MOstreamer

At some point outdoorsmen have to get to the point where the single greatest issue facing our resource isn't something we have to tiptoe around. It's happening, half the darn state is underwater, and if it hasn't smacked you in the face it will soon enough. I for one am done trying to pretend it's something we can afford not to discuss.
I'm not arguing anything. I'm long since done with that. Believe what you want.
I am a natural resource scientist, and the future of our streams, forests, and everything we hold dear, in the face of climate change is something we need to plan for. It's not a debate, it's a reality that it's past time to face.
 

I went down to the Niangua River checking it out. Yes it was up and yes it changed.

Seems they are releasing more and better Trout into the river. I caught Limit in an Hour with Orange and White Power Baits. Nice Heavy Stringer.

oneshot
 

I went down to the river about noon, 5/18, it is up but floatable and Rainbow Trout are biting.
I didn't float but I would be watching for Trees more than river level.
 
oneshot

Glad you mentioned climate change, which global warming is just one factor. Perhaps the most significant characteristic predicted with even slight increased global temperatures  is extreme weather conditions and more severe weather with increased tornados, hurricanes, periods of drought, periods of extreme rainfall, even extreme winters. Just a spike in the average global temperature is the tip of the iceberg. It changes the entire dynamics of our global weather patterns.

Your right about the "might have helped" but then it doesn't make any sense to create several permanent floods to prevent the occasional temporary flood. The only real solution to flood damage is to stay out of harms way. 

Okay...somehow the editor messed up (surely it wasn't me), so here is what I meant to write:
I've been perusing the various USGS gauges looking at the preliminary peak streamflow for a bunch of our float streams and comparing it to the historic peak flows.  
Gasconade River at Jerome:
The river here appears to have reached somewhere around 200,000 cubic feet per second.  The previous record was set last December at 140,000 cfs, so that is a huge increase.  Indeed, from 1897 to the present, not including this flood, the river only surpassed 100,000 cfs twice before 1983.  Then...1983-136,000, 1993-110,000, 2008-118,000, 2013-138,000, 2016-140,000.  You'll see this in several of the other rivers as well--far more frequent "super-floods" in more recent years than in earlier years.  More about that later.
Big Piney River at Ross Bridge:
Looks like it reached at least 90,000 cfs (which means that the Piney may have been contributing half the Gasconade's flow at the peak at Jerome).  From 1922 to 1943, the peak flow only went over 20,000 cfs 15 times.  In 1943 it set a new record at 32,700.  It wasn't until 1983 that that record was broken, and it was shattered at 81,200.  In 2008 it got to 64,000.  In 2016, 57,700.  And now a new record.
Meramec River at Sullivan (Sappington Bridge):
It appears to have set a new record at about 95,000 cfs.  The previous record, set way back in 1915, was 90,000 cfs.  Other notable floods were 1945-77,300, 1969-50,000, 1983-67,700, 1994-56,400, 2008-66,900, 2016-66,000.
Big River near Richwoods:
The gauge wasn't reading well at the peak, but it looks like it was somewhere between 70,000 and 85,000 cfs, which shattered the old record of 59,800 cfs in 1993.  Only four other times has the river gone over 50,000 cfs, including 1957, 1994, 2008, and 2016.
Bourbeuse River at Union:
It was one of the few which didn't set a new record.  Not even close.  It peaked at around 42,000 cfs, which tied 1994, with 1897, 1915, 2016, and the all time record of 73,300 cfs in 1983 all beating this year's flood.  Which points out something else...the December 2016 flood, which set records on the lower Meramec in St. Louis County, was not as bad as it could have been, and neither will this one be unless the rain this week adds to it.  Why?  Last December, Big River didn't reach it's previous record.  This flood, the Bourbeuse was well below it's record flow.  If both rivers ever set records at the same time the Meramec itself above them is setting a record, the lower Meramec will go several feet higher yet.
St. Francis River at Patterson:  
At about 120,000 cfs, this is a little below the record, set in 1983 at 155,000.  There has only been one other recorded flow over 100,000 cfs, and it was in 1994 at 130,000.  Note...the years I'm listing are "water years", which actually run from July of the year before to July of that year, so the 1994 flood was actually in November, 1993).
James River at Galena:  
It apparently reached somewhere between 70,000 and 80,000 cfs.  It's gone over 70,000 three other times, including 1993-73,200, 2008-85,100, and 2016-78,100.
North Fork at Tecumseh:
It is believed to have gone over an incredible 200,000 cfs.  The gauge ceased working at 130,000 plus.  In 1986 it reached 130,000, and the only other time it went over 100,000 was in 1985 at 108,000 cfs.
Black River near Annapolis:
At about 70,000 cfs, the upper Black was nowhere close to the record of 109,000 in 1994, nor the 98,600 in 1986, but it was the third highest flow recorded, with the fourth being in 2002 at 59,800.
Jacks Fork at Eminence: 
It reached somewhere around 80,000 cfs, which when you stop to think about it is pretty incredible for a stream with that small of a watershed.  The previous record was in 1994 at 58,500 cfs, and only three other times has it gone over 50,000 cfs.
Current River at Van Buren:
It appears to have peaked at between 170,000 and 180,000 cfs.  Next closest record was way back in 1904 at 153,100.  In 1915 it got to 125,000.  Other than that, it went over 80,000 cfs only seven different years.
With a few outliers way back in the first three decades of the 20th century, almost all the other really high flows on these streams have been since the 1980s.  One reason for this is probably increased development, with more cleared land and asphalt allowing water to run off the land more quickly instead of sinking into it.  However, there was a lot of poor land use practices, including almost completely denuded forests, back in the years from 1900 to 1950, which would have caused increased run-off as well.  Yet there weren't that many huge floods back then.  Part of the reason was an ongoing drought throughout the years of the Great Depression, but there were still plenty of wet years.  So those who say that the greatly increased flooding is a sign of climate change do have some validity for that statement.
But for whatever reason, while this was not a record flood on every Missouri Ozark stream, it appears to have set plenty of records so far.

Keep an eye on the USGS gauge for the Niangua above Lake Niangua.  Normal for this time of year is about 750 cfs.  Even at 750 cfs, you're somewhat limited on where you can get out and wade to fish.  I suspect that even without a lot more rain, the river will still be flowing over 1000 cfs by next weekend, and that pretty much precludes any wade-fishing and makes slowing your boat down enough to fish from it somewhat problematical.  Can you do it?  Sure.  But it won't be an optimum trip in my opinion to spend that many days on that short stretch.

Only caught a couple bass. It was a good time regardless!

I think if I was serious about buying that sort of technology, I'd have to give the Garmin Panoptix a look. It's a bit newer and pretty darn good from what I've heard ... if you are tekky enough to make it practical.

I had a terrible "fish day" on the river Sat.  But I still enjoyed every minute of it.    Best part was it was a Sat and did not see another angler or person the entire float.    That's a good day.  

Yesterday, I worked a 11 hour day in the woods (finishing a lovely 65 hr week) and instead of going home I hit a small national forest lake near my work site, and fished 'til dark.
I don't have a point, except that I woke up in camp in the middle of nowhere this morming because of that instead of my warm bed and the largest fish I caught was a 9" bass, plus a couple bluegill.
Who cares, it's beautiful country, the stars were bright, and I caught all of them on a pretty wet-fly my late grandfather taught me to tie a little over a decade ago.  And for some reason I do not fully understand or condone, I have enough reception to post this. Life is good. No need to overthink this stuff. 

There is a old saying about fisherman. It says a true fisherman  go through phases in life. The first one is he he discovers fish and fishing in that phase all he wants to do is carch fish. Very soon  he only wants to catch big fish. Then later on he only wants to catch certain fish. At  77 I have entered the last phase. I just want to fish. I do not care what I catch most of the time are how many or big. I just like being out on the water fishing how I want ,when I want , and with what I want. I can probably put all the diferent types of lures I use in my front pockets. I find more joy in fishing outside the box than all the other stuff. as a example I intend to go out in a couple hours abd fish drop shot over flats and wacky worms n channel banks. I know both will work.???

Al
 I tried a few tournaments and decided that for me personally I did not enjoy the stress involved in fishing against the clock . That also was one of the main reasons I quit guiding . Why bring more stress into my life , especially into something that I used to fight the stress daily life brought . I also don't fish the ned or the alabama , I know they work , but they don't trip my trigger . 
 I believe that folks should fish with whatever tackle, technique , line choices and for whatever species they enjoy . I doubt any two guys fish exactly alike but why should they ? Do what makes you happy as long as it is legal and ethical . 
 
 I believe in the concept of enough when it comes to size and numbers of the catch for that outing . If you catch enough to make you happy at that point in time , it matters not the least what others think . Now what might be enough one trip may vary from trip to trip, all that matters is that you are happy . On just about all of my trips , how much is enough , is not predetermined, it just kinda evolves throughout the trip .  There is more to enjoying a fishing trip than numbers , it's the quality of the company you keep or the pleasure of the peace solitude can bring . It can include the feeling of a warm sun on achy old bones, a nice breeze that keeps the skeeters at bay and the humidity in check , or the sights, sounds and smells of natural surroundings . It can be the feeling of having no particular place to go and no particular time to be any where . I am sure others have their own thoughts on what makes for an enjoyable trip that varies from my likes . I would not have it any other way as we are all individuals with varying tastes .
 

The other night I loaded up stuff to go Catfishing at the Lake and took a Light Action Rod for Bluegill.

Later told my wife they was dropping water I should go to the river Sucker fishing. This morning told her the river is dropping too so I might as well go to the Lake.

Before daylight I go on over to the Lake, put out 3 lines with Stink Bait and one with worm. 10:30 gave up. Nothing was biting.

Got to the river thought I might as well try to catch some Trout. Had 6# Test on my Light Action Rod, size 6 Bait holder Hooks, put 3/8Oz. Egg Sinker on with 3/0 Split Shot.

I didn't count on losing stuff, so I rigged up and went to the river. Baited up with Night Crawler, throwed out, BAM! Thought I had a Big Brown, got it closer seen it was a Big Rainbow that made a 6 pounder look small. I was horsing it too much. Broke off at the bank.

Went back to the Pickup got my stuff. Rerigged, throwed out caught a pretty nice one. Throwed out again BAM! Had another good one on, played it for awhile, snapped the Hook off.

Went ahead caught my other 3. Came home.

oneshot

Right you are, Having fished and hunted as long as some of us have we should be able to decide if conditions are right. However, many of people today are tied up with work and family and do not have the experience or common sense (if it rained hard three days ago the river will be great for floating tomorrow) that we gained over the years. I admit not having experience on some streams so the gauges helped me decide where I fish.

There have been 9 OT games and now four teams including the Blackhawks facing elimination in the next game. Wow! Never would have predicted this type of playoffs. Can't wait to see what happens tonight!

I never would have thought Chicago would be down 3-0

Haven't heard much about the what everyone thinks about this year's playoffs. So I started this thread to see what guys are thinking about this year.
Do you think that the Blues will go farther this year?
Will the Capitals not advance again after securing the best record in the league?
Do you like the playoff format where the 2 and 3rd teams in each division play each other instead of reseeding the teams with the best records once they make it into the tournament?
I have been pretty happy with the play in the couple of games that I was able to watch so far. I am really surprised by the Predators/Blackhawks series. Would love to continue to see if Babcock can get his team into the second round. He has always been a strong playoff coach in my opinion. St Louis looks strong so far. I always love the first series in the playoffs since there are so many games going on.
I will say that this is how I feel so far for my team, especially after their comeback win last night in overtime.

 

My ultimate conundrum.....when im catching fish on my usual junk, i dont think to try other stuff cuz im catching fish.  Then when my stuff doesnt work, i think outside the box with stuff i have zero confidence in, fish it for a few casts and quit.  Hence i end up fishing with the same 3 lures 99% percent of the time.  

The USGS isn't choosing to "take a poop" on anything. Thank His Royal Highness Greitens for that. 
I've always been of the opinion that knowing when a huge flood is coming at a bunch of people from upstream would be a good plan. But I dunno. 
Sorry for the tone, but given the environment we are working in there is no longer any room to be politically correct or pull punches. A bunch of Jeff City (and Washington) politicians who have no clue what they're doing are going to be slashing indiscriminately at things that will have essentially no impact on our budget for the next four years. These are people that have no regard for science or conservation.
It is hard to see how it ends well. 

This is the mission statement of the USGS:
"We provide science about the natural hazards that threaten lives and livelihoods; the water, energy, minerals, and other natural resources we rely on; the health of our ecosystems and environment; and the impacts of climate and land-use change. Our scientists develop new methods and tools to supply timely, relevant, and useful information about the Earth and its processes."
They are the acknowledged experts on pretty much all that stuff, and anybody who deals in that kind of stuff relies upon them.  Personally, I've used their products since I was a teenager, when I started collecting topographic maps.  Back then they were  25 cents apiece.  I used those maps religiously.  Now, I depend upon the river gauge data, but I also still depend upon topo maps for learning about any new stream or area that I plan to visit.  Now, you can actually get a download of every topo map all across the United States...free.  All you have to do is print it.  You can also get the aerial photography of that topo map...downloaded free.  If you use Google Earth, most of the satellite photography used by Google comes from the USGS.  Also, I have always had an interest in geology, and have learned the most about it from the publications of the USGS.  
Of course, all that is just for recreation where I'm concerned, but a huge number of people depend upon the USGS in doing their jobs.  A large percentage of the population of the country depends upon them for accurate information about natural hazards.  Jd said he thought they were doing too much looking for global warming, but they are acknowledged independent scientific experts on that subject as well.  Yeah, they are a government agency and as such, PERHAPS influenced by whoever is in power, but I trust their science a lot more than I do that of people who REALLY have an axe to grind, like the scientists hired by the fossil fuel industry.

While I'm on my soapbox, a few facts for your consumption:
Missouri state budget:  about $27 billion.
Missouri DNR budget: about $3.1 million.
Portion of DNR budget coming from general revenue from the state of Missouri: $10 million.
Portion of DNR budget coming from federal funds: $36 million.  (Most of that is earmarked for particular programs.)
Portion of DNR budget coming from the tenth of a percent state sales tax:  $261 million.
So, the DNR's portion of state spending:  1.1% (and that includes the federal funds and sales tax funds)
DNR portion of general funds, which is what the governor is cutting with this idea of defunding the gauges: 0.03%
Let's say that with the other guages in the state that DNR funds included, the total cost to DNR is $600,000.  That seems close to me without looking through all of them to see which ones DNR funds.  Therefore:
Percentage of state spending saved by defunding these gauges ($600,000 divided by $27 billion): 0.002%
Percentage of general revenue funds going to the DNR that would be saved ($600,000 divided by $10 million):  6%
Thanks to the sales tax, the legislature already only allocates a pittance to the DNR, which means that a pittance of your state income taxes goes to DNR.  Basically, if you pay $5000 a year in state income tax (more than most do, I think), one thin dime of that is going to fund these gauges.
Now, the gauges are something a lot of plain old people find very useful.  If the state isn't spending money on them, it'll be spending money on something else.  YOU won't save that dime, you'll just be spending somewhere else on something that may not be nearly as useful to you.

Guys, you're just making stuff up. I don't know what goes into operating these gauges either, but the geological survey, unlike some government agencies, is not known for wasting a bunch of money. I think you get a lot of value for the buck with USGS products. I do know that the gauges require physical visits for recalibration after every high water event, since bottom and channel characteristics can change. They are also periodically checked for accuracy, which requires getting in the water and measuring channel profile and flow. The power source for recording and sending the info can't be indestructible and will need monitoring and maintenance as well. Geez, get off the anti-government wagon for just this once.

Your flat wrong...no question about it.  Your logic with wasting spotted bass is the same as if I were to keep a limit of legal smallmouth out of the river just to toss em on the bank, cuz they compete with the walleye im targeing.  I would guess you dont condone that?  Or if I was pissed at all the deer and turkey eating all the acorns off my farm.  So every year, i shot my legal limit to let em rot.  The coyotes gotta eat too right?  Just because you dont like the fish doesnt give you the authority to waste them. 

Speaking of coyotes I saw a nice one yesterday. It was beautiful. It was maybe 50 yards off the road with a fresh kill. Not sure what it was but it wasn't leaving it. I stopped and rolled down the window and whistled at it. It started to take off at first but then circled back around and just wouldn't leave. I really, really, really wanted to shoot it. But I did not have my camera with me.