3wt

Sure. Go with that. But on the upside, the world of cheap quality fly gear has been openning up much wider than even 5 years ago. Spending ~$100-150 on a rod is no longer a worthless stick. And if you do the Cabelas bundle thing you can usually get a decent line thrown in on the deal.

People really seem to think that there are venomous snake swarming all water, and that one bite means death. From the MU herpetology website: "There have been no snake related deaths in Missouri in the past thirty years and nearly all venomous bites occur due to inappropriate handling of these animals." I know a lot of people that spend a lot of time out in the woods, and don't know of anybody that has ever been bitten by a venomous snake. I understand that phobia is irrational by definition, but fueling it with misinformation just hypes it up and ruins a good day in the water.

I'm really bummed to hear about quality problems with Rio. I'm a big fan of the Grand, but have never tried the Gold. The dry tip thing they have really seems to help the annoying tip sink that most lines eventually develop. Maybe look into the grand if you have a fastish rod. For me it was an amazing jump up from SA GPX, which I also loved until I tried the grand. I've never cast cortland, but do imagine you would not be disapointed.

Probably this. Even a cheap rod will feel amazingly better with a good line sized for it. People seem to like the hook and hackle stuff if you want to save some cash, especially for a cheaper rod. And as an aside, if you really want a good shooting line, try the SA sharkskin. Cool stuff - I cast it on a 4wt that my brother has. But at $99 it's a tough sale.

Wow, you guys are used to bigger tailwaters or something. I almost never have out 30+' of line. And you shouldn't need that much to load a rod enough to shoot some line. The more you have the easier it shoots, but if you're working hard to feed a few inches of line, there's another problem. Check your line for problems, and your guides. What kind of line do you have? Are you useing a tapered line? Is it a really cheap line? Is it the correct weight for the rod? Are you casting with some slack in your off hand? Are you trying to shoot it at the wrong point in the cast? I really don't think anybody should have to roll cast the first 30' out ever.

I kind of hate indicators in general, but find myself using them when necessary. Sometimes a very slow drifted streamer is deadly, sometimes in needs some action. But I think my dislike of "bobber" indicators contributes to my lack of nymphing skills. I like the smallest ones possible, but sometimes the weighted flies just drag them right under. If you find something that keeps just enough bouyancy to keep the flies just bouncing without pulling them under, and is nice to cast and is sensitive to gentle takes, let me know.

Are you freakin kidding me? Maybe MDC should just let the members of this board be the new rule makers. I think we have a better grasp on them they any of those guys seem to. I think at this point if we summarized our own version of the regs and emailed them of, these guys would smile, nod and send them along to the trout parks to make new signs.

I think the type of animal does matter. Why not have dog hunts or release some horses to go shoot up. Maybe it's all an emotional argument, but there does seem to be a line somewhere.

Well I got to agree with the MDC guy that I don't see too many people at montauk legally catching multiple brown trout in a day. If you're not out gut snaggin the things you would have a tough time harvesting that many browns, especially big ones when the sun is up. If we're all contacting MDC, what exactly are we asking for? I agree we won't see no harvest, but do we agree on the 1 15" brown a day? I'd rather see 18" for montauk since that would be the limit if the fish hadn't swam up past the wire. Suggestions?

I for one wouldn't mind seeing some C&R streams or stretches of stream in general. Browns and rainbows. Let's face it, as far as I can see, a 1 18"+ limit is essentially getting at C&R, but allows for the "oops, I guess it's a little small" or "I thought it was a 15" limit," or my fravorite "I thought we could keep 4 any size like in the park" violations. A strict no possession rule would really eliminate poaching with plausible deniability.

I've seen one rod snap in half while the guy was tring to get a snag loose. I saw the whole thing and he really didn't pull that hard. The next fish would have doen the same thing to it regardless of size. I'd say if this happens, it's a flaw in the rod or damage, and it's a matter of time. I just can't see a reason for this to happen in the thicker part of the middle of a rod before the tip woudl break.

Very little chance of catching those fish legally in a day. Even less of a chance of regularly catching lunkers. I've fished white jigs a lot in the past, and they work, but it's not a magical jig that inspires lunkers to strike constantly.

Believe me I have no problem with hunters, but hunting personally has never held much interest for me. I don't really like watching animals die. I'm no crazy vegan or anything like that; I eat them, I'll eat any game somebody offers me, but I don't really want to watch a deer bleed to a slow death. I absolutely get that they lived a real wild life, and death is as much a part of nature as life is for a wild animal. Canned hunts just feel like sombody dropping an 8 lb trout off in my bathtub for me to snag in the face with a wooly bugger.

I don't get down there much so I'm trying to figure out what this means for wade fishing the upper stretch. Is it so low that there will be almost no water, or like 0-1 generator typically looked in the past? Decent for me means worth trying.

So does this mean too low for decent fishing in the trophy area?

That said I'm not so sure we need it regulated or banned either.

These kind of people are what turn me off to hunting in general. I get that it's a rush and everything, but when the only thing about it that turns you on is the fact that you're killing something...I agree, something's wrong with you. I don't put all hunters in this basket, but as much as I see the fun and sport of hunting, I don't like killing animals. I just don't get a hunter that doesn't have a little itnernal conflict about the kill. There's a difference between hunting and killing, and slaughtering for food and killing. If it's just killing then I don'thave much time for it.

In the description for the st. francis river, it states that the big river flows into the st. francis. It does not. The big river converges with the Meremac near Pacific. Big creek flows into the St. Francis at Sam A. Baker St. Park.

I debarb everything. I don't think the barb is the biggest culprit, but the time and effort to get a barbed hook out can really make it tough on the fish. I actally find smaller barbed hooks to be the worst because they can make a full loop - going in and back out completely, so you have to get the barb into the hole it made and out again. Rough on fish and a good way to destroy a small dry.

I think your problem is solved since this listing looks to be gone - unless you bought it. But, I think those are classic sage rods that light line guys really love. Probably not your all-arounder, and probably not your go-to taneycomo rod. If you bought this, I'd put something like a rio trout taper on it, and I'd stay in the market for a 5wt 9' something. A 3wt and a 5wt are a good trout pairing. Or if not, get a new TFO 4wt - I'd say 4wt 8.5-9' med-fast is the new standard trout rod unless you fish big water a lot.

I'd either go with the danvise or the griffin odessey spider vise is not bad ~$90 I think. you can add a base (maybe cut down the stem) if you're so inclined. Never heard of the ez rotary but from looking at this: http://www.flyfishohio.com/Vise%20Review%201/zephr_ez_rotary_vise.htm I'd say it might take the best cheap vise title. Especially for the cost - about what a couple pairs of good tying scissors should cost.

Tim, Thanks for the reminder on the %. I remembered talking about it before but couldn't recall the exact #. I'm not saying that any rule would be 100% followed, but multiple steps of QC can reduce risks. For exampel 97% are sterile. Of the 3% that are not, QC blood sampling by the USDA could reduce the number of those that are put into farm population by another %. Now there are a few fish in the population, and I have to believe that some of those will escape, but what are the real numbers then? Then if a fertile fish, missed by QC, escapee makes it into the wild, it has to not be caught or killed, then it has to successfully make a strenuous trip up stream to a spot that it would like to spawn (shouldn't have the drive for this since it was born in a hatchery) and then be successful at spawning, which is not a 100% guaruntee for fish that ARE born with the drive to swim back upstream to spawn, and are better than the GM hatchery guys at spawing. Now if all that happens, those young have to have the gene which is probably 50/50 genetically, and they also have to successfully repeat the procedure for a few generations using their superior genetics as an advantage. I get that we can't unring the bell if the gene gets out. I do think that reasonable multi-step rules could make the risk negligible. It's diminishing returns. This is not the "it only takes one" scenario. Also are these fish polyploids from the normal process, or from a GM process? If so I think your 97% would be significanly higher. I'd also prefer these things to be started in inland fish farms for further risk reduction. I thought that was the plan anyway. And I don't think we can pretend like there's not a big anti-GM food movement that has nonscience as it's ideal. They're out there, I'm not saying it's you, but it's a big deal. "you don't know what it will do to you," "They use VIRUSES to make the corn that way." etc. Just some thoughts.

What I'd really like to know is the real success rate of induced polyploidy. What safety measures are in place to make sure no fertile GM guys make it out of the hatchery, and what safety methods are there to keep these guys out of open water even if they are fertile. I think there's ways to use this technology safely. I also think that there's too much suppression from the "no frankenfish" types that are more concerned with unscientific fears than the scientific fears. That's my concern - that we take the real threats seriously, but don't bow down to organic anti-industrial types that abuse legitimate concerns to force their agenda out. Not accusing anybody here personally, but the idealogues are plenty and are the loudest misinformers out there when any genetic modification is on the table.

Except the article explicitly says that DON'T OUT-COMPETE NATIVE OR PARR. Am I missing something??? I think the downside is that they take part in the mating process, but the silver lining is they don't out-compete. Still plenty of issues to work through before too many risks are taken.

I get that argument and agree that it has to be taken seriously. Good luck reading the bill. It's kind of ammending and changing existing law, so without both in front of you it reads pretty choppy. i.e. "Paragraph 1 line 22 will be changed to read as follows..." kind of stuff. Tough to follow out of context. Try the executive summary if you can find it (I found it on the GOP site - yeah I know) but if it's to be believed, there are some good reasons to limit the EPA. Bottom line is that there is a balance. We can allow any and all impact studies, regardless of merit, to slow any permit process, or we can eliminate that as an option or we can find the right balance of taking legitimate arguments seriously, but not just using any argument as an excuse to stop progress.