fiveweight

How I learned to cast, and have been with a couple friends when they learned, was always at bluegill ponds. No trees or obstructions around or behind you, no currents to mess with, short leaders and small, simple floating flies. The actual act of casting is tricky enough at first without having to worry about other things like fly selection, river currents and presentation. Of course, if you take a class on a stream you will learn the basics of a lot more things, but still look for some open area with a small pond for practice - it will save you a lot of frustration and can be a good bet for an early reward. When I've gotten friends into fly fishing, I don't even take them to moving water until they're comfortable casting in ponds.

I usually consider it a wash whether to drive a few hours and rent a canoe for a single day or get a shuttle. Just to avoid the hassle I usually just rent - it's true while a float might cost you 40 bucks a shuttle might only save you 10 or 20 bucks which is nearly what the extra gas costs. If you live near where you float and go with a friend, it's different but there is certainly no sense in driving 2 cars multiple hours so you can have one at the take out. If I'm going somewhere for more than one day I bring my own. Where I've found the biggest advantage to owning your own canoe is on flat water where shuttling is not an issue. I bought mine to spend 2 weeks in northern Minnesota after college, and on that trip with a friend we were nearly able to pay for the canoe (that is, if there had been anywhere on those lakes to rent in the first place). Having your own canoe will open up a lot of smaller ponds where you can't rent one and often even where there is no boat launch so you might be able to find quite a bit of water that doesn't get much pressure. I've even come across situations where an outfitter may be willing to shuttle you somewhere they don't offer regular float trips. For example, if you want to have them drop you off way up the river and still park well above their location - otherwise they would have to pick you up if you rented one from them, which costs extra plus you have to arrange a meeting place and be there on time. I also love leaving my car somewhere and not have to worry about getting to the take out point before some place closes. This may give you a couple extra hours on the water in the summer on a single day trip and can significantly save costs on multi-day trips.

I've had an Old Town 16'9 that has been getting regular, heavy use since 2001. I know some canoe rental places use these as their standard fleet boats, and it's probably because they are relatively cheap and durable. The downside is their weight, hard to put on top of your car alone but it can be done through some creative means. I also sit in the front seat backwards on solo trips, and if you're ever on a lake in windy conditions turning it around can be a pain, but for having one canoe I wouldn't want anything smaller because it can hold a LOT of weight. Two years ago a friend and I did a 5 day trip on the upper Buffalo and did not pack light. We're both big guys and we figure we had about 750 pounds of us, beer and gear. That was certainly pushing it, but it just shows what a work horse such a big canoe can be. I don't think we could have packed light enough to do the trip on a smaller craft through that water. As a bonus, it's wide enough we can both stand up and cast through calm water. It's also nice having a cheap, durable canoe because I never worry about rocks and some times am not so kind to it when dragging it over asphalt or gravel but it has held up remarkably well despite the abuse. FYI, I paid about 550 for it new so a used fleet craft with many years left shouldn't burn a hole in your pocket. Again, my biggest complaint is the weight but if you have to bang it around a bit on land you at least know you aren't damaging a more delicate, expensive boat.

John Berry is right on about the Norfork. It's where to go if you want a grand slam. Seems to me the cuts are sporadic and never a sure thing but the brookies are either non existent or everywhere, probably tied directly to stocking schedules. Most you find are just stockers but I once got into three or four 14-16" brookies around McClelland's which just made my trip. Nothing is more colorful than a spawning phase male Norfork brookie, not even the most colorful brown you'd find. The last couple times I ran into bunches of brookies have been within a mile of the dam, but I've seen them stacked up in the C&R area as well. Sometimes you can float the entire river and never see one. On the white, I have caught very few of either.

Smallmouth, just over 5 lbs, white 1/8 oz rooster tail. Seems like a dwarf compared to most of you guys.

Interesting question. It sounds loaded, but as a lot of responses indicate there are some valid answers. Here's my take: Fishing has its share of C&R supporters because it is possible to do, and those who appreciate C&R believe it leads to more opportunities for people to catch fish, and when certain waters mandate C&R they feel like the whole rule makes a bigger difference than a few fish they voluntarially release on their own - guaranteeing more catching opportunities for them and others on that water. That's why some favor rules, not just a self-imposed code. On the other hand, there is no such thing as catch and release hunting, so first off there is nobody to advocate it. Second, if hunting season was open as long as fishing season (year round in many states) there would be fewer shooting opportunities because the deer population would be much lower. So one of the reasons the DNR sets the deer season to be so short is to prevent overharvesting. It's kind of a silly thought, but for argument's sake if there was such a thing as catch and release deer hunting my guess would be that it would have an extended season because it does not affect population, and the people who like to hunt more for the sport than the meat would form a significant movement to support their way of increasing sporting opportunities.

11pt has great camping, you need to rent a canoe to really experience the fishing though. Brian Sloss can set you up with a great overnight trip where you can camp in designated float camps. Spring River is only 3 hours from Memphis and has better wading opportunities and several private campgrounds on the river, but it's much more developed. A place called Riverside camp ground is open year round (or at least it used to be).

Thanks for checking on that Lilly. Now if you could only tell me how much the owner of China 1 Buffet pays per pound of crab legs I'd know how much I need to eat to get my money's worth Seriously though, it's great to hear the program is typically self sustaining.

Here's something else I came across: A paper called "Budgets for trout production" (in the south). Average cost per pound in a large fish farm (example was 150,000 pounds - still much smaller than SOTH) 82 cents. Note that the paper is from 1990, so double that but since each Missouri rainbow is stocked a little over half a half pound you're still looking at something like a buck a fish. Not saying that's what it actually costs, government isn't going to be as efficient as an identical private operation but it should give a ballpark. http://www.ustfa.org/Trout%20production/Bu...srac%201990.pdf

$7 per fish sounds way high. Fifteen years ago I helped my uncle run an outdoor catering business in Nashville. They had a small stocked stream as an option for people to catch and grill their own lunch. The price we paid was fifty cents per trout, and they were 12" long. That included delivery and we were ordering maybe 500 a month. I can remember him always ordering about 20 extras that went straight into his own freezer from the stocking truck. Yes, inflation means that's probably about a buck or more per fish in modern currency but this was a tiny, private operation so that comprehensively includes the price of all their overhead and whatever profit they made. Here is a link to the first private fish farm I could find: http://www.stockrainbow.com/ Their price per fish is $2.00 per pound on orders as small as 100 pounds with volume discounts available, and this looks like another small private operation. Shepherd of the Hills dwarfs an operation like this in scale, isn't for profit, doesn't pay corporate income tax, and is located within a few feet of where most are stocked. If it costs anywhere near $7 per fish from egg collection to delivery then this just screams out as a program that needs to be privatized, and let the DNR purchase those fish for a fraction of the cost.

Well crap.

Thanks for posting that. It may even be low. The only objective way to quantify that figure is to compare the revenue of trout stamps sold to the total revenue of all licenses. But since a standard fishing license is a prerequisite for a trout stamp, it would be low because it doesn't count revenue from standard licenses sold to people who only fish for trout.

Nobody is asking the question: is money generated from the trout program supplementing or siphoning off funding to protect and provide access to native species? When you have a program as big as it is, it can obviously both take in and spend huge resources. If there was no trout stocking program, would there be more purchasing of public land and providing of access to rivers like the Gasconade, Black, Current, etc. or less? I cannot guess what the answer is, but the high concentration of fishermen in trout parks and Taney is an enormous source of revenue. Is all that and more spent directly where it is generated, or does some of it go back into the general budget to supplement funding for other waterways? Currently living back in a state with a much smaller and less significant trout program (Indiana) our warm water streams do not have nearly the amount of managed access and publicly owned stream side property that warm water Ozark streams get even on the few decent streams we do have here. You would think that in Indiana, with only a handful of quality streams worth caring for it shouldn't be hard to do more per stream mile but that doesn't seem to be the case. If having a huge trout program to increase DNR revenue is indeed the factor making the difference in Missouri, even the warm water streams are in a better situation because of it. Perhaps the same could be said of the giant Army Corps lakes as massive fishing destinations which we also lack here.

fishinwrench, I think that seems like a pretty far suggestion but I have a hard time disagreeing with your logic.

Agree ness, butt ugly. I got pretty excited the first time I heard of these things which was recently in North Carolina. A Cherokee reservation we were driving by advertised trophy catch and release "golden trout" on a billboard. Curious, I picked up a brochure and saw these ugly pale rainbows, nothing like a real golden trout. It wreaked of tourist trap gimmickry. Glad I passed.

Eric you are right, I didn't outright say it but what I was referring to by "at the community level" would in practice most likely be a local tax (town of Hollister, county, multi-county compound, whatever is most appropriate).

Zack, OK make me do some work here but here are some references: From the Pennsylvania fish commission web site - brief history of the golden rainbows and statement that they are a mutation and not sterile: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/pages/q...rout_golden.htm That link suggests they are not albinos, but does not address the cause of lighter pigment. This link describes a type of albinism called "Tyrosinase-negative". I think the golden rainbows are probably something like this. "lack tyrosinase (an enzyme which synthesises melanin) in their cells; this usually produces a pale yellowish or cream animal with pink-eyes." - Note that is a statement of animals in general, so the pink eyes part probably doesn't apply to fish. If you do a google Image search on the term "Tyrosinase-negative", you will see pictures of pale yellow snakes with markings similar to normally pigmented animals - very similar to our golden bows. http://www.messybeast.com/albinism/albino-index.htm I just found another site that seems to confirm this. Here's an excerpt, though the article a little over my head: "Albinism is a recessive trait in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). We tested for complementation at the albino locus among six USA rainbow trout strains and found that albinos from four domesticated strains and one Idaho steelhead strain are mutant at the same locus. These strains apparently are tyrosinase-deficient albinos." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...3f6919947273f90

As a pseudo-libertarian who feels it is neither the role of the government nor optimal public policy to shuffle funding around in attempt to "stimulate" the economy, here is how I see the ideal funding solution to a situation like this: If trout stamps and licenses purchased with intent to fish Taneycomo are insufficient to fund stocking and stream management, the community and businesses benefiting from the surrounding commerce should have enough incentive to pick up the remainder of the cost. If such a discrepancy does indeed exist, the burden should not sit on those removed from the situation. If the cost of funding the rest of the stocking is nominal and results in increased business, that cost is an investment worth paying by the local community. If such a cost burden on those businesses is enough to make them financially unviable then the question has to be asked whether they should exist in such numbers in the first place, because that would suggest their livelihood is being subsidized with public funding. That or the amount of stocking and stream management is just too ambitious and should be scaled back. That may sound harsh when it's a discussion of your own backyard, but if that same logic is applied everywhere the government spends money it will be better allocated and overall tax burdens will decrease. Here's why I call my position "pseudo-libertarian" and differentiate myself from being all-out. There are exceptions. For example, to protect a threatened population or stream like Crane where it is considered in the public interest but not financially viable to do so. However, this must be considered a cost and not an investment, and as such must balance public interest in its benefit with the increased cost of trout stamps and licenses or taxes - not something to take lightly. And also, I guess the libertarian position would probably also say that individual businesses should take it upon themselves to fund the stream management but that isn't practical since nobody is going to voluntarially absorb a cost that would benefit their competitors just as much, which is why I suggest it be handled at the community level. Having said that, I think it's a moot point. Lilly could probably give some insight, but my suspicion would be that the huge number of license and stamp sales surrounding Taney are indeed sufficient to fund its stocking and likewise for the other tailwaters.

What JJ said. If it's some pet project that draws funding from streams, then no but if it generates enough fishing licenses and trout stamps to fund itself, why not? In St Louis, there are maybe a dozen put and take trout lakes. You still need to buy a license to fish there, and from seeing how many people do I can only imagine they make their money back and then some. I think most of the people fishing for them are not likely to otherwise buy a trout stamp and head down to the Ozarks, but for others it's a nice afternoon fix when we can't get down south. They aren't hard for the DNR to manage - you don't even have to care if they make it past the spring because nobody cares. Suitable habitat? Blah! Abundant forage? Blah! It increases both the number of people buying trout stamps as well as general interest in the sport, not unlike trout parks.

The press release says they are not albinos, but what I have read elsewhere says they have a trait that is basically partial albinism. Not all albino animals are completely void of pigment, some just lack most of it and "golden" rainbow trout fall into this category, for all intents and purposes they should be considered an albino specimen by most biologists. They are a genetic mutation, not a hybrid, and perfectly capable of reproducing. they can cross with hatchery strain fish, and since they are the same species there is no reason to believe they will spawn at different times or somehow isolate themselves to separate redds. With the thousands upon thousands of fish stocked annually by the AGFC why pollute the gene pool with a nominal number of fish that have a gene making them easy targets for predators? Beyond novelty in environments where natural reproduction doesn't exist, I don't understand this decision. They originated as a natural mutant in an otherwise normal rainbow hatchery strain out east, so they could also technically have appeared in Ozark hatcheries, though selective breeding would have been required to boost their numbers. Hopefully they will be removed quickly and any cross-bred offspring displaying the characteristic will be weeded from the gene pool within a generation or two.

Never fished the Niangua, but I'd rank the other rivers like this for big fish: Current (because I mostly wade and therefore have fished it the most) 11pt NFOW Current has a ton of fish mostly because of all the stocking going on at Montauk that leaks downstream, and many do live there long enough to continue growing to nice sizes. I've never caught a big fish at the 11pt, but there are some nice fish and plenty of them for a stream that doesn't get the crap stocked out of it like the tailwaters and trout park streams. I only rank NFOW last because I'm least familiar with it, only having fished it a few times and never from a canoe like it should probably be fished. Also, I've never felt like I figured out that stream.

I think you got the right rod. I was going to respond that my choice in your situation would be a 5 wt, medium fast 9' rod. It's the best all-around trout rod and more than serviceable for smallies. I wouldn't have suggested a compromise between the two species because a 6 weight, while great for smallies and most trout, will be a little heavy to appreciate the gentle presentation of a dry fly. You might suffer a nominal hit on distance when casting heavier streamers and hair bugs but for the most part you can still do 90% of your smallie fishing right and enjoy your trout fishing 100%. As for 2 vs 4 piece, I have never felt the difference when casting. I have both and appreciate the 4 piece for traveling even when just in a car because it fits so easily in my trunk. But When I've just driven several hours and can't wait to set up my rig and get going the 2 piece fits together a little bit faster. Enjoy your new rod.

I use dropper rigs when I'm not catching anything and need to search through a few patterns. If I catch a fish on one of the flies I usually switch to a single of that fly because I spend way too much time fiddling with my rig and not enough time drifting water when using two. I also try to go by the same rule as most others - heavier fly on top and size down the tippet to the lower fly because it's usually smaller. When the fish are biting what I'm throwing, there is no need to use a two fly combo, the dropper does indeed hamper the first fly's presentation. I find that the way to throw two flies is to cast a bit shorter and slow it down and really use a larger movement more from the shoulder while keeping the elbow more in a locked position, this keeps the loop more open for me at least though it might not be proper "form". Maybe I can just get away with sloppier casting with a single fly.

hi

Depends on how far downstream you're talking. Here's a pretty good link with the most detail I've ever seen. I'd love to hear from some of the local gurus how accurate they think this is, I've always heard and used the 2 mph figure but I guess it does probably depend on how many generators they turn on/off. For Norfork, since it only has 2 generators, the 2 mph figure is probably accurate for both rise and fall, so if you're fishing at the dam the answer is almost immediately and if you're fishing at the confluence the answer is a couple hours. http://www.hisplaceresort.net/River-flow.htm