bfishn

I think I've caught trout on every crank I've ever trolled for walleye, up to and including a trout pattern Long A, That said... A hatchery-raised trout will have a permanent memory of a trout pellet as food to trust. I ran a trout farm for 9 years, and it was my business to help folks catch them. Hands down, far and above anything else without comparison, real trout food pellets outfished anything. Period. I simply took a cup of feed, soaked it in water for 5 minutes, and spread it on a newspaper to dry a bit so it was soft enough to put on a #6 hook. Even though that was by far the best, and kids using it outfished their "fisherman" dads 10 to 1, some folks stubbornly stuck to what they thought they knew. One exception, a particularly grizzled old fly flinger, stroked my grey fish farm cat until he had a mess of hair, which he meticulolusly rolled into a ball about the size and shape of my feed pellets, and tied it with a bit of thread. While his grandkids fared better with cane poles and trout pellets, he outfished any other adult throwing artificials I ever had. Guess you could say he matched the hatch. I know, it sounds "unfishermanlike", but it works.

I cook over wood, but the thread was just begging for Hank.... :-)

Not shad. Lookup "pelagic".

Finally found a mess today, ~20 nice sized tans.

(aka Midnight Monkeys)

Mink

Foul! Horizontal holding!

After observing the creek from several angles today, I'll have to make an exception to my earlier comment. By what I saw and from past floating experience, I think LS would have been floatable and fishable today, and might be tomorrow as well. At least if you had to drag it would be minimal, and the water is the ideal color/clarity for fishing. "Normal" clarity is too clear IMO, just a tinge of green/cloudy makes the fish a bit more careless and easier to fool. Pay extra attention to any side branch inflows, no matter how small. Added If you're also into cats, there are some surprisingly good ones there, blues and channels (escaped from BV) and native flatties aren't uncommon. If you encounter a hole that should have fish but doesn't there's probably a big flathead or two as a reason.

Spavinaw is fed by dozens of springs along its' length, some bigger, some smaller, but no single one responsible for the bulk of flow. The dry area you encountered west of Decatur is merely a feature of a "losing" stream, the water is still there and flowing, just under the rocks and out of sight. I sure understand the feeling of being unwanted there. When I lived near Gravette in the '80s, some of the LW crossings and bridges were my go to spots for creek minnows for bait. After the trout were stocked and the signs and ringed trees proliferated, I won't even stop along the road anymore.

Au contraire, one of the first places flatties show up in the spring is where the crappie spawn. Us hoomans aren't alone in finding crappie delectable.

From Lake BV down, it can be today's wild ride or tomorrow's boring drag. Semi-flood conditions are the only times that ensure no walking. Putting in right below the lake is pretty straightforward, but taking out (or even stepping out) anywhere else before Missouri will likely result in a very unpleasant encounter with the non-native residents. Newly-minted aboriginal golfers "own" that stretch, and they're not shy about telling you about it. Keep a bucket of golf balls to offer as tariff, and it's not too painful. Below the state line liquor stores (where the AR golfers hang out when they're not making divets), you'll notice the Cranky Yankees are gone from the shore. Don't be overconfident though, you're still being watched, but now it's liqoured up rednecks (with guns). Here you may need to have a fish or two to make peace. The Mo side used to have lots of smallmouth, but I have no recent experience. When the creek's high enough to avoid dragging, it's probably poor fishing though.

I've caught them while catfishing the Arkansas River as far up as Fort Smith. Of interest is their particular relationship to DO levels and general water quality. Their vulnerability in that regard makes their presence a fair indicator of overall water quality, kind of like a canary in a coal mine. Fair numbers of American eel make it up the Quachita River to the dams at Catherine & DeGray. AGFC bio Jeff Quinn is heading an ongoing study of them; http://www.wildlifearkansas.com/proposals/2012PreProposals/Identification%20of%20dams%20that%20block%20migration.pdf Gotta go, the show's starting. Thanks for the heads up Quillback!

And that's all there is to say about BBQ!

Update; Bill Status History Chamber Date Action House 4/8/2013 1:00:19 PM Notification that HB1929 is now Act 954 House 4/1/2013 10:12:12 AM Correctly enrolled and ordered transmitted to the Governor's Office. House 3/28/2013 4:55:07 PM TO BE ENROLLED House 3/28/2013 4:55:05 PM Returned from the Senate as passed, with the Emergency Clause having failed. Senate 3/28/2013 4:05:19 PM Returned to the House as passed.

Hmmm... perhaps it's time to commission a custom, dual-purpose fly rod/blowgun. I imagine a well-placed blackjack thorn tip would make him think twice before "butting" in again... :-) Disclaimer: Of course I'm not suggesting you actually do that, but thinking about it might bring some satisfaction. I keep an imaginary 50cal M2 on my boat bow for that purpose, to bring relief when the ski bees are swarming, or a rogue wake nearly swamps me. I have an imaginary alternate mount for it on my truck hood. I used to keep imaginary grenades in my work desk, but the detached look and big grin on my face while catching undeserved flack from the boss gave them away... :-) Suggested reading on the subject; The Secret Life of Walter Mitty...

McFish McNugget specials this week at participating franchises.

Yeah, there's enough concrete left to be a 'dam' as far as fish go, but the lake's been gone for years.

For some insight into the affected streams in my home county (colored in red), see the following map; This watershed is separated from the White River Basin to the east by an elevated tailout of the Springfield Plateau. These year-round streams are all spring fed base flow, originating in the Boone and St Joe limestone formations, and retained by a lower boundary layer of Chatanooga Shale. They all hold self-sustaining populations of native fish, and one (Spavinaw) has even been intermittently stocked with brown trout by the AGFC. They all flow out of Arkansas into larger streams and rivers, winding thru Missouri and Oklahoma, only to return to the state in the Arkansas River. Spavinaw Creek eventually becomes a major drinking water supply in Oklahoma, serving some small towns and eventually part of Tulsa. There are some permitted municipal discharges that, as yet, have been (arguably) of negligable detriment. Lakes over 5 acres in this county that would also lose protected status include Avalon, Ann, Brittany, Norwood, Windsor, Lomond, Bella Vista, Rayburn, Bentonville, Siloam Springs, Crystal, Elmdale, and Swepco.

You're burning up! There it is. (Note to self; learn to use de facto in a sentence). More after work...

Persistence. It took me ~15 years to crack 10. I've been fortunate enough since with cotinued dedication to have caught 5 more from 11-15. Like many endeavors, the more I learn, the more I realize I know very little about it. IME, the best time for a bigun is definitely pre-spawn, when the biguns are in the same place as the rest. My 4 largest all came the same calendar week of the year, with the others very close. After that, I believe the biguns live independantly from the rest, suspended much of the time eating big shad, much like stripers. The limited number of biguns in thousands of acres quickly becomes lottery odds. My advice? Stick with what you're doing that works. Save up for a good snowsuit and maybe a little propane heater. Start in late January and fish your brains out till mid March. Fish for biguns with big green sunfish or 7"+ creek hornys (my favorite). Don't quit till the cows come home (which incidentally is the secret code name of one of my favorite spots). Persistence.

It seems the bill was presented to the Legistature by the "Arkansas Environmental Federation". From the Koch Companies own words; "Over years of support of environmental initiatives, Koch companies have partnered with a number of organizations for stewardship projects and educational initiatives: ... ... ... Arkansas Environmental Federation ... ... ..." Look's like my initial hunch was spot-on, and the smell of rat still lingers.

You're getting warmer... Now you're getting hot. The bill specifies exemption only for existing drinking water sources and those identified as potential sources in the Arkansas Water Plan. The catch is that the AWP doesn't identify potential sources. That's addressed in Regulation 2, which identifies most Arkansas' waters as potential sources, which gave them the historical broad protection that the bill will strip to only existing drinking water sources. The EPA Region 6 office did apparrently address the conflicts with the Clean Water Act in correspondence to the ADEQ prior to passage of the bill, but I can only find references to it, not the actual letter. I also found reference to a letter written by the head of the Beaver Water District, voicing objections that pertained to the Beaver watershed (my water source). Again, I haven't yet found the actual letter. In the meantime, here's a letter that was sent to the legislature while the bill was in consideration, addressing the matter better than I can.; http://citizensfirst.org/about-us/legislative-priorities/water-resources/hb1929-letter/ BTW, I really appreciate your input here. I don't know what your background is, but Im sure you're more qualified to analyze and disscuss this than I am. All I know is I smelled a rat, and the smell ain't going away.

I don't doubt that a bit, and pointed out the biggest of that bunch above. But there are already adequate provisions in the existing regulation for relaxation of the rules (see p25 of Reg. 2, referenced by the std. on p45). Relaxation isn't enough for them though, this bill wipes out the regulation entirely, and not just in the paper ecoregion, but statewide. Once in effect, there would be no monitoring of these waters, opening the door for much worse. And I do care about macroinvertabrates and the aquatic food chain, as does everyone on this board, even those that don't know it. :-)

Hi Tim, Thanks for your interest. If the bill was in response to new regulations, would it not have stated so or at least referenced such? Yes, we do already have TDS, chloride and sulfate stream standards in place, which the bill specifically strikes down. See page 45 of Regulation 2 (governing surface waters) at; http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/files/reg02_final_110926.pdf And yes, they are high standards indeed IMO, and have served us well for several decades. I couldn't agree more that our current methods of sampling criteria and frequency are minimal at best, and as you noted, only general indicators of potential problems. That would suggest more extensive monitoring is needed, not less (or none). For example, I got a call once from the testing agent, who was puzzled by a spike of calcium chloride in a recent sample of my hatchery spring. Duhhh, it was February, and the sample was right after a snow melt in the recharge area (guess what they treated the streets there with...). The point is, he caught something unusual and pursued it, so there is a benefit, even with our minimalist regime. We didn't drink the water, but the trout were definitely affected, by the sloughing off of their protective slime coat for a few days. I was only able to know why after the agent's call. Which brings up a yet unbreached point. The bill doesn't apply to public drinking water supplies (though many rural private supplies still use these waters). That still leaves the AGFC lakes, forest service lakes, municipal lakes, and dozens of streams that we fish in. While TDS and mineral salts may get "scanned over" for drinking purposes, they can have a profound impact on a fishery, and the reason I brought it to this forum. Now, please raise your attention from the chemistry a bit to look at the big picture. This isn't an issue for the legislature. In 1967, the Ark. legislature created the Soil & Water Conservation Commission, and ceded legislative power for such matters to it, much like they gave fish and game matters to the AGFC to decide. Only once since (1987) has the legislature butted in, over a matter of riparian vs non-riparian water user rights. (S&WCC has morphed over the years into the ANRC and the ADEQ we now have). It's a pretty safe bet that less than 1 in 10 of the bill's signators would know the difference between a chloride, a sulfate, and a piece of hard rock candy. Some entity obviously wrote the bill for them, and it wasn't the ANRC or the ADEQ. Only an entity that is already discharging such effluent into the designated waters, or one that wants to, would stand to gain from such deregulation. This isn't a fiscal matter either. Despite the "emergency" wording in the bill, all the legislature would normally do when funds are short is cut the budget for the ANRC & ADEQ and let them deal with the shortfall as best suited their area of expertise and authority (see above). Nope, this bill is an unprecedented and blatanty mischaracterized ruse, intended to benefit some unnamed entity(s) at the expense of the general public. I already suggested one possibility, but there are others too. Some folks that know the law better than I say the bill violates the Clean Water Act, and that the EPA will never let it stand. Let's hope that's the case. If that happens, the only loss to Arkansas' citizens will be the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees the legislature could blow trying to defend their little masquerade.