middletonflyfisher

I really like the idea of instream habitat work and have seen how much good it can do on smaller streams but agree that flooding is definitely an issue. I've seen habitat structures blown out or filled in with gravel on small streams in southwest WI after only one major flood just a few years after their installation, and it takes quite a bit of time and money to install them. MDC is open to such projects if they are feasible (can withstand flooding) and do not do more damage to the riparian corridor when accessing the stream than good, but I doubt they go at it alone. For example, bank stabilization might have to rely on bringing in materials rather than using trees from the existing corridor, but how to access the stream without doing damage to the corridor is challenging. A fisheries biologist from the MDC gave a nice presentation at the Gateway TU meeting highlighting the many challenges to sustaining the Meramec red ribbon trout area and providing possible explanations for the lowest brown trout population since they started surveying (11/mile). One theory is that years where on-average larger trout were stocked that those classes had better survival. Recent years saw fewer trout and smaller trout stocked due to production issues, but hopefully that is sorted out and we are trending up and not dealing with some other unaccounted for variable that has limited the fishery. Of course, high summer water temperatures and major flooding events are always factors but these are things that have occurred almost yearly since the inception of the fishery.

Thanks for sharing. I love those small waters. Great pics!

NIce photos! Love the underwater shots--great colors!

Totally agree the way of determining navigability and use for commerce is vague and probably intentionally so at the time it was passed, though why I can only speculate. I used to post frequently to this site but moved to WI a few years back. I still take interest in Missouri fishing as I get to fish here every once and a while when visiting family. Have spent lots of time fishing the upper Meramec for smallies and trout and on the Current. I like Wisconsin's model for gaining public access to private stream reaches: !) Pay the owners to lease the strips of land buffering the water. 2) Use influence of groups like TU (with a formidable presence in the state) and the DNR resources to find willing landowners and make it happen. Apply for state and federal grants to improve water resources on large tracts of stream thru habitat improvements, etc. 3) Use funds from inland trout stamp purchases (where all money goes to improving stream habitat or acquiring landowner easements). Wisconsin State Statue 29.191(4)(e) states: “The Department shall expend the receipts from the sale under this subsection of inland waters trout stamps on improving and maintaining trout habitat in inland trout waters, conducting trout surveys in inland trout waters and administering this subsection.” Missouri has on books in Objective 3.2 of the 2003 trout plan to consider purchasing easements. Has this taken shape? I propose a trout habitat improvement stamp be offered to help raise revenue for habitat restoration projects and land access. The MO trout plan is clear that if there is interest in this sort of thing the MDC will work as a partner, but I don't think they will go in alone (at least during tough financial times). Regarding WI water access laws: All stream water is PUBLIC. Landowners do not own the stream bed but own the land immediately adjacent. Access laws are such that if you access a creek (no matter how small) from a public area (bridge, natural area, park, etc), you are legal to fish as long as you keep your feet wet (stay in stream). Can get out of stream if the stream is impassable (which is subject to interpretation I imagine). Cannot access streams from private property without permission.