tjm

I think only the Mississippi, Missouri and Grand Rivers are considered navigable in Mo., designated so prior to statehood, and most of the "floatable" streams are only assumed to be "public thoroughfares" or easement, since the case law requires that each stream be judged on it's on merits in a Court, although some streams have been in court and judged as thoroughfares. It's widely assumed that any stream roughly meeting the Elder vs Delcour would be judged as such and can be treated as such, but it's not really the law. Under Elder v Delcour, I believe that you should have portage rights, but I know that landowners can file trespassing charges even when they are in the wrong, so you might be right but have to go to court to find it out. Or you might just be charged with trespassing and have the charges dropped later, thus avoiding the stream getting into court. Lots of past discussions relating to stream laws, for example https://forums.ozarkanglers.com/topic/31837-missouri-stream-access-law-one-more-time/#comments and if you read all of that you will find some posts relating to the water you ask about. Other threads One of the best summaries on Mo. stream laws that I know of https://styronblog.com/law/harry-styrons-missouri-stream-law/

I wouldn't bet on that I've had those snakes eat dozens of eggs while there were hundreds of mice invading the feed room the snakes crawled through to access the nest boxes. I've removed black snakes that had as many as 5 egg lumps in them and I've watched one take an egg from under a hen while she was on the nest. One summer I relocated 10-12 black snakes and there was never an indication that they had eaten even one mouse. I do suspect the occasional copperheads that I found in the feed room were there for the mice, but they made me nervous so they didn't get to stay there.

Most folks don't even think about records on fish that aren't popular target species, but AGFC says And if you examine the list of current records there are few enough species listed that many other records are vacant and could be claimed with a 1/2# fish. I'd almost bet that everyone on this forum has tossed back a state record at some point in our life, That big chub maybe? When Mo. started keeping records on alternative method catches lots of the records were smallish.

I think Taney county has provided a couple of past Mo. record suckers, it may be they just get bigger there. But the picture of the <2# in this story looks as long as the >6# record in MO. It's funny what cameras do to fish size.

Probably required to give warnings for generation, but not required to for maintenance, just following SOP. I never feel safe when wading a tailwater and don't like to get many steps from the bank, Even if they sound a warning the water can come up faster than I can wade out.

" 6 or 7 mph" I've never really tried to figure the speed of Ozark streams, but they seem on the faster side to me, does anyone know about what an average speed is on most Ozark streams or on one or two of them?

I thought that was obvious by our politics. But there are a lot of sucker-fish also.

If you look at MDC maps of the Northern Cottonmouth then yes they can be in the Elk drainage- I find it interesting how far north the map is shaded when other sources would suggest only about half that shaded area. But living between the two Sugar Creeks off and on since 1950s, and having fished and hunted in three of the Elk's tributaries over that period, I've only seen 3-4 snakes that I thought were cottonmouths (neither they nor I wanted closer inspection) and it's been perhaps 20 years since the last suspect. I don't know of anyone who has seen more than that either, and I've heard many older outdoors men argue that they don't exist in this drainage, so ... but I guess that at some place it's only a few feet between the White R. or Illinois R. drainage and the Elk drainage and it might be possible that snake got confused. There are thousands of people that report water-snakes and black rat snakes as being cottonmouths. Typically any snake within a rock-throw of water is called a "water-moccasin" by the average person. The pygmy/ground rattler do frequent some of the cedar glades near Little Sugar that I know of and likely other similar areas, but they are rarely seen as far as I'm aware. Small snakes and I guess shy. I have noticed that over the years fewer and fewer snakes get killed on the roads, back in the '80s five miles of local state highway would show 10-12 or more fresh snake kills almost daily and in recent years I driven that same stretch for weeks without seeing a single snake. I kinda relate this to greatly increased numbers of hawks, but we also have fewer box turtles and way fewer tarantulas, scorpions and lizards, so there may be an environmental change causing it.

I keep thinking how little plastic boats resemble kayaks. I wonder if the Aleuts and Yupiks would buy a "jet kayak" and I wonder if the modern "kayak" is seaworthy twenty miles off shore? I also wonder what becomes of last years plastic boats when someone upgrades, or what ever happens to old fiberglass boats? neither type seem environmentally friendly nor recyclable. An electric jet boat is interesting though, wonder if that will catch on or be too cumbersome for most to transport and launch. Battery weight alone would deter me, unless it was very close to the car.

The few timber rattlers that I've seen in the woods have been rather sluggish and non-aggressive, but I give them the right of way. Copperheads are lot more common here with my snakiest year having (IIRC) seven copperheads and two pairs of rat snakes in and around the house and out buildings in the same week and a few more over the rest of the summer. Mowing about an acre, the riding lawnmower thunked out a copper head on one round and on the next round hit another one and later that same day there were two copperheads in the feed room when I went to feed the hens. A herd of semi-feral cats seem to have cut back on the snakes since then, at least I see fewer. I detest the cats that the wife feeds but I dislike snakes just as much so it's kinda a trade off. Growing up here in the '50s, when a dog got snake bit, usually around the head or neck, it would swell up huge and the old men would say "that looks like snake bite" and after a while the dog would get better, I don't recall anyone treating the snake bites or any of the dogs dying from them.

Not dated, but on https://focusedfishing.com/ there is blurb-

"Some individuals may migrate more than 180 miles within a year while others may stay within the same 1.8-mile reach of the river. Cool temperatures and high flows trigger the migration. " It doesn't say it but those huge annual migrations up the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers used to be a major part of pioneer food gathering. A harvest that people relied on. I suspect that much of that migration is limited by dams and locks. probably also why they aren't doing as well as they did a hundred years or so ago. Apparently they need 53F rocky fast flowing water about two feet deep as a spawning place; so all those fish that used to range from the Gulf to the headwaters of the Miss., Mo., Arkansas rivers can't make those migrations any longer. In Mo. the MDC doesn't even list them in the list of Suckers on their web page yet they maintain records since the "The new “alternative method” record fish snagged by Rackers on April 21 weighed 9 pounds, 1 ounce with a length of 30 inches." from the Osage. I think that in general fish and game authorities across the USA ignore the management of non-game wildlife in favor of the money species. Suckers as a group are the most "American" of all fish, perhaps, since of 80 species worldwide all but two live only in N.America.

We crossed the country to the east coast several times with kids and fed them from local grocery stores for a lot cheaper than the average vacationer, slept them in tents too, and I wouldn't have bought them NR licenses in any of the states that we visited, by the same token I would not be paying a guide to take me fishing nor staying in a resort. Average numbers take the lows with the highs, so for every tent traveler there must be a resort traveler paying even more than the averages indicate. I'm using 70 year old fly rods, would never pay more than $150 for any rod, but I know that people are buying production plastic rods for over $1000 and the bamboo guys are spending $4-5000 for production rods. We all have our spending limits, and that NR tag may deter some, but if they have a resort, a guide and $150 fly line in the budget the price shouldn't even get a blink. He's a lot more experienced now.

I was told once, but never followed up to be sure, that the Mo. resident lifetime permits weren't valid if you moved out of state. Now I wonder if residency is required or if it really means lifetime.

Yeah, I understand that @Ham A long time ago I was keeping an Ar, license with trout all the time at around $25 total and fished the Beaver tailwater several times each year, along with many small streams in Benton county. Then one year Ar bumped the NR with trout price up to about $50 and I said "I'll not buy a license until we camp down there" and soon enough 15-20 years passed without me buying an Ar license, by that time it was up to $80. During those years I drove a lot more miles to fish in Mo. than I would have to have fished near my work in Ar. But by golly I showed the AGFC.

I never could get the lifetime things to pencil out for anyone over 15, unless they use every permit sold every year. So far south as I am, we rarely see waterfowl except in flight. It takes a really cold winter to bring ducks to the creeks. I can't recall the last time. So, use of the migratory stuff is sporadic, but i still would have bought the life permit just for convenience except that I still had to buy the trapping permit every year. Glad they worked out for you.

Yeah it would be good for the tourists if Mo. had a week or ten day permit, back when our son lived in Fl and visited, he'd have to figure what was cheaper- several daily tags or one annual. Nearly always used at RRSP because of time constraints. Of course none of the states want to encourage "Fish Tourism" or they'd all have reduced fees rather than elevated fees.

Are the genetics so different that we can say how long ago that they evolved?

Rock bass may be indicative of a stream's health but I wouldn't say that lack of rock bass is indicative of the stream not being healthy. They are kinda like brown trout, you find them where they are. If you look at USGS map of where rockbass were indigenous, it sure looks like most of them in Mo. have been relocated or their range has expanded over time. It doesn't really show them in the Ozarks prior to WW2, but of course they say that their information may not be accurate as to time of spread. However, expanding range whether moved by man or naturally does explain why some streams have them and some don't. I was told many years ago by a guy that worked at a hatchery there, that Arkansas had stocked goggle eye in the Sugar Creeks (Elk/Neosho) in the '50s. I presumed from the hatchery location that they may have been taken from the White. But, I've also read someplace that there is some doubt that Ar. had any rock bass originally, so without hatchery records, for all that I can tell, all the goggle eye may have been imported from NY or IL or ? Lots of fish got moved around back in the 1880s and since.

Kids don't need fishing license. They do need daily tags in Parks and I believe they need Trout Permit on Taneycomo. Anyone bringing a family interstate (definition of NR) to a fishing destination for vacation already has $thousands invested in travel and accommodation prior to or whether they fish. Cost to feed each kid every day at even cheap restaurants must be higher than the the cost of fishing permits for 365 days. $100 today is nothing, it buys about what $8-12 used to buy. A little wander around the internet indicates a USA vacation this yea will run about $700-$2000 per person this before they hire the $100/hour + tip trout guide. I really can't see this new permit keeping anyone from traveling here that really wants to fish Taneycomo. Out of curiosity I looked up costs of NR licensing in some other trout states; Alaska $100 (+$100 K.Salmon) Arkansas $60 + $20 trout = $80 California $166.89 Colorado $111.03 Idaho $108 + $10 access = $118 Michigan $76.00 Minnesota $51 + $10 = $61 Montana $100 + $7.50 cons. + $10 AISPP = $117.50 New Mexico $56 + $10 + $4 = $70 New York $50 Oregon $110.50 + $66.00 steelhead = $176.50 Pennsylvania $60.97 + $14.97 = $75.94 Utah $120 Washington $115.85 Wisconsin $50 + $10 = $60 Wyoming $102 * $21.50 cons. = $123.50 Mo. $57 + $40 = $97 doesn't seem out of line by that much.

They are required for all fishing year-round in Lake Taneycomo upstream from U.S. Highway 65 bridge. Which is likely why Phil sees this as more detrimental to Taneycomo than to the rest of us. And most people that I see fishing the White Ribbon streams are keeping trout, so they'd all need them, but not so likely to be NR that I see keeping them. That ambiguous rule that says the trout permit is only needed to possess trout is why I think it should be abandoned and made part of the regular fishing permit, spread the cost to all anglers at very little increase per license. I doubt that the trout stamp money is kept separate and only used for trout anyway. Special permits are just a way to justify office workers, making and keeping track of special permits.

Did they change the law or just the vendor stopped doing the enforcing? because it says on MDC site

Not all of those buy trout tags or stamps, but I'd guess that most of them are fishing the trout parks. I think the NR have paid the same as Residents for the annual Trout Permit in the past so that increase is only $28. Of the 165,000 how many do you guess fish Taneycomo? The few times that I fished RR C&R most of the people that I talked to were from OK, AR, & KS. I don't know if that is typical or not and I've talked to probably a dozen or so that were fishing Hickory Creek from OK & KS over a few years, and that's not much of a trout stream. By the same token I don't know of anyone that fishes Tanecomo, resident or non resident. And all those thousands that come from out of state to fish the trout parks in the summer months have to buy a NR fishing permit before they can buy a daily tag. If the increase hurts any of the fishing use it might hurt the KS & TX folks that crowd the parks during the summer, given that they have invested in a trip for that purpose, I doubt that the increase will deter them. Think about AK fishing, if the cost of the trip there went up a $100 would it stop you going again? Yep need the annual trout stamp, and they also need the fishing permit, so for a single day $49 or several days, or with intent to fish the summer months as well, the whole $97 an increase of $43.50 and this C&R is where MDC might lose revenue on day trippers from OK and KS that are too far away for frequent visits. Most of the Arkies I've met at RR were local enough that several visits would be normal. But I'll agree with wrench in that anyone who balks at the increase wasn't very committed to fishing anyway. If the total trip cost went up by $100 or $500 for combined costs or travel, rooms, meals and permits, and of course guides and tips, anyone really wanting to fish at any destination would still make the trip.

The permit is not specifically for Tanecomo, is it? It's state wide and annual if I read it correctly, lets those out-of-staters/foreigners fish Crane for example. What might work better would be to boost the price of the NR daily permit to $20 and include trout with that. IIRC, OK NR is $81 (trout included) and AR NR with trout is $80 (have been for years and I think both charged me a processing fee on top of that) and neither state has the kind of trout fishing found in our several small streams. So this would pass them on an annual basis by $17, but I'd expect the other states to also raise their NR tags in the near future, so probably not too out of line. I just looked up CO. permits and it looks like it'd cost me $132.47 there so the three local states are still cheap. I doubt that the price of a good meal or a tank of gas (1/2 tank?) will adversely affect the number of NR anglers that show up on Taneycomo. Personally I think the trout permit should be eliminated statewide and it be combined with the fishing permit, of course that would raise the cost of the fishing permit for those that don't fish trout (and lower it for those that do), but it would lower the MDC costs of keeping records of multiple permits and simplify things. As it stands the only place I need a trout permit really is for C&R in the Parks, can fish for them in all the streams without it as long as I don't keep them. Those hatcheries provide fish for lots more than the parks, all the trout areas in the state (except Taneycomo? isn't that on the Feds as restitution?) and all the urban winter trout fishing come out of those few MDC hatcheries. The Parks belong to DNR and as such have no hatcheries, they just get stocked by the MDC hatcheries located there (or by other MDC sources, as I think they purchased trout when R.R. was shut down)

I think crawdads are a lot more common than hellgrammites in the creeks that I fish, but a marabou jig is an awfully good bait that might look like either.