BruteFish83

Bladderless pontoons stay blown up tight as a drum. Includes hand pump, anchor and custom built, padded deck for gear or dog. The pontoons have had minimal repair using Aquaseal. The boat handles great on Missouri trout rivers and you can stand and drift fish from it.

Uh, nobody watches MTV anymore, buddy.

Haters gonna hate. Nice emoticons btw

Really nice fish, Joe. Wish you'd get a gopro so we could see some of those strikes.

Yes, I'd agree. In addition to overblowing things, I think we also tend to get overindulged. You must too admit though, that there's nothing wrong with wanting to make a great thing better.

I don't know about a eulogy, but definitely a great discussion about stream ecology and trout. Nice slabs, fellas.

I think we can both agree that the largest concentration of browns is in the stretch above baptist. That's most likely because of the incredible food source and the stream bed composition. When I say "too delicate of an ecosystem", I just think that the amount anglers I see wading down that little stretch, kicking up rocks and sediment and crowfoot [habitat], cannot be good for the health of that stream. It's a section of stream that gets floated down seldom, and trudged down often. Not that this would ever happen, but limiting the amount of anglers per day would be the only way to remedy this. Subsequently,I think there would be a greater food source for trout. You're right though, the river shouldn't be managed to accommodate one kind of angler. I do think, however, that a feasible solution to growing more large trout could be as simple as making the limit an 18-20" slot. I've read about other conservation departments using this method to grow larger fish. You say that a shortage of 20+ fish is not an issue, but if you watch a fairly recent fish survey from that stretch by the MDC, a shortage is mentioned - so this does have a tendency to be an issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jeOv2WbCQ. Again, I'm not disappointed or ungrateful, I'm just very curious and hopeful as to the size of fish that this creek could potentially support if some tweaks in management were made. I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to accommodate all types of anglers. I don't think the UC should be comparable to the White, but rather Depuy, Nelson's and Silver creeks while still remaining a public fishery.

I never said I was I disappointed and didn't appreciate what I have - don't put words in my mouth. We're simply having a discussion here about whether or not targeting the 18-19" class for harvest purposes would potentially yield bigger fish.

I totally agree with this. Why not manage the Upper Meramec then, which is also unique and prolific, as a designated fishery for the more novice angler whose not necessarily trying to hunt a trophy? Manage the section of the Current outside the park like you would a triple black diamond ski slope. I think it's too delicate of an ecosystem to not manage it this way.

To answer your question, "as the brown trout grows it needs to exploit larger food particles in greater quantity." Jenkins & Burkhead, 1993.th. (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Klemetsen, et al., 2003)Jenki th. (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Klemetsen, et al., 2003)JenkJenjjjjddlJI'mJJe There's only so many large food items in that section of stream - which is what a big fish needs to get bigger. It can't get bigger if that 82% class takes that resource. IO

This has a been a very amicable and interesting discussion. There's one last point that I need to bring up. The majority of the anglers on this post seem to be pleased with how the UC is fishing. If we go way back to the beginning of this post, it was mentioned how an 18" fish was seen being taken. I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't this person's first harvest either, so evidently, anglers are in fact taking legal fish. Couldn't we attribute this to the good quality of the fishing?

I have to disagree totally with you here. It's not just a good size spring creek. I've been to a fair number of spring creeks supporting trout across the country and fished all of them in Missouri. The UC is the most fertile and geologically unique, hands down. It has the most optimal growing conditions for brown trout, which is ironic considering it can't sustain natural reproduction. It's also a fact that growth rates for browns are highest in spring creeks rather than in rivers, lakes or non-spring fed streams. I'm certainly not faulting our conservation department, but I think the stream is managed more so for revenue purposes rather than to grow larger trout, even though it easily could be.

I'd agree with you. I would've released that 22" fish too. It probably was caught several times because it was the most dominant fish in that stretch and got first dibs on whatever came down the river. I've also caught the same dominant fish multiple times out of the same hole. Figure the brown trout estimate last year for above Baptist was 323 fish per mile. 82% of that, or 264 fish, were 18" or below. I'm only speculating that if the 18" tier was thinned out a bit, that 22" could probably be 24" or even 26"

Once again, the MDC wouldn't put this regulation into effect if was going to ruin the fishing. Every capable angler on this post could go take a legal size fish out of there tomorrow - you don't think the MDC considered this a possibility? You know they did, Joe. It's not a problem because 1) it will only result in larger trout and 2) they'll just re-stock it with 7000 browns again. Last year the MDC surveyed above Baptist in the Fall. 19% of the brown trout they captured were above 18". That means that 81% of the browns captured were at 18" and below. I think that those numbers could be better. Eliminate a fair amount of the 18s, and that 19% has to rise. The point that I'm trying to make is that we, the anglers, essentially have the ability to manage that stream for larger trout. Again, I believe it can be achieved by occasionally taking an 18-19" fish and release anything bigger. My only intention for theorizing this is to make this awesome fishery even better. I don't think we've come close to seeing what size fish this river could produce.

Agreed. Food is not the limiting factor - but it is limited. There's only so many large food items in there at a time like crayfish, minnows, amphibians, pieces of dead fish, big sculpins etc. If we want to see more bigger fish come out of there, than those food items need to go to the 20+ fish more than the 18 and under fish. Competition is the limiting factor.

Why put harvest in quotes? If you take a fish from a body of water and eat it-you're hrvesting it. I never said "harvest regardless of size." It absolutely has merit, Joe. Read the cited excerpt below: As the brown trout grows it needs to ex­ploit larger food par­ti­cles in greater quan­tity; if food is scarce then growth rate is slowed down. In ad­di­tion, if there is a large pop­u­la­tion of brown trout or other species com­pet­ing for the same food source then this also lim­its growth. (Jenk­ins and Burk­head, 1993; Klemet­sen, et al., 2003)

I think the C&R movement over they years is the very reason why we don't see 10lb fish anymore. That or maybe the river is being stocked too heavily. Anglers probably felt like they'd get hated on for harvesting legal fish from that section, so they stopped and the overcrowding and competition for food decreased the size of the fish. My theory is that if all the usual anglers harvested just one 18-19" fish this Spring/Summer, we'd be seeing much larger fish this Fall and Winter - the 24" fish would have an easier time getting to 26". I think it'd be a pretty cool experiment to try.

I agree with much of what you're saying, Al. I honestly think that the Current has the food source and water quality to easily produce browns bigger than the Letort in PA or the DePuy in MT. Unlike those two streams though, we all know that the Current doesn't have the water temperature to sustain natural reproduction and must be stocked in high numbers. I'm no fisheries biologist, but I'm pretty sure that brown trout (not sure about rainbows) are the apex predators of that section and are territorial and competitive with one another over food and holding water. There's so much competition that they can't come close to reaching their full growth potential. If you've ever seen those 30+ browns caught from small New Zealand streams, it always looks like it was the only fish occupying that entire hole. Regarding the MDC's policy of harvesting only one fish 18+, although I rarely do it, I definitely support it. They wouldn't enact that policy if it wasn't healthy for the stream and wouldn't produce larger fish. I don't think the purpose is to accommodate the meat fisherman necessarily, but to thin out the population. I know this sounds extreme, but I would like to see the MDC keep the park as a put-and-take fishery and allow one or two anglers per day in the section below the park - drastically reducing the pressure and damage to the stream. They could then stock it much lower and make the length limit higher.

That's cool. We're you guys wading or floating? We're the fish hitting your dropper or anchor fly?

A battle with a 17" slab on the Current would definitely make my day. Great report!

Rubber legs stoneflies and worms work well

No problem and yes, if it helps, definitely refer to one of my videos.

One thing that has helped me have success is fishing real long, stealthy drifts when nymphing. The fish get spooked so easily in the low clear water, especially water that you've walked by or already caught fish in. As crazy as it sounds, it's not uncommon for me to hook into fish 40-50 ft away. This is one reason why I use a heavier fly rod and larger, pointing (cone shaped) indicator. Although it's very dangerous, I will even walk several feet with my drift to get my fly into untouched water without having to recast. I hope this helps. Andrew

I've never had much success at Parker either. It sounds like a great day of fishing though. Looking forward to seeing the pics!

Those are some nice fish!