Al Agnew

Of those I fish with, a couple are seeing the problems and backing off fishing the tournaments somewhat, while a couple others are adamantly unconvinced. Heck, I might be smart, but not everybody thinks I'm a genius😁...they don't listen to me. Besides, I'm getting too old to fight more battles.

Not every wintering hole is straightforward as to where the fish in it are located at any given time. Sure, some of the holes I fish, the whole pool isn't very big and the fish-holding spots are few and small, or else one little stretch of bank is good and everything else is too shallow to hold fish in normal clear winter water. But there are plenty of them that are a half mile long, deep from bank to bank and from head to tail. These are pools that I might spend a half day just trying to find the fish when you have to fish slowly and carefully in the winter, because they won't be everywhere. It is in these pools, seems to me, that FFS would speed the process up considerably; just cruise it looking for fish, make some casts when you find some to see if they are bass and interested. Successful fishing, whether tournament or not, is all about efficiency. The less time you spend making casts to places where there aren't any fish, the more efficient you are at catching fish. Are these winter river tournaments impacting the populations of bigger fish? Who knows? But seems to me that it's a bit of an arms race. As anglers get more efficient with better equipment and knowledge, they catch a greater PERCENTAGE of the bigger fish. So it could very well be that there are just as many fish being caught now as there were 20 years ago, but those numbers are a greater percentage of a smaller total number of big fish. And as efficiency continues to increase, at some point the numbers of big ones caught will start declining because the available pool of big ones from which to catch them gets too small.

I could certainly see it having an impact on winter fishing on the larger Ozark rivers. Other than that, I don't think it could have much impact on warm weather fishing where the fish are more scattered and easier to find. I'm especially concerned when it comes to the winter tournaments that have cropped up on streams like the Current, Meramec, and Gasconade, where the anglers carry their fish to a weigh in point and release them all there. Moving more and bigger bass out of their wintering habitat and releasing them in a spot where they are going to have to disperse to get back to wintering habitat seems to me to be a recipe for disaster...it's happening already, and FFS will probably make it a lot worse. I really wish that these tournaments would be required to go to a format where the fish are photographed, measured, and released immediately.

Not too bad here in Franklin County. Had about 3-4 inches of snow over an inch of mostly sleet with a little freezing rain. Not enough freezing rain to form icicles on the tree limbs, just enough to put a bit of a coating on the twigs. So no broken down trees and the power was fine. I got out this morning on the tractor and cleared our quarter mile long lane to the highway. Took several hours, because that icy sleet underneath didn't want to be removed. We have to get to St. Louis tomorrow morning, so I had to get it done; our lane is VERY steep in places. Got the steep parts down to bare gravel, so should be good.

Jim Owen was somewhat of a huckster. When the dam was first beginning to be constructed, he cried crocodile tears about the loss of the river to the dam in advertisements to get more people to float with his company, and created the myth of the guy who loved the river and was so saddened by its loss. But as that letter showed, he was really seeing the dam as another way to make some money, and was perfectly willing to sacrifice the White and James to do so. Can't blame him for that; it was inevitable that the dam would go in. But from the letter he helped make sure it went in.

Looking forward to reading the book. I've done a lot of research over the years about the history of float fishing. I watched the PBS interview with the authors, and they didn't say anything in it that I didn't already know. Table Rock and Bull Shoals put an end to the classic Ozark float trips, from Galena to Taneycomo and from Taneycomo to Cotter. I've seen old photos of the White River that was buried by those dams, and it never fails to sadden me that I was born too late to experience the White when it was the quintessential Ozark smallmouth river. Geez, it was beautiful. I'm not sure the fishing was all that great, though. Some of the stringers of fish being proudly held up in those old photos were not as impressive as the fish that any good Ozark river angler could amass today. Too many people subsistence fishing, too many things messing up the rivers, like the big log and tie rafts, burning the hillsides every spring, etc. In many of those old photos the trees in the background were sparse and scraggly, because all the good timber had been logged off and the second growth was just beginning to grow. One of my favorite books for reading about the way things were back then is actually just a book about bass fishing in general..."Freshwater Bass", by Ray Bergman, who was the long time fishing editor for Outdoor Life magazine back in the 40s and 50s. The White River was one of his favorite places to fish, even though he lived in New York, and parts of several chapters describe trips on the White. But one whole chapter was dedicated to Ozark float fishing. It started out with he and his wife coming to Branson, and finding the White blown out from heavy rains. Jim Owen, who he always used for his floats, called around all over the area to try to find fishable water (probably an adventure itself considering the phone service in those days), and finally found that the Buffalo River was low and clear. None of Jim's guides had ever floated the Buffalo, but they loaded up the boats and headed south. Bergman didn't say the stretch they floated, but it included the section below Woolum. Because, he describes coming upon a stretch of several miles where the river was nearly dry, and the stretch from just below Woolum to Margaret White Spring does dry up in dry summers; it's a losing reach. So they got to that stretch, which he described as not having enough water to "float an axe chip", and there they were with fully loaded 20 foot wooden johnboats. But they luckily found a farmer there that had a team of mules, and the mules dragged those boats down that four mile reach! He described the river as being extremely clear, and the fish very spooky. He finally started catching them on his fly rod with extremely light leader (not monofilament in those days), until he hooked and broke off a four pounder. He also described the river as the most beautiful he'd ever seen--one of many people to say that.

Love all the weird saltwater fish, even though I have no interest whatsoever in saltwater fish! Let's see...I fished two new stretches of river in the Ozarks this past year. Both on four day trips. I'd fished parts of both stretches in the distant past, but so long ago they were almost new water, and other parts WERE new water. Don't remember catching any new lifer species. Probably fewer days fishing in 2024 than in 2023. Probably about an average year of catching. Started off the new year right today...fished with a buddy and we ran some skinny water to get to a good winter hole that's nearly two miles long. Only found smallmouth in two spots on it and only caught two, though I hooked a couple more. But largemouth were scattered along the banks and we caught around 10, all over 16 inches, but the biggest was about 18 inches. Oddly, no spotted bass even though this stretch is usually loaded with them.

I'm curious as to why you want a short rod. My first fly rods were BPS $59 rods as well, and they served the purpose...but I found that they were not even close to as comfortable to fish all day as the upgrades (Loomis and Sage) that I later bought. I'm not sure whether it was how much the rods weighed, their action, or what, but the difference was striking. I'm kinda wondering if you like the shorter rods because they are not as tiring to fish. In which case, a GOOD longer rod will be just as much if not more comfortable and can do some things better. You don't have to spend $600 on a rod to get one that's a significant upgrade over the BPS ones, though. I use rods from Sage, Winston, St. Croix, Redington, Ross, and Loomis, and probably one or two more that I'm not remembering at the moment. Most cost somewhere between $175-$400 at the time I bought them. Personally I like my Sages and my St. Croixs the best, but all are good. Gavin gave you the best advice...it's well worth a trip to T. Hargroves. They are knowledgeable, and you can actually go out in the parking lot and cast as many rods as you want to try. Nothing beats casting a rod before you buy it. But be warned...you might fall in love with a rod that's more expensive than you want to pay! Although I never fell enough in love with a $800 rod to think it's four times as good as a $200 rod.

I don't think you can credibly say that fish can't see 2 pound line as well as they can 4 pound line in very clear water. There really isn't that much difference in its visibility. If I cut off a foot of 2 pound line and a foot of 4 pound line and asked you to tell which was which, you'd have to really look pretty darned closely and study the lines for a bit to give me an answer. I kinda know this because I just got finished filling up some reels, and I wanted to spool some with 8 pound line and some with 10 pound. And I wanted to figure out which of my reels that didn't need re-spooling already had lines of those two diameters. I absolutely could NOT decide with any real confidence which reels had 8 pound and which had 10 pound. If I can't easily tell the difference in appearance of lines that are two pound test difference in diameter, I highly doubt the fish could, or that one would spook them more than the other. I would guess that there are other factors in making 2 pound catch you more fish than 4 pound. But I'm not a fish.

Bingo! I NEVER choose line pound test (or diameter) based upon water clarity or the fish I'm pursuing. I choose it completely on what flies or lures I'm using. I fly fish on famous Montana spring creeks where the water is always super clear, small, full of trout that see a LOT of pressure (in a manner of speaking...rods are limited to something like 16-20 per day over about a mile of creek, but most days are full and many of the anglers are accompanied by guides who are making sure they are doing things more or less correctly). Anyway, these ARE sophisticated fish. But I fish for them with streamers and 3x tippet. Mainly because nobody else does that. And catch plenty, and a lot of bigger ones. I NEVER fish tippet thinner than 5x anymore, unless it's a very rare instance where the fish are feeding on a size 20-22 fly, where I'll go down to 6x because it doesn't overpower the fly. In clear water a fish can see 2 pound test line JUST AS EASILY as 4 pound test, and they darned sure don't carry around calipers to measure the diameter. It boggles my mind that people think the 4 pound line turns them off while the 2 pound line does not. Same as I use anything from 8 to 12 pound copoly line on my baitcasters while smallmouth fishing...I use different lines to match the lures I'm using, not the water clarity.

Yup, that was a long time ago. Dang, I'm old.

I've done the lower 30 miles you talk about in the past. I'd do it again given the opportunity, but was not impressed enough with it to choose it over a lot of other stretches of similar distance from where I live. But I do like to do upper reaches of Ozark streams, so would be game to go as far upstream as possible at some point and see the rest of it. I usually do at least a couple 3-5 day floats each year, and go as far upstream as I can on them, which is often farther upstream than most people would float in summertime water levels. I too have heard that the present Plasters are not as radical about running people off as the old man was. I'd still plan to float through their sections without camping, and put in well above and take out well below...but I'd give it a shot during the week or in the off season.

Yup, I detest liver any other way. But these are actually good. If you're ever in Ste. Genevieve, restaurants like the Old Brick offer them, so try them. My wife's family's liver dumplings are better, though; a lot depends upon the herbs and spices you use in them. They are good just in themselves, but brown beef gravy makes them even better.

Ah, but what about liver dumplings? Beef liver, ground pork, eggs, milk, flour, onion, use a spaetzle maker to make the little squiggles to dump into boiling water. Ste. Genevieve County specialty. And the only way I can stomach liver.

Just about every single mountain lion attack in recent years has been in places with a long thriving lion population where human development is encroaching upon them, disrupting their food supplies and movements. In Missouri it would be just the opposite. I spend a whole lot of time in places where there are definitely mountain lions, and have never once worried about being attacked. I'm pretty sure I've had lions following me and watching me; I've hiked into an area, and coming back out found lion tracks superimposed on my own tracks. In those places, there are also wolves, black bears, and grizzlies. On a scale of relative danger, I'd put wolves last, lions next to last, and black bears a very distant second to grizzlies. I've seen all in the wild and up fairly close, but the most danger I was ever in was with a cow moose when I accidentally got between her and her calf. I think I know a member or two of the family that shot this one. I won't comment on them. But if he shot it between the shoulders and there's a big hole in its chest, it was still facing away from them.

Terrific! I was about to suggest some kind of go fund me account. I really need those gauges.

The 2017 flood set a whole lot of records. So how does this one compare? Some of the major Ozark rivers: Gasconade at Jerome--27 foot rise, 102,000 cfs. 2017--just under 200,000 cfs, about 33 foot rise. Meramec at Sullivan--28 foot rise, 64,800 cfs*. 2017--over 80,000 cfs, close to 30 foot rise. St. Francis River, Patterson--19 foot rise, about 39,000 cfs. 2017--30 foot rise, about 110,000 cfs. Current River, Van Buren--20 foot rise, 72,000 cfs. 2017--30 foot rise, about 140,000 cfs. Note, upper Current got a lot higher flood crest comparatively than Van Buren did this time, but it blew out the gauge at Akers so we don't know the exact figures. North Fork--26 foot rise, 68,000 cfs. 2017--best estimate is about 38 foot rise and 160,000 cfs, but the gauge was blown out. Buffalo near Harriet--30 foot rise, 67,500 cfs. 2017 was not as big a flood that far south. *The Steelville and Sullivan gauges on the Meramec no longer show the flow in cfs, because whoever was funding them stopped funding them. It takes about 10,000 a year to maintain a gauge. I contacted the U.S. Representative for the area about it. She finally got back to me basically saying it was a local matter and not her purview. Heck, it's the UNITED STATES Geological Survey, but apparently they rely on local funding to maintain gauges. The gauge at Sullivan still records level in feet. So I took the level in feet and found the table that they use to show the level in feet and the corresponding flow in cfs and that's where I got the cfs figure.

The other day I finally sat down and tried to figure out my "life list" of fish caught on hook and line. What prompted it was a Facebook post where the poster listed 50 different North American freshwater species and asked how many of them people had caught. My score was 43. He responded with saying he'd caught 41, but diversity in locations fished had a lot to do with him catching so many different species. Well, I've not only fished in a lot of places, but I've fished for a heck of a long time. So it stands to reason that I've caught a pretty good bunch of different fish species. I know the micro-fishing guys seek to add to their life lists of species caught. I don't micro-fish...unless you count when I was a little kid and fished with bits of worm and tiny hooks trying to catch the minnows my grandpa kept in his concrete tank (he was a big crappie fisherman and trapped his own bait). He always had several different species from creek chubs to shiners to stonerollers, and I'd fish for them and imagine I was catching the tarpon and trout that I read about in Grandpa's outdoor magazines. But I've caught a lot of different species, some of them very small, by accident, either snagging them or while fly fishing with small flies. And I'm counting snagged fish, so sue me. In fact, I'm also counting the chestnut lamprey, which I've only "caught" because they were attached to fish I hooked. Heck, I'd probably count the minnows in bass's stomachs if I ever cut open one and found a different species! So I grabbed my newest edition of the Peterson Guide to North American Freshwater Fish, and paged through it, counting every fish I'm sure I've caught. I've caught 77 different species of North American freshwater fish. Plus 6 saltwater species, 4 African species, and 3 Australian species. Just for fun, here is my list: chestnut lamprey longnose gar bowfin mooneye goldeye American eel gizzard shad grass carp common carp silver carp goldfish northern pikeminnow Sacremento pikeminnow creek chub fallfish hornyhead chub largescale stoneroller central stoneroller striped shiner bleeding shiner duskystripe shiner smallmouth buffalo quillback white sucker mountain sucker western creek chubsucker northern hogsucker shorthead redhorse golden redhorse river redhorse channel catfish blue catfish yellow bullhead flathead catfish grass pickerel chain pickerel northern pike muskellunge mountain whitefish Arctic grayling lake trout brook trout Arctic char dolly varden brown trout sockeye salmon chum salmon chinook salmon coho salmon pink salmon cutthroat trout (includes westslope, Yellowstone, and fine-spotted subspecies) rainbow trout (includes coastal/steelhead and Kern subspecies or races as well as generic rainbows) northern studfish striped bass white bass black crappie white crappie rock bass shadow bass Ozark bass Roanoke bass largemouth bass smallmouth bass (this presumably includes Neosho and Ouachita species/subspecies/races) spotted bass redeye bass warmouth green sunfish bluegill redear sunfish pumpkinseed longear sunfish orangespotted sunfish walleye sauger yellow perch logperch freshwater drum I'm not going to name the saltwater and foreign species, partly because I'm not completely sure of my IDs.

I suspect you might be a victim of Google's AI. I've never known, nor seen on any map, the River Aux Vases called Auxvasse Creek. There is an Auxvasse Creek in MO, but it is tributary of the Missouri River. Locals all call the Ste. Gen County stream River Aux Vases (pronounced more like "River of Oz", though).

No way it was a sauger. Could have been a logperch. There is not a huge variety of fish species in the sandstone creeks of Ste. Genevieve County; the habitat is too specialized and not very fertile. I've seen a few small smallmouth in Pickle Creek from the shut-ins in Hawn on down (it's about three miles from the campground to River Aux Vases), and a largemouth or two that were probably roamers from farm ponds in the area, but it is not good fishing for normal game fish, and not the best for chasing microfishing targets. Green sunfish and longear are about the only species of fish usually caught on hook and line that you can target and expect to catch. River Aux Vases on the back side of the park (above where Pickle Creek encounters it) is slightly bigger and used to be decent fishing for smallmouth and rock bass, but the last time I hiked back there to fish it, there were more otters than smallmouth! Geologically, Pickle Creek is entirely within the Lamotte Sandstone, oldest sedimentary formation in the Ozarks, except for the stretch within Hawn where it has eroded deeply enough that it encounters the igneous rock of the St. Francois Mountains. About a half mile downstream from where it enters River Aux Vases, that stream crosses the Ste. Genevieve Fault system and leaves the sandstone behind. River Aux Vases then has about five miles of typical Ozark landscape and fishing before it begins to slow down and the sand coming from the Lamotte formation settles out in high water, and from there on down it's slow, shallow for the most part, and mediocre fishing at best. I've caught walleye that come up from the Mississippi to spawn in the spring in every other creek running into the Mississippi between St. Louis and Cape Girardeau, but never found any in River Aux Vases. But it sure is some gorgeous landscapes in those creeks running through the Lamotte Sandstone.

Pickle Creek has been floated by whitewater enthusiasts in high water from the bridge on the upstream end of Hawn down through the campground. But I floated it with a buddy in normal springtime water level, with the goal of coming out onto a hard to get to section of River Aux Vases, which Pickle Creek runs into. We were able to actually float about 3/4ths of it without having to get out and walk, and fortunately there were no log blockages--there usually are. That was back in the days when I was "floating" everything in sight just to see it and fish it.

"Red wigglers, the Cadillac of worms!" (WKRP in Cincinnati) I spent some nice days on Pickle Creek, including floating it one time. It used to be a place where you could catch grass pickerel; there was one or two in every pool of any size. But the last few times I waded down it, I didn't see any. Spectacularly beautiful creek!

So I'll be honest...I do a lot of fly fishing out here in Montana, but I STILL don't love fly fishing as much as I do fishing for stream bass with a good baitcasting rod and reel. When I'm in Missouri, I very seldom use a fly rod. I find the worship of fly fishing that is characteristic of so many fly fishermen slightly amusing. But when in Rome do as the Romans do. When in Montana, you have to fly fish. I'll also be the first to admit that I'm not as good with a fly rod as I am with a baitcast rod. I'm good enough to hold my own with most anglers, but I have friends out here who are considerably better than I am at casting, handling complex currents and getting good drifts, fine-tuning presentations. Maybe that's why I don't love it as much...I still have plenty of improvement to accomplish, and I'm just not into it enough to put in the effort to get a lot better than I am. So I'm happy to catch enough trout to feel like I'm doing it more or less right. All of this is leading up to the reason why, this afternoon, I gathered up one of the two baitcast outfits I keep out here, and found a couple Lucky Craft Pointer jerkbaits, and carried them down to the Yellowstone at the house along with a couple fly rods and my little Water Master raft. I'd been swearing to try this for years, but again being honest, I was afraid I'd feel a little embarrassed if some of the guides I know and their clients came by and saw me chucking hardware. It's about 3.5 miles from our house to the next access on the Yellowstone, and I got on the water about 2 PM. It was a gorgeous day, as almost all of September and October so far has been out here. Usually we get one good snow in September. This fall, so far, we've had NO precipitation, just mostly sunny, sometimes smoky, days with highs in the 70s and low 80s and lows in the 40s--we've only had two days where there was frost on the grass. When I put the little raft in, it was 83 degrees on the temperature sensor in the house, and--a little unusual--no wind. Not exactly weather conducive to catching trout, however. There were two boats with guides and their clients within sight as I pushed off, and I have to admit that I didn't immediately pick up the baitcaster. I stopped at the first decent "riffle corner", what we call the eddylines at the bottom of riffles, and started drifting my go-to nymph setup, a simple size 14 bead head hare's ear and a small soft hackle on the dropper. And immediately caught a 12 inch and then a 17 inch rainbow. The guides passed me, but I kept fishing the nymphs because they were working, though the next couple fish I caught were big whitefish. But once they were out of sight, and I had drifted down into slower, deeper water along some rip rap banks, I started casting the Pointer. Took quite a few casts, but then I hooked a good fish, a 19 inch brown. And then a 17 inch cutthroat. And a 16 inch rainbow. I was drifting along, just fishing deep banks like I would smallmouth fishing. There was a side channel swinging off to the right, with a long rip rap bank along it, barely enough water to float over the riffle entering it. A guy in a whitewater kayak towing a big dry bag behind it on a tether (a seriously weird setup) had just passed me and gone down that side channel, but I decided that since he wasn't fishing he wouldn't bother the fish much, and on a river that gets as much pounding as the Yellowstone, taking the "road" less traveled often pays off. So I took the channel. And that was exactly when the first gust of wind hit. The wind just came up all of a sudden, and it was instantly blowing 20 miles an hour. I was drifting down the rip rap, slow current, fishing just as I would for smallmouth, casting the jerkbait, reeling it a couple cranks, pausing it, reeling another couple cranks, casting at about a 45 degree angle in front of me, controlling the Water Master in the wind, which was quartering at my back, with my swim fins. And the fish took it just like a smallmouth. But I saw it turn its side, and it was considerably longer than any smallmouth. (And by the way, there have been a couple smallmouth caught in this section of the Yellowstone in recent years, and the fish and game people are scared to death of smallmouth in trout water and have put on a mandatory kill regulation on smallmouth here.) In fact, the fish looked so long that at first I thought, "geez, could it be a pike?" Pike have been caught in trout water in Montana now and then. Heck, if there were any bull trout in the Yellowstone I would have jumped to that conclusion. Nope, it was a HUGE rainbow! I battled that fish for a good five minutes, maybe more, working myself over to the gravelly bank on the other side, getting the net ready, pumping the rod to get the fish close enough, the trout rolling on the surface and then making runs back toward deeper water. And JUST as it was within reach of the net (which I'm not sure it would have fit into), it gave one more head shake, and the hooks pulled out. I think I've caught enough big trout to be able to make a decent guess as to size of that fish, and I certainly got some good looks at it. I also think the largest trout I've ever caught on the Yellowstone was 24 inches. This fish was easily 28 inches, and I'm pretty sure it would have made 30 inches. I've never seen a trout this big on the Yellowstone. It was definitely significantly bigger than any trout I'd ever hooked anywhere but up in Alaska. It had a big hooked jaw that was open as wide as my hand is long. It was just a fish that I simply never expected to hook, and especially not in that particular spot, small side channel, very sluggish current, right up against that rip rap. I fished the jerkbait a while longer, but Mary was scheduled to come pick me up at 5:30, and I still had two miles to go, and the wind was really aggravating. So I stopped in one more good riffle corner and caught several 10-14 inch rainbows and a couple more whitefish on the nymphs, and then rowed the rest of the way to the take-out. To heck with the looks I'll get...I'm gonna fish that baitcaster some more!

Have not seen his work before. I like his still lifes. I love good nude paintings, but his don't particularly appeal to me. I've done a few nudes in the past. It's a celebration of the beauty of the human body, even some human who isn't a Playboy model, and a challenge for the artist. It's actually harder to do good nude human paintings than to do wildlife paintings, because we all know more about what our bodies look like than we do the body of a mountain lion, so we are better judges of paintings of the human body. And by the way, it's one of the reasons I don't like tattoos; I think they detract from the attractiveness of the body itself (just one of many reasons, however, sorry all you inked people).

I knew Robert Abbett casually; wildlife and nature art is a small world. Great artist and great guy. Most of us love to talk about our work and are happy to answer questions about it. And yes, there aren't too many fly fishing paintings that address the "hunting" aspect of it. Here's one of mine, entitled "Scouting the Pool".