Al Agnew

The guy was apparently illegal. Maybe the best thing you can do is back off to where he can't easily come and get you, but can still see you, and try to make sure he sees you making the phone call. Another thing I've done when I see somebody actually catch an illegal fish, or if I see them with illegal fish on a stringer that I think will survive if released, is first tell them in a friendly manner that it's illegal to keep those fish, and then tell them conspiratorially that I just saw the "game warden" upstream or at the nearest access, heading this way. The majority of the time, they then release the fish, although I've had a couple of people just start looking for a good way to hide them. Nothing inherently wrong about killing and eating legal bass, but the fishery would probably be better if everybody kept smaller ones and released the big ones. I really like eating 12-14 inch bass, but when they get bigger than that the taste goes downhill fast. I don't keep smallmouths because in a lot of the waters I fish they need all the help they can get. But I eat spotted bass from the streams where they are a problem (if they aren't too wormy) and I eat a LOT of largemouths out of a couple of private lakes where they need to be thinned. But I won't keep anything over 13 inches or so.

A good wading staff is an absolute necessity for me when the water is up. The power of three feet of fast water is incredible, but a wading staff and a healthy dose of caution does wonders.

Shifting things with weight to the forward will help tracking, but you still have the problem of the seat position. The farther back the seat is, the more any straight paddle stroke will want to turn the canoe, unless you have so much weight forward that the front end is lower in the water than the back end. And that makes turning TOO difficult. If YOU are close to the middle of the canoe, your strokes need less correction, but the canoe is still easy to turn when you want to. You can turn it with what I'd call a forward-reaching pry, which is reaching toward the front of the canoe and pushing the paddle straight outwards, or a forward-reaching draw, which is pulling the paddle in toward the front part of the canoe, essentially pulling the front end in the direction you want to go. I do that one a lot when I want to turn the canoe to the side I'm paddling on without switching sides. Can't do it with your seat too far back. Sweeps still work well to turn the canoe while powering forward(reaching forward, pulling the paddle outward and backward, then as it passes your body, turning it inward, so that the paddle makes an arc around your body). And regular pries and draws work a lot better if you're in the center...you are pulling or pushing the canoe sideways by reaching straight out and pulling the paddle straight toward you (draw) or starting against the side of the canoe and pushing straight outward (pry). By changing the angle of the blade in the water, you can even make a draw or pry turn the canoe in place without moving much forward, backward, or sideways. But if your seat placement is too far back, pries and draws turn the canoe when you don't want it to turn. Yet you can still use ordinary J-strokes to keep the canoe going straight, and the J doesn't have to be very strong. A slight feathering of the paddle blade outward at the back end of the stroke is all you will need for at least several strokes. The only thing the Pack was never much good at was ferrying, and I ferry a LOT. Ferrying is turning the canoe so that the back end is angled in the sideways direction you want to go, and backpaddling. It's the most useful technique you can ever learn for running fast water on Ozark streams. For instance, the biggest danger, and the way most people get in trouble, is when you encounter a fast, curving riffle with a sweeper tree or log on the outside of the bend. Centrifugal force wants to push the canoe right into the obstacle. If you do as some of the guidebooks, including Oz Hawksley's old book "Missouri Ozark Waterways", suggests and paddle faster than the current in such a place, you're turning the FRONT end of the canoe away from the obstacle, the current is hitting the side of the canoe, and pushing it even faster INTO the obstacle. And when you hit the obstacle, you hit it sideways, the final ingredient in that recipe for disaster. If you paddle hard enough to avoid the obstacle, you may miss it but the front end ends up in the eddy on the inside while the current is still hitting the back end, and you turn a doughnut, not very expert-appearing. So what you do is basically point the front end of the canoe INTO the obstacle, and backpaddle. You have more control, you're slowing the canoe down in the current, and the current is actually hitting the side that is facing TOWARD the obstacle, and helping to push it away. Once the front end of the canoe gets past the obstacle, it's easy to straighten it because the front end is out in more current while the back end is in the eddy or slower water toward the inside of the bend, so the current helps you. And if you miscalculate and hit the obstacle, you hit it with the front end and not sideways, and you're less likely to flip. But the Pack always turned too easily. I'd get it at the right angle to ferry, but the next back paddling stroke would turn it even more. And the last thing you want to have to do is switch sides or make frantic correcting strokes in the middle of fast water. For ferrying to work well, you need a canoe that resists turning a bit more than the Pack. My present solo, the Vagabond, is much better at ferrying. I use it not only to avoid those obstacles, but to ease into back eddies. If you stick your front end into a back eddy, the canoe turns around backwards. If you backpaddle your back end into the eddy first, the front end follows, sliding right into it, and your canoe straightens up. Sorry if I've bored you with the paddling lesson, kinda got off topic a bit.

Just as important, understand that the water will probably be the clearest you've ever seen. The usual suspects named above should all work, although I'm not a big fan of crankbaits in extremely clear water. But the key is to make long casts. The fish on upper Black are used to canoes and other watercraft going by them, but they do tend to hunker down when they see the traffic.

I agree, Chief, they should. But it seems like MDC is walking on eggshells on matters like this. Because, the unfortunate fact is that the Republican-dominated legislature is all for gravel mining. To the outstate Republicans, it's all about property rights and as little government regulation as possible. And MDC seems to be afraid to do much to get them riled, because there's always that threat of bringing the sales tax for MDC back up for a vote again. Back when I was on the workgroup, even though the DNR and MDC were present, the pro-gravel-mining folks, supported by a couple of prominent Republican politicians and the Farm Bureau (which is also all for gravel mining at any cost) insisted that they would have no vote on any proposed regulations. The representatives from MDC and DNR were supposed to sit there and "observe", and only add to the discussion if asked specific questions. So you see what we were up against even in an administration that was nominally on our side. It's a lot more difficult now.

Interesting stuff on the new Pack... My first solo canoe was a Pack. I loved it, but I quickly figured out that I could improve upon it by adding some things and modifying others. The first thing is, the seat on the Pack is simply too far back. Move that seat up to where the front edge of the seat is pretty close the the center of the boat, and the Pack tracks better without sacrificing any maneuverability. Second thing I added was a removable anchor system, but I ran it off the BACK of the boat. I wonder why Old Town elected to run it off the front. I used a homemade seat back for many years, but have gone to the Sitbacker myself these days...extremely comfortable, I can't imagine that any kayak seat would be as comfortable. I also wonder whether the seat on the new angler version would be as comfortable as a Sitbacker. I like the workstation with storage beneath it. You could add a storage pack that straps beneath your seat and have room for quite a few lures to carry! I gotta say that, for the price they are asking for the Pack, you can probably get a solo that paddles better and trick it out yourself. That's one of the complaints I have with "angler" boats...my ideas of what I need may not correspond to the manufacturer's ideas, and I'd rather trick it out myself. With my homegrown system, I can carry 5 Plano 3701 boxes, 4 Plano 3600 boxes, and all of them within easy reach and off the bottom of the canoe. But I like the idea of the workstation...might look into doing something like that but removable on my Vagabond. That's the other thing about "angler" modifications. I kinda like the stuff you add to the boat to be easily removable. They add weight and sometimes they make it more difficult to carry, so if I'm using a really bad, inconvenient, have-to-walk-a-long-way access, I want the boat to be as light and easy to carry as possible.

Just one final note, JD, and I'll let it go...I've paddled in some good kayaks, not just rentals. The comparisons I'm making are mostly of features inherent to kayaks and solo canoes, assuming that both are good designs. And in the other thread, the guy asked for opinions on tandem canoes, so I assumed he wanted something that two people could paddle in. That's why I took the discussion over to this thread, because I didn't want to hijack his thread with discussions of solo craft, either kayaks or canoes. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that kayaks are fun and they are serviceable fishing craft, but they are simply not as versatile as solo canoes FOR FISHING. If you're in the market for a solo FISHING vehicle, you can't beat a solo canoe. But the current kayak craze makes most people THINK that the yak is the only choice you have if you're wanting a solo paddlecraft. I would venture to bet that the vast majority of kayak owners are like JD...they never tried a solo canoe.

JD, you just proved my point--"I have not tried any of the solo canoes..." A decent solo canoe is NOTHING like a tandem canoe, and you simply CANNOT compare a tandem canoe to a solo kayak of any kind, nor can you dismiss canoes unless you HAVE tried a solo. I guarantee you my solo drafts as little water as any kayak you'll paddle, unless you weigh a whole lot less than I do. I also don't see a whole lot of difference between a 12-14 ft. solo canoe and a 10-12 ft. kayak as far as tight places are concerned, and what you might gain in tight places with less length of boat, you lose in more length of paddle. As far as tipping over, in something like 20 years of paddling solo canoes a LOT, I've gotten wet by accident three times, and one of those was not really an accident, because I tried to run a little concrete dam, but knew it was risky so I took my gear out before running it. And although some anglers may not appreciate this, I routinely carry five fishing rods in the solo with me, all of them within easy reach, and all of them with tips inside the gunwales of the canoe and protected from getting snagged on brush. If you can do that with ANY kayak, including the Native, I'd be extremely surprised. I agree with you that kayaks can be more stealthy for hunting. I don't see that as any kind of an advantage for fishing, however.

Yep, sounds like you should have a great trip. That stretch of the Buffalo is absolutely gorgeous. Only the Ponca to Erbie stretch on the upper end is more spectacularly scenic.

Listen to Gavin re shorter vs. longer boats. Short tandem canoes, under 16 feet especially, will give you problems with stowing rods safely and with possible snagging of your partner on the backcast. Plus, all other things being equal, the shorter the canoe is, the poorer it is in tracking ability.

There ya go, Trout Fanatic...you really need BOTH! Coldwaterfisher, yep, and I'm still so conflicted about it I'm gonna have to spend huge amounts of money for Psychiatrist bills! Actually, the jetboat gets a lot of use in cold weather, but from now til November my canoes will get wet a whole lot more than the jetboat.

A comment on kayaks over canoes in another thread prompted me to write this (again), and rather than hijack that thread, I thought I'd start a new one. Kayaks are all the rage these days. I can understand it for pleasure floaters, but I can't believe anglers love them so much, because they have inherent drawbacks for fishing compared to solo canoes. The problem seems to be that everybody compares solo kayaks to the tandem canoes they've always rented or owned, and most of them seem to be comparing them to the 17 ft. aluminum canoe that used to be the rental and boy scout camp standard. OF COURSE, a solo kayak is probably going to be faster, more maneuverable, and easier to paddle than a tandem canoe, especially a tandem canoe with a vanilla design like the usual 17 ft. rec canoe. But it isn't a fair comparison unless you compare the kayak to a craft that's meant to do the same thing--carry ONE person. And that's a SOLO canoe. I've spent time in both, and the solo canoe can do anything a solo kayak can, and do most of it better, especially if you use a double bladed paddle with it, along with a single blade. I've paddled around, played in, and rented kayaks for fun...but I own 4 solo canoes, and have owned two others in the past. I think I'm on a one-man crusade to get people off the kayak craze and onto solo canoes...if solo canoes were more popular, there would be more good models more widely available. Things that my Wenonah Vagabond does as well as any kayak I've ever paddled: speed (with a double bladed paddle) going upstream (with a double bladed paddle) maneuverability (with either a single or double blade) stability (if you REALLY need to be stable, like in rapids, you can kneel in it) Things it does BETTER: Carries a lot more gear, and carries rods, etc. a lot more conveniently Portability (easier to cartop, and it weighs 43 pounds compared to the 50 or more pounds of the average sit-in kayak) Precise one-handed maneuverability (while you're holding your fishing rod in the other hand) Better on twisty, brushy, narrow little creeks (with the single blade--you don't have a double blade sticking out on the sides or up in the air to get hung in brush when things get tight) Comfort (most people find sitting up in a canoe more comfortable than sitting with your legs straight out in front in a kayak) Better visibility and castability (higher vantage point and higher angle off the water) Things the kayak can do better: Shorter learning curve (although you can learn to handle either with a double bladed paddle just as easily, single blade strokes in a canoe take a bit more knowledge and practice) Handles wind better (due to lower profile) So for anybody considering buying a kayak, you owe it to yourself to try out a good solo canoe first. There are good Royalex models for fishing made by Old Town (the Pack), Wenonah (Vagabond, Wilderness, Argosy), Bell (Yellowstone Solo), and Mohawk (Solo 13 and 14, Odyssey).

Excellent point, Dano. I've only taken out at Buffalo City once, and I'd much rather paddle the 12 miles down the White to Norfork rather than fight that current up to Buffalo City if the river is high. It's pretty much impossible in a loaded canoe. There are a couple of other accesses, both on the opposite bank, between Buffalo City and Norfork, but they aren't easy to see from the river and I've never used them. With high water, the White is usually easy to paddle down to Norfork, but your margin for error is zero...if you flip on the White in high water, you're in trouble.

Hate to bring politics into it, but DNR personnel really do have their hands tied, as long as this state doesn't have stricter rules governing gravel mining. And the current administration and their appointee to head DNR have turned the agency away from TRYING to get stricter rules in place. I was on a gravel mining workgroup back a few years ago (in a different administration's term of office) trying to come up with rules. The Corps of Engineers used to have jurisdiction over gravel mining, but a lawsuit won by gravel miners took it out of the Corps' hands, and the state was trying to come up with rules to replace those of the Corps. We were unable to get much of anything accomplished because most of the politicians from county commissioners in Ozark counties to state legislators seemed to believe that the gravel miners had a god-given right to make money any way they could. And it didn't help that most landowners along the rivers also believed they had the god-given right to make money selling the gravel, and besides, many of them were convinced that getting gravel out of the streams actually "improved" them. MDC has NO say in this matter, for some stupid reason...it isn't looked upon by the politicians as a fish and wildlife matter, but as a property rights deal. It didn't matter that all the science was on our side back when I was in the workgroup, the politicians and gravel miners and good ol' boys running the counties didn't believe any o' that science, anyway. As you can tell, it was a very frustrating experience.

The only constructive purpose to "assigning blame" is if, in doing so, you CAN use it to figure out what to do to prevent it in the future. But, like I said before, I have mixed feelings about trying to make the rivers "safe" by removing all the obstacles. Those obstacles tend to be good habitat for river critters, especially fish. And I'd be a bit afraid that if you turned loose private organizations to remove them, they might get a bit overzealous and remove everything in sight. As for canoe liveries refusing rentals...another sticky problem. At what point do you draw the line? How do you evaluate the skill level and common sense of the renter? Nope, in my opinion, in the end it's a wild river. Wild rivers aren't inherently safe. You can't MAKE them safe without removing the wildness. Accidents will always happen, horrific as some of them may be. Whoever is assigned the job of removing dangerous obstacles, they have to show restraint and only remove the worst of them, and do it in such a way that it is little noticeable.

Just a few comments on the other suggestions...don't mean to be critical, guys, but I've paddled a lot of DIFFERENT canoes over the years, so I can compare designs. Buffalo canoes--the 16 ft. tandem has two drawbacks. One, it's heavy for a 16 ft. Royalex...the Penobscot that I suggested weighs 58 pounds in the 16 ft. length, the Buffalo 16 ft. weighs 72 pounds. Not bad, but not as good. The other drawback is the height of the ends. 25 inches is high...I think the Penobscot is something like 18 inches on the ends. High ends catch wind worse, and get in your way if you are fishing from one and making sidearm casts (to get under the wind). The OT Tripper is a high volume canoe...if you plan on doing a lot of canoe camping it's a great choice. But compared to the Penobscot it's a barge to paddle. But...fact is that a lot of canoes from good companies like Old Town, Wenonah, or Bell will serve your purposes very well. And canoe design is always a trade-off. There simply isn't one perfect canoe. You have to decide what your predominant usage will be, and pick a design that will fit that usage the best, knowing that for other uses it won't be very good. Plan on soloing in your canoe occasionally? There is NOT a canoe out there that is great for both tandem and solo use, although a lot of them will be serviceable solo. Plan on using a motor most of the time? Any canoe that does very well with a motor probably WON'T do very well when you DON'T use a motor. Plan on using your canoe occasionally on small, twisty creeks? The design that does best in bigger waters won't do very well on the creeks. The ideal thing is to test-paddle any canoe you're interested in. Unfortunately, that isn't an option with many canoe dealers, anymore.

Not very many people have used a canoe more for fishing than I have. Some thoughts as to your "requirements". Most people think they want a "stable" canoe for fishing. However, as you apparently know, there is initial stability, which is how stable the canoe FEELS, and final stability, which is how hard it is to actually tip over. They are two different things, and a canoe with good initial stability (wide, flat bottomed) often has worse final stability--once you get it up on its side, it rolls over like a log. As Wayne said, you can flyfish from about any canoe, but as Coldwaterfisher said, flyfishing from any canoe isn't all that easy. Standing in just about any canoe that you'd want to paddle very far is usually not easy, nor probably a good thing to do in cold tailwater streams in all but the hottest part of the year. So...considering that you probably don't want to stand in your canoe, that you will be using it a lot on tailwaters to get you to the next spot to fish, and that tailwaters are pretty much wide open and don't really REQUIRE maneuverability, you might want to change your parameters a bit. In my opinion, what you really want is a canoe that will get you down, and even UP, the river with a minimum of effort. So I'm going to throw out a suggestion for you. I've been floating and fishing from the Old Town Penobscot 16 for many years now. In my opinion, it's the best-paddling Royalex canoe on the market. It feels a bit tippy for the novice and when you first get in one, but it has excellent final stability, and it will paddle on a straight line and get somewhere fast when you want it to. I don't do much flyfishing from the canoe, but I have done it with no problems, and I can certainly use baitcasting and spinning gear with ease from it. In my opinion, "maneuverability" is a highly over-rated feature for Ozark streams, especially the larger streams. You would want a maneuverable canoe for creeks up to the size of, say, the upper Jacks Fork or the Current below Montauk, or for something like the upper end of the Buffalo, but I MUCH prefer a canoe that will track well and go fast for anything bigger that you'll find in the Ozarks. The other good feature of a good tracking canoe is that the same characteristics that make it slide through the water with a minimum of effort and stay straight also make the current slide by it if you're holding it parallel to the current in fast water, or trying to go upstream a bit to re-fish some good water or reach that spot that's a mile or so ABOVE the access. In good-tracking, fast Royalex canoes, just about everybody agrees that the Penobscot is tops. And it's not that you CAN'T turn it...once you get used to it, you'll find it to be plenty maneuverable enough.

We're having cell phone problems right now...have had ATT/Cingular for a while and was pretty happy with it in Missouri and most places we traveled, but in Montana you might as well forget about it--I think they only have one tower in the whole state. Since we have a cabin in Montana now, that ain't working very good. Verizon works like a charm in that part of Montana, but we are giving it a try in MO and so far the jury is still out.

Not a lot of exceptionally deep water, but lots of big, rocky pools running 4-6 feet, perfect depth for good smallie fishing in the summer. The water is usually quite clear, clearer than you might be used to if you fish the upper Niangua, Gasconade, and Bourbeuse. There are a lot fewer logs and woody cover than you're used to, as well. Lots of gravel. Quite a bit of shallow, open water over gravel, sometimes over solid bedrock. As the summer goes along the fish concentrate more near the heads of the bigger pools where there is some current, but in mid-May, with the river levels the way they have been, there should be plenty of flow and the fish could be anywhere. In the heavier flows, about anything you mentioned might work, but if the water is clear, you might want to make long casts with topwaters and buzzbaits. And you might want to upsize your baits a bit, especially if there is a lot of flow.

Kinda hard to know exactly who to assign blame to... A lot of people think nature is a version of Disneyland and nothing bad can happen to them (or their kids). A lot of liveries and businesses don't stress nearly enough how dangerous even a moderately high river can be. I don't know exactly what I think about removing obstacles, though on the rivers with lots of canoe rentals that aren't run by the government, removing canoe hazards is standard practice. Nature just doesn't care. So if you're responsible for others, YOU have to care a LOT.

And if you don't think I thank my lucky stars every day...amazing what a bit of talent, a bit of work ethic, and a very smart wife will get you! Although, I only average about 65-70 days of fishing per year. Nope, haven't taken Dad there yet. He's never fished for trout in his life, but I think he'd like the place! I hope to, one of these days.

My buddy Tom M. and I have been going to Montana every year for a dozen years now. It started out not long after I met him--we had discovered we were kin dred spirits when it came to fishing, even though I was more a baitcasting smallmouth angler and he was a diehard flyfisherman for trout. The first year, we booked five days at the Yellowstone Valley Ranch on the Yellowstone in Paradise Valley south of Livingston, along with Tom's friend Smith. There, we met a couple of guides, Tom C. and Dennis A., who would become friends. I was more or less a novice flyfisherman back then, but I watched Tom M. and Tom C., who was our guide (Dennis was Smith's). Tom M. had requested a guide who was willing to work with anglers who were more interested in fishing than in the rather luxurious amenities of the Ranch, and the first day we went to Sixteenmile Creek, more than an hour's drive from the lodge. At noon, Tom C. mentioned lunch. Tom M. and I kept fishing. At 2PM he asked again if we wanted lunch. We kept fishing. About 3PM we grabbed the sandwiches, wolfed them down, and continued fishing. At 4:30 Tom C. said we'd have to leave now to make it back to the Ranch in time for dinner. We said we'd rather keep fishing. When Tom C. said it was fine with him, we knew we'd found a keeper! That was in early July of the first year of the back to back record Yellowstone River flood years, and the river, which should have been in good fishing condition, was still high and muddy the whole time. We knew we'd have to come back to fish the Yellowstone. The next year, Tom C. had branched out into guiding on his own, and we set up a trip a week later, staying at the historic Murray Hotel in Livingston and having Tom guide us again. I don't remember who else came with us that year, but Dennis was again their guide. But the Yellowstone had suffered even greater floods, and wasn't fishable again...until the last couple of days of our week-long trip. When we finally got on it, we fell in love with it. Tom C. told us we had to come out in late April, before the snowmelt started, to hopefully fish the Mother's Day caddis hatch, so we did. For the next few years we hit the hatch a few times and missed it a few times, experienced early run-off that forced us to other streams, and had great experiences in weather that could be snowing one day and 70 degrees the next. We fished the entire Yellowstone from Gardiner to Big Timber (except for Yankee Jim Canyon). We fished the lower Madison, the Shields, the Boulder, the Stillwater, Taylors Fork. We made the three hour drive to the Bighorn several times. We fished the famous spring creeks, Armstrong's, De Puy's, and Nelson's. We fished some private lakes. Thanks in large part to Tom and Tom, I became a reasonably proficient and knowledgeable flyfisherman.\ Tom C. became a fast friend. He came to Missouri to fish with us. He became a member of our little organization, Mystic Fish of the Meramec. We were there for his marriage, the birth of his daughter, and the birth of his business shaping and rehabilitating trout stream habitat. He mostly quit the guiding, but still guided us, rowing us down many miles of water in all weather conditions, staying out late...one time on the Bighorn, he asked us if we wanted to do the the 3.5 mile float or the 10 mile float, and then, before we could answer (our answer was always that we would let the guide be our guide) he said, why not do the whole 13.5 mile stretch. We got off the river that night two hours after dark. A whole cast of other characters accompanied us at various times, but it was always Tom and Tom and me. There was one time on the Bighorn when we had Tom C., Dennis, and another guide, and 6 Missouri anglers. We were lined up at a great riffle corner, stretched out over 100 yards of gravel bar, all of us having a ball catching fish, and we said that we'd just transported Maramec Spring to Montana. Some of my fondest memories of fishing and big fish revolve around those annual trips to Montana. There was the huge brown, that looked as thick as my thigh, which took a streamer in the middle of fast water on the lower Madison. It was too fast to slow or stop the driftboat, and the big fish drove for the middle of the river and then just held in the current as we drifted further and further away, down into my backing, through the backing, and then the leader popped. There was the time on Armstrong's Spring Creek, where the fish are supposedly ultra-sophisticated and you have to use tiny flies and gossamer tippet. But I discovered that the big browns that roamed the flats were suckers for a Woolybugger on a windy day. I'd already had a good morning, catching 20 or so rainbows and browns on tiny nymphs, but when the wind came up I started fishing that flat and caught more than 30 browns from 14-19 inches that afternoon. There was the monster brown that took a baetis imitation that Tom was using, while I watched from the high bank above. He didn't get that one, either. And that Mother's Day caddis hatch? It's a tricky thing. The average date that it happens is right around the very last of April. The water temps on the river have to be up around 50 degrees. However, on many years, if the water temps on the Yellowstone in the Livingston area are that warm, chances are the snowmelt up in Yellowstone Park has started and the river gets blown out. So ideally you have to have warm, sunny weather down around Livingston but cool weather up in the park for everything to come together. But when it does... One year it was perfect. We were on the river just above Livingston when it started. The morning was cool and cloudy, the water was murky but fishable, and the fish that morning, as if already knowing something was going to happen, were active. It was one of the best mornings of streamer fishing I've ever had, with 16-22 inch browns striking streamers with wild abandon. The streamer fishing was so good that when the hatch started we were reluctant to switch over to dry flies. But soon the bugs were thick and the rises were many. This hatch is the first big hatch of the year, and the fish are hungry after a long winter, so they really eat caddis. And boy, are there a lot of caddis. They got so thick that at any one time, you couldn't find a square inch on your body that didn't have caddis clinging to it, except the parts that were underwater when wading. And those parts became totally covered with the sticky, lime-green egg cases of the caddis as they went about procreating. Soon there mats of caddis floating down the river. At first the mats were small and we were calling them caddis cookies. But soon they got so big we started calling them caddis pizzas. You'd think that it would be almost impossible for a rising trout to pick out your fly amongst all the caddis. But the trick seemed to be to use a fly that was about one size bigger than the actual bugs. Often YOU couldn't tell your fly from the real ones, but you'd watch where you thought it would be, see a rise in the vicinity, set the hook, and more often than not you'd have a fish. It was unreal, and it went on the whole afternoon. The next day the hatch continued unabated, but the trout were getting full. Rises were less frequent, and tricking the fish into taking your fly was more difficult. Still, at any other time you'd be happy with number of fish we caught that second day. After that, however, the hatch trailed off in the succeeding days and the fishing got tough. There was also the time on the Boulder River--we parked at a bridge, and as Tom and Tom waded upstream, I stopped at the first little run above the bridge to try it. The run was very nondescript, a zone of moving current only about 3 feet deep, below a gentle riffle, with a few good sized boulders, only about 30 feet long by 10 feet wide. When Tom and Tom came back down to see what had happened to me three hours later, I was still in that run, catching fish on a Hare's Ear nymph. I must have caught at least 30 browns and rainbows out of that one run, along with even more whitefish. There was the time on the Boulder when I was separated from the others. I was wading up a long straight stretch about waist deep when I heard a crashing in the brush on the right bank, and then this huge black bear launched itself off the bank into the water with a tremendous splash, and went bulldozing across the river not 30 feet in front of me, up the other bank, and into the brush. I have no idea where that bear was going, but I almost needed to go to bank to empty my waders! All things change, but not always for the worse. Two years ago, Tom C. called us and suggested something different--a horseback pack trip into the Yellowstone back-country, going up Slough Creek to the "third meadow" to fish for native Yellowstone cutthroats. Tom C.'s wife and daughter went, along with my wife Mary and Tom M. It was a tremendous trip with MANY big cutthroats caught. Last year things REALLY changed. Mary and I had been going to the area in the autumn for several years to spend time photographing wildlife in Yellowstone, and she fell in love with the area. It was she who suggested we start looking for a place in or around Livingston to spend part of the year. Tom C.'s wife Teresa is a real estate agent in Livingston, and Mary called her and told her to start looking for us. In May we flew to Montana to look at some prospects, and ended up buying a half-finished cabin on 20 acres in Paradise Valley. In June Mary's brother drove out to finish the cabin, with Mary and I helping. In July Tom M. came out for a week for the annual trip, and stayed in the cabin with us for a couple of days. We had our usual great time and good fishing with Tom C., although the river was very low and warm from the continuing drought and hot weather and it was closed to fishing each day after 2 PM. We spent a couple of days over on the Stillwater and had terrific hopper fishing. At the end of Tom M.'s time, Tom C. said that this would be his last guiding trip, that from now on he didn't feel comfortable charging us money, but would still fish with us--and actually FISH, rather than just rowing the boat and netting our fish! He said we'd have to learn to row a driftboat. Mary and I stayed after Tom M. left, and I went on one trip with Tom C. and did some rowing. But he suggested that we needed to go in together and buy a raft, which would be more versatile than the driftboat. So that brings us to this year. We all decided that we'd go back to the late April/early May period for the annual get-together. The raft was bought and rigged. The timing should have been right for the caddis hatch. But the day that Tom M., Mary, and I got to Livingston it was snowing. The next day Tom C. had to do some work, so Tom M. and I waded the river in a thick snowstorm, catching some fish, but really working to clamber over snow-covered boulders. The second full day, two of our Missouri friends arrived, and while Tom C. still had to work, Tom M. and I took the raft, along with Dennis and our Missouri buddies in his driftboat, and floated the river. Again, it snowed most of the day, and in the afternoon the wind came up to 30 mph gusts, certainly a learning experience for paddling the raft. The last mile of the float the wind was howling upstream, Tom was rowing with his back to wind to get downstream against it, and I was standing up in the "front" of the raft, facing the wind and blowing snow to guide him because he couldn't turn around to see where he was going. Fish were caught, but nothing special. The third day the 6 of us did another Yellowstone float, and it was a pleasant enough day. Tom M and I did a lot of the rowing in the raft, while Tom C. finally got to actually do a lot of fishing. But the fishing was again mediocre for everybody, although Tom M caught a beautiful 22 inch brown on a red Copper John. The next day we were doing a float on the rive below town, and it was a warm, sunny day...but the wind was monstrous. At least it was blowing downstream, but it was at least 45-50 mph. Fishing was exceedingly tough (or at least casting was tough), but we all caught fish. Still, the hatch showed no signs of starting. The day after that was gorgeous. Tom C. had done all the rowing in the wind the day before because of his experience, so on this day Tom M. and I told him he would do NO rowing. This was the day I really learned how to row the raft. The hatch should have been starting, but...no bugs. Fishing was really tough. It seemed the river was simply dead. Tom M. pulled it out with a nice 20 inch rainbow, but there were no other notable fish caught. Our Missouri buddies left after that day, and the next day we just KNEW the hatch would start. The water temps had risen into the 50s. The air temps were in the high 70s. The fish were active. I caught a nice brown on a streamer, while Tom and Tom caught plenty of fish on nymphs. But...no bugs. By this time, I'm getting a little worn out, and Mary had been going up into the park to photograph and seeing a lot of animals, so I decided to go into the park with her, while Tom M spent the day on De Puy's Spring Creek. We got a lot of good photos, and Tom caught at least 70 fish and had De Puy's to himself...in another snowstorm and 35 degree temps! Thursday Tom, Tom, and I were going to do another Yellowstone float, but the warm weather had started the snowmelt up in the park and the river was getting muddy. So we spent a day together on De Puy's. The fishing was excellent again, and I had a great day. I discovered that the browns were still suckers for the Woolybugger. There was one backwater where fish were rising constantly to a tiny midge, and after catching a couple and snapping a couple off and watching hundreds of casts go fishless, I decided to see if THOSE fish would eat a streamer. Yep. I'd make a cast and fish would charge it from five feet away, leaving a wake like a smallmouth in shallow water. It was tremendous fun. That was our last day of fishing. Friday was spent mainly resting and visiting and working a bit on the cabin, and we flew home Saturday.

I suspect, or at least hope, that they meant Harper's Slab rather than Scotia!

Flatlander...when I said "once and for all", it was about Ozarkid's (I think...it's been a long way back) assertion that evolutionists believe our ancestors were apes. I said once and for all because that is NOT what evolution says, and it's a distortion that trivializes the evidence and the theories. I didn't say it to say that such theories are pure fact, but that it IS fact what evolutionary theory says, and shat it says is NOT that man descended from monkeys. We can throw books at each other 'til the cows come home...I could tell you to read "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins, or if you REALLY have the guts, to read "The God Delusion" by the same author. But it doesn't take guts, or even an open mind, to read books by authors you don't think you'll agree with, just an interest in the subject. I could also say that we all oughta read such books just to understand what the "other side" thinks, in order to form our own ways of refuting them. It shouldn't take courage to read books that go against your beliefs...if your beliefs are strong enough or valid enough, such books should have no power to sway them. The origins of morality...that's an interesting subject in itself. My moral fiber, if you will, comes from my parents and grandfather (distinctly non-religious people) and from the books I read as a child (stuff like Edgar Rice Burroughs, Mark Twain, and Louis L'Amour, to name a few). Probably a few John Wayne movies came in there, too. All that stuff had some things in common...honor, courage, the will to fight for the underdog and to treat other people with respect and kindness. I would also add that as I grew up, "morality" also extended to the natural world and treating land and wildlife with an enlightened respect. "Enlightened" because you have to understand how nature works to be a part of it rather than either a dispassionate observer or a thoughtless exploiter and destroyer. At any rate, I will give you the point that Christianity, at its best, teaches morality, and probably there was some Christian influence both in the authors I read and in the ancestors of my parents. However, it appears to me that many people seem to think that there was no morality before Christianity, and that you HAVE to have Christian influence to be a moral person. Yet much of the "morality" chronicled in the Old Testament would be specifically rejected today...slavery, murdering the women, children, and even the livestock of your enemies, and a whole lot of other stuff. Look at the Ten Commandments...several of them, if mandated, would be specifically unconstitutional in America today. Think that a law saying "you shall have no other gods than Jehovah" or "You shall not worship idols" or even "You shall keep the Sabbath holy" would pass constitutional muster? Others are not "laws" that could be enforced, such as "You shall not covet", " You shall honor your parents". And the ones that we can all totally agree upon..."You shall not commit murder", "You shall not steal", "You shall not bear false witness" are actually common to almost all civilized societies, even those in the past that had no exposure to Christianity. They were simply rules that were necessary to ANY society, from a tiny family group in prehistoric times to a primitive tribe to a modern country, in order for that group to survive and prosper. They are much older than Christianity, but what Christianity, and a few other religions, did was extend them to those not of your own group. The Jews of the Old Testament certainly didn't...if you weren't an Israelite you were pretty much fair game for stealing and killing. You don't have to follow the Ten Commandments to be a moral person. You don't even have to follow the "Golden Rule" per se. All you have to do is have some empathy and respect for others. Do I secretly, or not so secretly, hope that I'll do okay in an afterlife? Well, maybe. One of the precepts of Christianity as practiced today, as well as many other religions, that bothers me the most is the exclusivity...if you aren't "saved", or you don't accept Christ as your savior, you're screwed. (Or if you aren't a Muslim you're an infidel worthy of killing or enslaving, or...I could come up with a bunch of others.) That is a viewpoint that I totally reject simply because it offends my sense of justice. If there IS an afterlife AND cosmic justice, you should suffer or prosper there in direct proportion to how much evil or good you did in this world, not whether or not you accepted, rejected, or just wasn't exposed to a particular religion. A person who was purely evil for most of their life, but saw the light just before they died, should NOT get a free pass into paradise, and a person who was good and kind by anybody's lights but happened to follow a different faith should not be relegated to purgatory. THAT is what I believe, and I can see no way I could be swayed otherwise. So, I try to live as if that is the case, and I figure I'll have some things to pay for, but also some things that count on the good side, if it turns out that karma exists. I enjoy discussions like this, and don't really mind if somebody seems to "attack" me...although I don't consider anything said here to be an attack. One time, in a similar discussion, somebody said they'd be praying for me. I told them to go right ahead...it might not take but it certainly wouldn't hurt. In fact, I believe that prayer has positive benefits for some people in some situations, the same as a number of other beliefs and "religious" practices. I'm glad that Phil has provided this forum and let this discussion that started with a movie go in the directions it has, and I'm glad that it has remained mostly civil and friendly.

I've reached the point where I could certainly do without TV, but I don't wish to do without a computer and access to the internet. As I type this, I'm sitting in our cabin in Montana with no TV and a radio that doesn't get any stations I'd ever wish to listen to, but I have the old laptop and wireless access, along with a wife cuddled up beside me napping. Fish all day in a gorgeous setting, and have all the world at my fingertips at night before I go to bed. Life is good. It would be good, though, even without the internet, as long as I had a good book to read, so I think I could do without the computer before I could do without books.