Flyfisher for men

Yeah, and game wardens have much broader search powers because the evidence they look for can be eaten, decompose, or even run away. If they see evidence of illegal game (and a feather might be enough), they can go into all kinds of places without the usual warrants. It's why federal agents doing raids sometimes have a state game warden tagging along. He sees that feather and he can suddenly be poking into all kinds of stuff as part of a suspected poaching investigation, and then it's "Boys, look what I found!" For instance: https://www.uslawshield.com/game-wardens-texas-immense-police-power/

What species is it? Any feathers are useful, but beware the statement above. I can't tell what kind of bird it is from the photo, but raptors are frequently federally protected. You technically can't even possess a feather picked up from off the ground from an eagle or a hawk. Migratory birds and upland game birds might be crossing the line if they're not taken by legal hunting. A bag of feathers might be serious trouble. I'd call your game warden or DNR.

Nice ! I caught one on a few years ago on a 6 wt. fly rod that I estimated at the same weight. Mine was 48" but wasn't quite as deep in the belly as yours. I was actually stalking a different carp when I saw him and cast a black woolly bugger in his direction. He took it as I stripped it by him.

It was partly, though the catching was poor. A small lake in Kansas that looked good from reports, but didn't pan out.

I'm sorry it came across that way. It was not my intention. Also, sorry for my delay. I've not been able to get online much in the last week.

Got it!

As was said, they define it by what's tied to the line, not the rod being used.

Would crickets be a problem with kids? Seems like bluegills hit them hard and you have to be on your toes or lose the bait. Some kids might not pay close attention well enough.

I've eaten them numerous times, and I'll repeat what a lot of others have said. The meat tends to be more course, and many do cut out the red part of the filet, although I never found that a problem for the taste (you could do one filet with and one without as an experiment and see what you like). We always fried them breaded.We first tried them when I was a kid and Dad kept a couple to try. They didn't turn out well. An old timer told him the key was not taking any belly meat. We were careful the next time to do as he says, and that evidently gave good results, because we ate them frequently after that. We always avoided the belly meat. I'll second that the smaller ones are better eating. (smaller is relative--say up to 24 inches). We once watched a guy catch a monster that was around 20 pounds, and he gave it to us. I don't remember the actual eating, but my Dad has a very strong memory that the filet was "oily" and not good eating. We avoided the really big ones after that. I have been told they make good substitutes in blackened redfish recipes. Also, sort of on the lines of "poor man's lobster," it's been claimed that if you boil a piece, it will allow you to make an imitation shrimp cocktail. Blackened drum and "shrimp" cocktail are on my bucket list. I'll try to remember to post results if the covid virus ever lets me out to catch one.

You're probably hitting on at least a part of the truth here. While I'm perfectly ok with things, it does make me wonder if it might be worth another look.

This is one thing about the trout parks. You get to know some nice folks. I had a similar thing going at a campground at Bennett Spring. Sadly for me, the owners sold the campground and moved to Florida for retirement last I heard. I was on good terms with them, and a number of the retirees there. God bless 'em all, wherever they are.

It would be interesting to see and hear that if possible. I was hoping to get to Montauk this summer for the first time, but that is obviously postponed indefinitely due to the virus.

Unfortunately, I don't know about Lt. Agnew aside from what's listed above. Glad you enjoyed the info.

I got this in an email text from an official in the Missouri Department of Conservation "These types of fishing zones have been in place for many years and were set up as a way to separate anglers with varied fishing techniques. The zone restrictions are a simple way to provide varied fishing opportunities to as many anglers as possible. Typically lure restrictions are used to aid population dynamics but in the case of trout parks there is a hatchery which stocks the stream nightly from March 1 to October 31." I didn't press for any more details, so that's all I have. Since he mentions separating types of anglers, I presume that means things like giving the flyfishermen more room.

In NE Kansas. We're under a statewide order to stay at home.

Good for you! Unfortunately for me, access to the white bass here is restricted due to stay at home orders.

This is my concern about my one specific fishing goal this year: a June trip to Montauk State Park. My guess is that we won't be dealing with the virus by then, but you never know.

Thanks for the link. A message sent to them.

I overlooked this. Now that you mention it, I think I may have heard that somewhere along the line. It makes sense.

No comment. Do you have any insight into the reasons for the variances in the regulations at the trout parks? That's the question I ask in the thread.

All of these qualify for what I'm thinking---I used to the phrase "good experience" earlier, and that might not be the best choice of words. What the restrictions can do is promote "different strokes for different folks," offer something reasonably pleasant for a varied group of users, make a body of water more fishable for different groups, etc.

That's been my understanding. I presume it has something to do with the private ownership of the actual park.

You may be right on that. I haven't fished all of them, but it rings a bell. Why that is the case is exactly why I started the thread. My guess is it has to do with helping kids to fish at BSSP.

Your guess is as good as any. It matters to me mainly to satisfy my burning curiosity. Along the lines of what you say, though, tackle restrictions can, in theory, promote a good experience. e.g. "Fly only" to promote catch and release or to give fly rodders plenty of room for their casting by directing bait fisherman to another area of a park.

The trout parks all have various bait/lure/fly zones, but they are not consistent from park to park. Anyone know the reasoning or why such a varied system? For instance, Roaring River appears to have an artificial-only section, and you can use soft plastics in that area. By contrast, Bennett Spring lumps soft plastics with bait in a separate zone. For reference: Roaring River: "From the hatchery to the posted sign at the mouth of Dry Hollow Creek, only artificial lures, soft plastic baits and flies are permitted...No putty-dough baits, other natural baits or foods may be used in this area." https://mostateparks.com/page/54247/fishing Bennett Spring: "From the whistle bridge to the Niangua River. Only soft plastic bait (unscented), natural and scented bait are permitted. All flies and artificial lures are prohibited, even if natural bait or scent has been added." https://mostateparks.com/page/54109/fishing