Al Agnew

I don't think the facts in that article are exactly right. The easement does NOT say the public CAN'T go onto that land. It basically leaves it to the landowner as to whether they will allow the people to hike, hunt, camp, or whatever; it just bars any development. So since the DNR owns it, they can and would allow the public to use it, probably with hiking trails to the river if nothing else. And I still don't understand what business it was of the landowners who sued. I think the judge's ruling was very flawed.

Never had a problem with any agent, either here or elsewhere. Closest I came was in Montana, when an agent left a ticket on the windshield of my buddy's truck at an access, because the trailer didn't have a license plate. Since I was part owner of the raft and trailer, it was my responsibility as much as his, and we shared the cost of the ticket and getting the license plate. My local Missouri Conservation Agent for Ste. Genevieve County knows me well, and he's a good one. I was once wading one of my favorite sections of creek in Ste. Gen County, had left my vehicle at the bridge. He saw the vehicle but didn't recognize it as mine. I was a quarter mile up the creek when he came off the high bank, waded across the creek, and came up to me to check me. Then he saw who it was. "-------, if I'd known it was you I wouldn't have gotten my shiny shoes all wet." Had the St. Francois County agent stop Mary and I as we left the Leadwood Access at the end of a float. Made us park, and asked if we had been fishing. I said of course. He wanted to see our licenses. We showed him. He looked at us suspiciously..."Your truck license plate says Montana." "Yep, we live part of the year there and license our vehicles there because it's cheaper." Showed him my Missouri resident driver's license and everything was good, but I bet he thought he was going to bust us. I do have some quibbles with the way they do things sometimes. My biggest beef is that they do too much hiding trying to catch lawbreakers, and not enough open patrolling to DISCOURAGE rule breaking. Their stock answer when somebody complains that they almost never see an agent is that you don't realize how many times they are up in the brush watching you, and as long as you aren't obviously doing something wrong, you'll never know they are there. But my answer to that is that if they were out and about and highly visible, there would be fewer laws broken because everybody would EXPECT them to be around. Another quibble is that either some of them are misinformed about quite a few things, or a lot of people are making up stories about them. I don't know how many times somebody on Facebook asks a question somewhere in one of the groups, and somebody gives a completely wrong answer that they swear a conservation agent told them. It happens with critter identifications, and with questions about stream trespass "law" the most. It seems most agents don't really know the law in that case, and automatically side with the landowners.

I agree with you there. But there is no evidence that the state planned to do some kind of big development like Echo Bluff. In fact, what I read previous to this bit of news is that they planned nothing more than a campground and hiking trails. Yes, the people should have a say in how it would be developed, but that's ALL the people, not just the people of Oregon County who were against it and the Republicans in the legislature.

The majority of locals probably does want to keep it the way it is now, but how realistic is that if it's in private ownership? The next owner could come in, clear-cut everything outside the easement, and run cattle over the whole thing. Or develop a 200 house subdivision with the easement being the common ground for the subdivision. And Mark, the easement extends to to Highway 142.

Every one of them in the legislature, apparently. How many times have we heard that Missouri has too much public land, that lands should be turned back into private hands, that private property rights should take precedence over anything else? How many times has the legislature tried to cut out the sales tax for the Conservation Department, justifying it in part by saying that they shouldn't be buying up land? Something like 4% of the state is in public lands, and that's too much for them? The Farm Bureau, which has the Republicans in their pockets, is automatically against any land going into public ownership, because the bigwigs running it have bigwig friends that want to make money on it. Proof is in the pudding. I'd bet that if it was put to a vote of the people, all the people of the state, they would vote to keep this land in the park system. But like a number of other issues, the legislature would still go the other way. It has become like a religion...if you are conservative, you are against any more public land, or any control of private land; it's in the conservative bible. I'd also bet there are a lot of people (voters) who consider themselves conservatives but like the idea of public lands, but once you become a legislator, apparently you have to follow the conservative bible. And since there is a very strong anti-government streak in much or rural Missouri, the legislators don't pay a price for being against the government owning more land.

Nope, the federal easement takes precedent over the state, unless the state can make a deal with them...I did the research. Whether or not it is or was fair for the McGibneys to have part of their land in an easement, that has exactly zero bearing on them bringing a lawsuit against the state concerning land they do not own. And by the way, it's the National Forest Service, not the National Park Service. The Eleven Point is administered entirely differently than the Current and Jacks Fork. The Park Service actually owns most of the land along those two streams, not just an easement. To see what the dangers of having just an easement that does not prohibit agricultural activities can mean, check out the upper Eleven Point below Thomasville, which is under the easement, but which has fords crossing it and cattle grazing right down to water's edge in places, because one big landowner up there does the bare minimum of what they are required to do to take care of the riparian corridor.

And now Echo Bluff is a gem of the state parks and gets more visitation than nearly any of the other parks, thus bringing more money into Shannon County and the state. And that does not answer any of my questions above.

Exactly why do you call this a folly? It was the purchase of private land for a state park. And exactly what was the McGibneys' stake in this, that they brought a lawsuit? There is a lot people don't seem to understand about this. First of all, the land within a quarter mile of the river is protected from DEVELOPMENT under a scenic easement purchased by the federal government under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers program. BUT, "development" does not include agricultural activity, and the land under the easement can still be used for cattle grazing, with NO control over how much it is grazed or otherwise subject to agricultural activity. Thus, if the land subject to the easement is sold back into private ownership, it will NOT have the same level of protection it would have under the state park system. Keep in mind that the easement would be enforced no matter who owns it, unless the state makes a deal with the feds to allow river access through it. I highly doubt that the feds would allow other development within the river corridor, including cabins and campgrounds. BUT, also keep in mind that the easement only is in effect on between 600 and 700 acres. The rest of the land is outside the easement, and the total land area of the purchase is well over 4000 acres. Now...either the land ONLY under the easement is forced to be sold, and presumably might be bought by somebody wanting to graze cattle on it or do other agricultural activities, OR the whole thing is forced to be sold, in which case way over 3000 acres of sensitive land within the Eleven Point watershed is going to be subject to development. I bet it's highly likely that the legislature, now emboldened by this decision if it stands, will once again try to force the DNR to sell the whole thing. And thus we all lose, except for whoever buys it and develops it. This all started as simple revenge by the Republicans on Nixon, trying to embarrass him at the end of his term of office when it looked like he might run for the Senate or other national office, and also the Republican distaste for public lands in general.

Every decent size Ozark stream has crappie, but their habitat requirements limit their populations. They avoid current as much as possible. I've caught them even in middle Current River, but only in dead quiet backwaters. Catch some on the Meramec in backwaters as well. Have caught them all the way up past Irondale on Big River. But the only stream I've ever actually targeted them successfully on is the St. Francis. Every big pool on that river has a school or two of crappie.

Pink Pookies were deadly for a while, but the trout seem to have gotten tired of being hooked on them. I'll have to try my Madam Xs...for some reason haven't tied one on this summer.

Trout on the Yellowstone have been eating hoppers pretty well, but have been picky about the exact imitation. Surprisingly, big imitations have been working better than the smaller ones...I'm talking foam hoppers about 2 inches long. But yesterday they wouldn't take any of my foam hoppers, so I went old school with a Joe's Hopper...deer hair head and wrapped body, hackle, and extra length hackle bundled into hind legs. Caught an 18 inch brown and a 17 inch rainbow.

Way too fancy for catching winter smallies! Looks cool, Mitch!

The structure, called a Newberry Riffle, is a short distance below the mouth of Flat River Creek, about a mile below the Highway 67 bridges just north of Desloge. It's basically a low dam, but instead of just one big drop over it they stairstepped it into 4 different drops. It's still a huge pain in the butt to get around. It's four lines of big boulders running across the river. There are gaps between the boulders that you could run a canoe through, but the gaps don't line up from one drop to the next, so you have to move the boat sideways after you run one, in order to hit the next one. And that would still be doable except there just isn't enough space between the drops, only about 15 feet. So it's pretty much impossible to run unless the river is high enough that it is seriously scary to run. I've watched them work around it, and I finally understand what they are trying to do with it. Pretty much, the dam itself will back up the river just a few hundred yards, but slow it enough that in high water the mine waste silt is supposed to settle out, then periodically they come in and dredge out the silt. If I understand it, the "riffle" is supposed to be designed the way it is in order to allow fish passage through it. I suppose it is working. But I think you'd need to have one of these about every couple miles between Desloge and Bonne Terre to really make any kind of dent in the mine waste.

Dang it, Scott, you're killing me. I've been through a long dry spell on big fish. Out here in Montana now, but couldn't seem to tag any real big ones this year in Missouri. The Yellowstone isn't an easy river to find a big trout, but I found one today...a hidden pile of rocks that used to be a rip rap point before the river ate its way around it and left it in the middle of the channel, right below a fast riffle. The river is just now low enough to really see this rockpile, and I doubt if many people fish it because they are mostly too busy running the riffle and it sneaks up on them. But Mary was practicing her rowing, and leaving me to drift a big fat hopper imitation right over that rockpile, where a brown trout as big around as my leg came up and took it...and didn't get hooked. It's less than a mile below the house, so I plan on trying that fish again soon. Ain't it fun talking about big fish?

Upper Jacks Fork is slightly above normal for this time of year, but still doesn't have enough water to make it anything but a scrape bottom in every riffle deal. Just looked at the gauge and it's flowing 43 cfs at Buck Hollow. You need 75 cfs to have a chance to float most of the riffles without scarring up your boat bottom. It looks a little better at Alley--the gauge there is just above the spring and it's showing 106 cfs, which theoretically should be enough water to float from Bay Creek to Alley, but that stretch has gotten to where it has a lot of 50 yard wide, one inch deep riffles.

Well, it's a heck of a nice fish, but it can't be over 19 inches!

Northern rock bass, then!

Best way to tell them apart is that the spiny dorsal fin on sauger is covered with black spots, while on walleye it is clear except for one black spot at the rear end of it, membrane between the last couple of spines. The white on the bottom lobe of the tail fin is the second thing you look for, and usually pretty reliable as well. Sauger USUALLY have those big dark blotches, while walleye often have blotches as well but they aren't as dark or as big, but there are more of them. And then there are saugeye, which can have a mixture of characteristics.

Jet boats can probably run the North Fork up to at least Dawt Mill. Maybe above there, but there are a few rocky rapids and the low falls that would stop them, and normally this time of year it's low enough that you better really know what you're doing. Just saw on the gauge at Tecumseh that it's flowing a bit higher than normal at 559 cfs. I kinda figure that 500 cfs is a good cut-off point for running a jet on water you don't know very well. I wouldn't run a jet on the Big Piney anywhere above the lower end of Fort Wood.

Well, can't tell you for absolute certain what it is unless you tell me the river system where you were fishing...not the river, just the river system. I call them all goggle-eye, too, but I do know the three species of rock bass in Missouri and in general how they differ from each other. But I can't see the anal fin well enough on this one to tell you whether it's a northern rock bass or a shadow bass, unless you tell me the river system. If it's the Meramec or Gasconade, northern rock bass. If it's Black, St. Francis, Current, Eleven Point, shadow bass.

Because I find fishing it unnecessary to catch all the fish I want to catch, and boring as heck. Plus, I don't like to catch sunfish about half the time. I don't fish to amass numbers of dinks with a few bigger ones thown in, I fish for the excitement of having a nice fish hit a lure when I can see all the action, or in the winter for the pure challenge of finding and catching big fish. I tried Ned rigs, didn't catch any more nice fish on them than on my usual lures, and didn't enjoy fishing them.

Sounds like you should have caught some bass on Big River by now, but maybe not smallmouth, since they are rather scarce on lower Big. Black River is about 98% smallmouth, so your chances go way up there. But it's a tricky river to fish because it's so super clear. The Ned rig should work on Black River, but you have to make LONG casts, because the fish can see you from a long way off. I'm not a Ned rig angler...I hate the things and refuse to use them. But it's probably as good as anything to use to just catch some fish.

Oh yeah, don't even get me started on that!

Meh, they kicked me off that group because I was always debunking their sightings of mountain lions and wolves. Especially wolves. Most of those people don't know a darned thing about wolves. And very little about mountain lions.

They are a little more sophisticated now...heavy metal box like the old ammo cans, fitted with a toilet seat. They dump chemicals in it when they pack up in the morning and seal it up for the day; the chemicals start to break it down and remove the stink. But they are still called groovers. The original groovers were named because you squatted directly on the ammo can, and the open edge of the can put grooves in your rear end!