creeks (Montauk, Maramec, Roaring River, Bennett), and cold, stable tailwaters (Taneycomo), are the locations where didymo may have the greatest impact. To me it makes some sense to focus the discussion on and at these areas. Thanks for sharing DD, I'm going to try to make either the Maramec or Montauk meetings.

There's a couple streams I sometimes wind up dreaming myself back to... There's one in Montana I fished one day on a whim- 60 or so miles down a gravel road, banks thick with grass and willows in an area known for moose and the occasional grizzly. But it also held one of the few remaining populations of fluvial grayling in the US, which made it completely worth it. Caught a handful of grayling and camped at a nearby lake, where I caught a mess of stocked rainbows with only three other anglers around- an otter, a tern, and a heron. That night I listened to gray wolves howl, and it was probably the loneliest I've ever felt, knowing the next living soul is miles away. I still have dreams of that place, and big sail-backed grayling. There was another small stream in Montana I happened upon, as it ran through an underused Forest Service campground. In most spots it was maybe five feet wide, but walking along it long enough I found a pool about the size of a kiddie pool, and wound up catching a half-dozen 12 inch Westslope cutthroat on dry flies. And another creek in Idaho where I caught what seemed like a hundred cutthroat under 10 inches, and a half dozen cutthroat over 15 inches, but nothing in between. And another creek in Wyoming well off the beaten path, about the size of the Current at Tan Vat, where I caught a solid number of big dumb cutthroats over the course of a day, and had a very close encounter with a young bull moose. The Gibbon River, in Yellowstone, is one I always seem to gravitate towards, even though I've never done terribly well. It's a big, windy stream with enormous cutbanks in a huge valley, an absolutely gorgeous stream. Upper Slough Creek is similar, full of native cutthroat, and definitely worth the walk. And back home, I'm always willing to hit up the NFoW!

From the MDC website: Although common at the time of European settlement, the last known historical specimen in Missouri was killed in the Bootheel area in 1927. From the MDC website: The chance of encountering a mountain lion in Missouri is very, very small—almost non-existent. People, pets and livestock are at much greater risk from automobiles, stray dogs and lightning strikes than they are from mountain lions. However, if you do encounter a mountain lion in the wild, these responses may improve your chances of avoidance and survival. From the MDC website: * STOP. Back away slowly if you can do so safely. Running may stimulate a lion’s instinct to chase and attack. Face the lion, stand upright and maintain eye contact. * DO NOT APPROACH A MOUNTAIN LION, especially one that is feeding or with kittens. Most mountain lions will try to avoid a confrontation. Give them a way to escape. * STAY CALM. Talk to it in a calm yet firm voice. * DO ALL YOU CAN TO APPEAR LARGER. Raise your arms. Open your jacket if you’re wearing one. If you have small children with you, protect them by picking them up so they won’t panic and run. * If the lion behaves aggressively, THROW STONES, BRANCHES OR WHATEVER YOU CAN GET YOUR HANDS ON without crouching down or turning your back. Wave your arms slowly and speak firmly. You want to convince the lion that you are not prey and that you may, in fact, be a danger to it. * FIGHT BACK if a lion attacks. Mountain lions have been driven away by prey that fights back. People have fought back successfully with rocks, sticks, caps or jackets, garden tools and bare hands. Remain standing or try to get back up. When you walk, hike or bike in states with an established mountain lion population, GO IN GROUPS and MAKE PLENTY OF NOISE to reduce your chances of surprising a lion. A sturdy walking stick can be used to ward off a lion. Make sure children are close and within sight at all times. Talk with children about lions and teach them what to do if they see one. From the MDC website: In 1996 MDC established a Mountain Lion Response Team (MLRT) with specially trained staff to investigate reports and evidence of mountain lions. From the MDC website: MDC wants to learn more about mountain lions in Missouri and encourages all citizens to report sightings, physical evidence or other incidents so they can be thoroughly investigated. To make a report, contact the Mountain Lion Response Team by e-mail at mountain.lion@mdc.mo.gov. From the MDC website: The MLRT has investigated hundreds of mountain lion reports. Animals reported as mountain lions include house cats, bobcats, red foxes, coyotes, black and yellow Labrador retrievers, great Danes and white-tailed deer. Almost all reported tracks have been those of bobcats or large dogs. From the MDC website: Since 1994 a total of 15 free-living mountain lions have been confirmed in Missouri, but there is no evidence of a reproducing population in our state. From the MDC website: Mountain lions are classified as "extirpated" in Missouri, but remain protected under the provisions of the Wildlife Code. However, section 3 CSR 10-4.130 (6) of the Code provides that any mountain lion attacking or killing livestock or domestic animals, or threatening human safety may be killed. Mountain lions killed during the protection of life or property must be reported to MDC immediately and the intact carcass, including pelt, surrendered within 24 hours. They look about the same to me. What is it exactly you want MDC to say, that there's a possibility of a breeding lion population in the state? What's the value of that conjecture?

If nothing else, it's a $25 conversation piece. Go for it!

Funny lookin' smallmouth, that's for sure.

Just don't put your fingers in their gills. PUN INTENDED!

Thanks bird! I hadn't seen that caveat.

One person can use as many as three poles in the state.

It's a type of herring, and looks similar to gizzard shad if you elongated them a bit. Supposed to be excellent catfish bait. I've seen lots of them in the Mississippi River and a few in the Missouri, but haven't seen them anywhere else in the state. Sorry I can't be more of a help.

It generally flows north to the Gasconade.

It doesn't particularly bother me. There's lots of threads on this forum I don't have much interest in- tournament talk, boat talk, handguns, etc. It doesn't mean those topics and discussions aren't valuable, it's just not something I'm into. And I am in no position to start dictating what should and shouldn't be discussed. If I don't have an interest in talking about it, I won't. It's that simple. But if you were to ask me, my opinion's that OA is a fishing-heavy clearinghouse for folks who just enjoy spending time outside in the Ozarks, rather than a fishing-strictly forum.

Many states with breeding populations don't report every sighting, and many states with breeding populations have human populations which are a fraction of Missouri's. Fewer people= fewer sightings. MDC isn't saying there are no mountain lions in Missouri- there obviously are. They're just saying they haven't found evidence of a breeding population. There's no distortion there- they haven't found cubs, haven't found breeding females, haven't seen evidence of territories being established. Little in the way of sightings or signs- when you think about the thousands of folks who have been out in the woods since November, the untold hours of sitting in tree stands and game-camera footage...4 sightings stacked against all those hours of observation is an infinitesimally percentage.

I believe there's a permitting process involved, you may want to contact the state DNR or EPA office for help.

However you can get the job done while minimizing the stress to the fish is the best way to do it. I try to keep them in the water as much as possible, and when I need to grasp them, I'll either cradle them by their stomach or grasp them by the wrist of their tail. If you remain calm and make your movement deliberate, typically the fish won't freak out. That said, they're wild animals, and they're unpredictable. Accidents and mishandling are going to happen, no matter how experienced or careful you are. But most often I look at it as an extension of the fight- with some patience, thought, and foresight, you can usually wind up making the fish do what you want it to. I don't go behind the gill plate- in my experience it causes the fish to wig out even more (I imagine it's a sensitive area, in my mind it's like sticking your finger down your throat). Plus it's awfully close to the eyes- in my experience fish don't like random shapes darting through their field of view. It's probably of no benefit to the fish, and photos of big fish at uncomfortable angles and fingers behind the gill plate do nothing for the image of anglers as stewards of the resource. But is it worse than someone who can't handle a fish otherwise, and strips its slimecoat or drops it on the rocks? To me, the best way is whatever's least injurious to the fish. I will say this: I'd rather more folks handle fish like Troutfiend than the other end of the spectrum...

I have to agree with Chief, I'm not seeing it. Where are the holes? Have they found cubs in the state? Have they found animals which they can identify as being born in the state? Have they found females with recent birth scars indicating successful breeding in the state? There's been all sorts of documented cases of odd animals in Missouri- wolves, elk, mule deer, piranha, savanna monitors, alligators, tundra swans, Pacific loons, flamingos, wood storks, golden eagles, snowy owls, all sorts of exotic hummingbirds... Critters, be they cinnamon teal or mountain lions, can move an awfully long way, and occasionally they crop up in places you wouldn't expect. But saying an animal is occasionally present in the state and saying an animal has a breeding population in the state are two entirely different things. It seems pretty cut and dried to me- MDC hasn't found any evidence to say there's a breeding population in MO, so they're doing the public no disservice. No offense, I know you care passionately about this issue, but I think you're reading too much into it, and seeing things that aren't really there.

Smokey Mountains are a pretty cool area, as is Shenandoah NP in Virginia. Around and in between there's a ton of trout water, as well as plenty of places to chase smallies and other species. You may also want to check out some of your options to your north- the driftless region of Wisconsin & Minnesota, Boundary Waters on the US/Canada border, northern Michigan and the Upper Peninsula. Lots of fish to chase- brown and brook trout, smallmouth, pike, walleye, and a lot of it isn't too busy. You could also check out Colorado and Rocky Mountain NP. Although, with the amount of snow the west has received this season, you may want to call ahead to a few flyshops and pick their brains as to whether that'd be too early for good river fishing. Good luck!

I didn't clean them, and from what I've heard it's a little tough to keep the bones out of the fillets until you get the hang of it. I've also heard of folks slicing them as you would ribs and frying them that way- the bones are large enough to be noticeable. And smoked, and canned, and... The biggest thing is to get all the red meat off the sides of the fillet. If I'm in town, I'll let you know!