hank franklin

I feel that Brad Paisley is one heckuva guitar player if he would just shut his mouth. And I forgot ole Possum and his ridin mower. Also forgot to mention that Loretta laughed at Conway's jokes even when they was on her. But for real, are you sure Hank done it this a way? Did you all grow up in the United States of America or what?

Holy lord what a load of crap people be throwing up here. As Waylon might say, whatever happened to the blues? Y'all ever hear of a guy named Merle Haggard? If not Hank then his son Hank Jr.? Some guy named Porter Waggoner grew up in West Plains, moved to Nashville and met Dolly Parton, and wore some of the funkiest suits this side of Ted Nugent a country boy ever seen. And everything he wrote was some kind of duel between God and the devil. Holy Cow all you poor boys with that crazy rock n roll rattling your brain on God's poor streams, when you oughta be listening to gold itself ignited in ya some Conway Twitty, the randiest fella this side a any of your foul-mouthed gangsta crap today, especially when he's standing there aside Loretta Lynn, who grinned at every joke Conway ever tole, and Waylon Jennings, basically God's gift himself to heroes and cowboys everywhere! Not to mention that angel flying too low himself. I could go on and on. I feel sorry for y'all!

Hi guys. Sorry to jump in here but I've been looking for a camera in the $300 range and the Kodak cited earlier in thread looks pretty good. I don't need a lot of zoom, my priority is to be able to take decent photos in low light. If any of you were in the woods this past weekend deer hunting past sunset with the full moon out, there were great pictures to be had (no, I wasn't seeing deer at that hour). But my puny little entry level Olympus failed miserably. So would that Kodak fare reasonably well in that situation? Any other suggestions? $300 would be my tops, would love to make it happen for closer to $200. Thanks.

Threads like this is why I love this board. Good stuff fellas. I only take two, rod handles on each side of the thwart. In a pinch if the canoe is loaded and I can't tuck the rod tip under the gunwales is when I get in trouble. So, uh, don't get in a pinch.

I love the streams, but I don't really care about trout. Just my two cents.

Where did you hike? We want to do a trip this winter.

Thinking about hitting this section tomorrow. Will it be crowded? Will be putting on fairly late in the day. Camping overnight. Thanks

+1 to fishincricket. I tried in vain for perfect wading shoes and wound up with old running shoes. Drawback is they don't drain well nor dry out fast but in all other regards they're fine. Will never look for / nor buy "wading shoes" again.

I haven't bought a version in several years but I actually find a fair amount of errors and omissions. The Shawnee Ford bridge on the Bourbeuse for example (Highway AN) is not in my version. We found a large cave entrance just yesterday on the Meramec that's not listed. But those are small quibbles. So many of Oz's descriptions have this brief little poetic quality. He gave just enough detail to whet the appetite but not so much to ruin the surprise. If it wasn't for that book I might never have gotten into canoeing.

Dang, Raymond Chandler. Interesting. I was always kind of love / hate on the guy.

I haven't been on the Board in quite a while and what a joy to find this thread first place I looked. Old Rivermont was my parent's favorite spot before we started hitting the Bourbeuse when friends got a clubhouse. I've often wondered about it myself, where it went to, what it was called, and such. My dad hauled a few big rocks out of the creek to put in his garden, they're still out in the front garden. The creek was great for little kids as I recall, we got one photo of me there in diapers! It was a winding road with big whooshing hills (47) to get there, dad used to gun some of those hills and us kids felt our tummies turn over. There was a rope swing down there as I recall and the water was never really deep was it? Memories...

There are two sets of rules in this country. One set for the rich and the powerful, the other for the little guys. The little guys have to jump through all hoops imaginable to make sure their water is protective of human health and the environment, while the rich and powerful get a waiver. Simple as that. Thanks Al for pointing this out.

People talking on online message boards are like the coffee crowd in any small town. Lots of bull and occasional glimmers of insight with no real bearing (for the most part) on the actual decision making. If you really want to get involved, write a letter to the MDC instead of posting on a message board. If they get enough letters in support of slots they might change their thinking. Better yet go to an actual Conservation Commission meeting. I agree that change in values is what really makes a difference, not change in regs. But I also think (as Al points out eloquently in the Bob Todd thread) that values have changed and the great majority of serious bass anglers are C & R. The regs then reinforce the values already out there and of course set the new standard which influences values as well. (As Al has also said, a higher reg says simply "smallmouth are important" which the current reg basically does not say.) I found Bob Todd's Traveler comments to be contradictory and weak, basically. He in fact had a seat at the table in developing the MSA-backed regs, but his large public stand against them was lacking in any meaningful substance. Oppose it, fine, but at least make a decent argument. He's a meat fisher, fine, but I think he is in the minority when it comes to serious smallmouth anglers and to me the suggestion that there's a large 6 creel 12 LL constituency is a myth and in my limited research is "un-evidenced." Bob probably knows this too so he basically plays the rural vs. urban card which frankly sickens me, because the rural guys I know (including yours truly) are generally all of the C & R mentality. (We didn't get there overnight mind you, most of us grew up catch and kill.) Rural vs. urban is just a nasty political game. There was some good discussion on this board but at the end of the day it's still just talk. I don't have the time to research the fine points, or attend the committee meetings, etc. so when the MSA comes out with a well-reasoned balanced reg proposal, I say simply "what they said." I thank them for their work and wish them well in getting this through. It probably ain't perfect but nothing is. Last thing I'll say is I do think the decision makers do on occasion read these boards and get some of their input from them. And again by and large the overwhelming opinion here (despite the myriad differences) is that smallmouth are important, C & R generally is today's sportmen's ethic, and greater protection for the fishery (be it regs, habitat etc.) has wide support. I've followed this issue for close to 15 years now and the "big picture" change I've noticed is that smallmouth are simply more valued than they used to be. That alone is a great improvement and naturally will lead to better regs over time. Thanks again to Al and Dan Kreher and any others who have volunteered their time to work so hard on this. Hopefully the Conservation Commission will recognize the change in attitudes over a wide spectrum and raise the bar for the next generation of anglers. It's definitely time.

Regarding "nucular," Ameren had a plan last year to build a new plant at Callaway. Electric generation by the bucketful and jobs out the wazoo. Republican-led state legislature said no way. Never even got out of committee. End of story.

I've seen stringers too. No doubt they're out there. And some of these guys I know on occasion will go out to fill a stringer. But more often than not they don't want to mess with it. If they get into a nice one, yeah some (not all) will keep it, but more just for show than for eating. And even if you're going for a stringer, it's not always easy to do. Most of the meat fishers I know will go for catfish way before bass. If they want a bass fry they'll go to a farm pond. So they're more meat fishers out there than C & R? I really don't buy that at all. Times are changin. I re-read Bob Todd's article in Traveler again last night. One of his arguments is size isn't everything. Another goofy statement, excuse me. All those photos on the bait shop wall are of smallish fish? What size buck does Bob have on his wall? When my buddies tell me about their fishing trips do they talk about all those 11-inchers they were slaying? When you go out fishing why do you go? To catch a big fish!

I'm not trying to beat a dead horse either, but Bob Todd literally had a seat at the table; he's a member of the Smallmouth Alliance committee that developed the new regs. The regs were developed in some deference to the wishes of the meat-eaters. What I think is a myth is this supposed large meat-eating constituency. I know many many people in the Meramec watershed and only one is a hard-core meat eater. The great majority--jet boaters, tournament types, canoe guys, outfitters, guides, etc. are all basically C & R. Sure, lots of people keep an occasional bass or two--I have too--but they C & R much more often than not. This board is a good example of that also. Lot of different viewpoints and opinions, but most people here are C & R when it comes to smallmouth. If I were on the MSA board I would challenge those who oppose the regs to back up this claim up some large meat-eating constituency. I personally don't see it.

So the company that operates the well is not? Are you serious?

If MSA had proposed a 15 inch limit statewide I'd be opposed. It would never fly anyway. If some group of "uppity fishermen" in some secret room hypnotized the Conservation Commission, Conservation Federation of Missouri and my grandma into mandating C & R for smallmouth and while we're at it everything else that swims, yep, I'd be opposed. If the Meramec Dam was reauthorized and people came from far and wide to fish in the newly created smallmouth honey hole just above Meramec Caverns, yeah, I'd probably be opposed. If an "uppity fisherman" tried to tell me that spin-fishing for smallies is bouge-wah, and instead of Busch Beer I need to be drinking Honey Stout German ale and oh by the way you can't fish here anymore go home, yeah, I'd be somewhat miffed. But none of that is happening folks. MSA puts out a reasonable balanced proposal that in my very rural mind thank you reflects the general conservation and good steward ethic of fine Missouri sportsmen everywhere, and the best opponents can argue is, uh, what again? Too many fishermen or wait, too few and the government is running everybody off, I mean the uppity no good big city snobs are running everybody off and Welch Spring is gonna be like Wilson Dam or wait there's already fifty thousand canoes pass by there every weekend but what about permit sales, they'd go down dammit but oh yeah when all the uppity guys with their $400 Shakespeares start flying in from the Hamptons maybe my buddy down the rroad in his little sporting good shack might not mind seeing some of them guys again oh so what were we talking about again? 12-inch smallmouth, oh yeah kill em all! PERSONALLY, I think a slot might work. But MSA and MDC and others truly "in the game" have researched this a whole helluva lot more than I, so what they said. A few of my jet boatin buddies on the Meramec might say "what?" first time they hear 12-inchers ain't legal, but they'll forget about it by the time that 12-incher's in the water and the next beer is cracked. And some of my other Meramec friends will say "hallelujah" first time they hear the average size of their smallmouth catch is going up. So get with it people. Are you a conservationist or a politician? I know which side I'm on.

405z06, you say you were swarmed from Oz Outdoors to Blue Springs. Do you remember if the crowds were above or below Campbell Bridge (Highway N)? In my experience the Oz Outdoors to Campbell Bridge section is generally pretty peaceful, especially if you hit it later in the day. You definitely don't want to be below Campbell bridge en route to Blue Springs, or really anywhere above Oz Outdoors. Crazy.

Devil's Back Floats has a campground below Peter's Ford. Very close by car, river takes a big bend there. The operators' house burned and I'm not sure if they're even open but if you're looking for a campground that's it. In the morning if they are still in service they'll shuttle you, do whatever you need. Others on the board might know better their current situation. Call 573-484-3231. As far as the river goes, what Eric said. I like to see about 50 cfs flow on the High Gate gage for good upper river floating. You can do it as low as maybe 10 cfs but I like a little more volume. It's not the most scenic of rivers and it definitely has its very sloooow sections, but the fishing can be excellent, especially for spotted bass. Good luck.

Al, I sense some of the "rural vs. urban" in Bob's argument too. Which is another disappointment because I'm rural and my rural friends are for the most part supportive of these types of regs. So when Bob plays the rural vs. urban card it's just using emotion and politics to disguise the real issue. I've read some of his other writings on this topic and frankly while I respect what he's done through RHT I think his writings on this topic are getting bitter and mean-spirited. He's lost me, for one.

What's disappointing to me is his reasoning isn't clear. Basically he says "keep things the way they are." But why? Some of his arguments have this backwards kind of logic. Because he doesn't like that at Wilson Dam there were throngs of fishermen? But wait, in another section he says the new regs will "run all the fishermen off." At one point he says, "I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't give up our world class streams to obtain world class smallmouth fishing if it takes fishing below a Wilson Dam." That seems to be the core of his argument but frankly, it's just kind of dumb. It's like saying I don't want my little town to grow and prosper because I've seen other towns that do and by God those other towns might be prosperous but I'm happy where I'm at! Something like that. At its core it's a very selfish argument. What he never comes right out and says is he likes to catch and keep smallmouth and he wants to keep it that way. Okay, fine. Then just say that and argue from there. Instead we get this backward kind of reasoning that in the end contradicts itself and doesn't make much sense. The two sides in the debate are pretty simple: Those who like to catch keep and eat smallmouth vs. those who don't. Though I love to eat fried fish in my opinion the value of the resource is higher than the value of the food. I do find those who side with food to be pretty selfish. Bob Todd seems to want to make the argument that he would be "giving up" our already world-class streams for the sake of world-class fishing. No, the streams would still be the same, Bob. The only thing you'd be "giving up" is your right to eat 12-15 inch smallmouth. Call a spade a spade. I don't think that's a huge sacrifice to make.

Been reading some other threads and thought I'd throw this out directly: Want to take the whole family (wife and I plus three kids) on a two-night trip on the Buffalo. I'm shy of Ponca to Pruitt because of the likelihood that my wife would dump her boat (I'm piloting one, she the other). We're looking for more easy rolling water, gravel bar camping, and if possible a little side adventure or two (explore a hollow, climb a bluff etc.) I've been on the Buffalo but it was years ago, I think we took out at Gilbert. I'm open to any stream section, about the only thing to aviod would be extended slack water that requires paddling. My wife would not enjoy that. She typically doesn't touch a paddle on our trips together. I don't think the Buffalo has much slow section but aren't sure. Also, crowd control: If we were to start on a Saturday I imagine we'd be into some big crowds, correct? I can probably manage an extra day off or two and go Sunday-Tues but if there's a quiet(er) section of the river to hit on a Saturday it'd be better work-wise. Thanks.

150 to 200 cfs on Mtn View gage is probably optimum flow. Provided no more rain this week I would say you'd be in about perfect condition by the weekend.

Really appreciate your efforts. You think the brush has been cut since last weekend? If so it's possible one of those crews might've picked it up. The thing can be hard to find, I know from experience. The last time I lost it I had to get on foot and really poke in among the brush to locate it. It floats almost flush with the water level and is dark colored when wet. In any case thanks again.