Dan Kreher

I have the Whitewater book at provides some very good local knowledge but doesn't always distinguish between "official" access points and private/semi-private ones. Helpful but far from comprehensive in my opinion as it lists just whitewater sections mostly and only short stretches of many of the larger rivers. I have the Gazetteer as well -- probably several years old by now. It certainly shows access points but does not usually give the actual name of the Access making it somewhat difficult to use for compiling a list of accesses, driving directions, etc. Again, likely puting cart before the horse with regards to my original idea about getting a good comprehensive reference that lists / shows all public accesses on Arkansas several dozen larger SMB streams for purposes of 'someday' posting angler educational signage there similar to what MSA has done in Missouri. But, as a map guy and planner of float trips in some, far off, distant time -- it's always good to have more materials at my disposal with which to concoct such plans -- much to my wife's dismay. I'll put this on my list when speaking with AG&F fisheries guys later this summer. Yet another SMB related project to distract me from true responsibilities.

Probably putting the cart before the horse here, but what is the best reference you've found to locate public stream access points in Arkansas? I used to use a publication called the Arkansas Fishing Atlas that I picked up about 18 years ago at the Wal-Mart in Mountain Home. Still have it minus the cover. But, it's likely that there's been some accesses added and subtracted since then. For Missouri, we use the MDC's online atlas to locate the MDC controlled access points, USFS and NPS publications for accesses they control and DNR publications for accesses in State Parks as well as the Paddling Missouri book by Oz Hawksley. How good are publications by AG&F on finding stream access points? Judging from Al/Mitch and Andy's recent trip, they had a bit of trouble locating a few of them. If MSA or an Arkansas affiliate took on such a sign posting project someday, I'd like to have a good resource to determine the accesses to post, directions, maps, etc.

Perhaps MSA can get a similar program going in Arkansas. I know AG&F would be receptive based on my past dealings with them. But, we as yet lack an official Arkansas Smallmouth Alliance to get the local Arkansas tie in. I'm sure it would sell better if we had an actual Arkansas group. Some attempts in past but no one has really taken the ball on that initiative. Perhaps I'll once again direct some attention to getting that elusive Arkansas Alliance chapter started come this fall/winter. Missouri chapter will certainly provide lots of moral and some financial support as needed.

Probably need to go right to Mark Oliver at AGFC to get real story on this stocking deal. I'll try to get ahold of him sometime later this summer to get the low down. I've spoken with him in past (over 10 years ago at least) about Arkansas SMB mgt program and he has been very receptive to open discussion. I'll try to track him down. I will probably expand the disucssion to encompass the current situation with SMB management in Arkansas which has taken a slightly different direction than Missouri's. In Arkansas - they have set up different management zones that differ from the statewide 10" MLL / 4 creel Ozark Quality Zone (18 northern counties) - 12" MLL / 4 fish creel Boston Mtn Zone - 12" MLL / 2 fish creel Ouachita Qlty Zone - 12" MLL/ 2 fish creel within Ozark Zone, there are now 8 Blue Ribbon Streams which feature 14" MLL / 2 SMB limits Then, there are 136 miles of river (90 on Little Missouri below Greeson Dam) on 4 streams managed under 18" MLL / 1 SMB creel on the 12"/2 or 14"/2 regs, rather than have designated stretches managed under this regime, they have put the entire rivers under this minimal level of protection from over-harvest. In Missouri, other than the Big, Eleven Point and Elk, only sections of designated streams are under special management regulations. Might be good to do an article for both Ozark Anglers and MSA newsletter, comparing and contrasting these management programs. I'll add it to my hit list for 2012. No closed season in Arkansas but my research has shown that closed seasons on SMB are not prevalent in more Southern states -- the concept of closed seasons and opening days is more of Northern tradition due to colder weather conditions I'd hazard. I know that Arkansas has watched with interest some of the various management programs enacted for stream resources here in Missouri. Their SMB management program -- they even call it a Plan -- was launched shortly after Missouri's in the early 1990s. And, arguably, you can claim they have surpassed Missouri's in terms of stream mileage and their approach to place entire rivers under the same special management. Likewise, Arkansas instituted an Adopt a Stream program (cannot recall specific name off hand) mirroring Missouri's very successful Stream Team program.

After over 20 volunteers have posted approximately 150 public access points on our smallmouth bass streams across the state, we still have a handful of accesses in need of signs which are as yet unassigned. ONSR access points on Current and Jacks Fork rivers are excluded from these totals as the NPS has agreed to post an abbreviated version of MSA's world class signs at these locations themselves. The accesses in need of signs include: Current (Carter Cty) - Van Buren Riverfront Park Current (Ripley Cty) - Deer Leap Rec Area/TL Wright access Jacks Fork (Texas Cty) - South Prong access Little Black (Ripley/Butler Ctys) - Ringo Ford, Mudpuppy CA, Greenville Ford Noblett Creek (Douglas Cty) - Noblett Dam access Flat Creek (Barry Cty) - Lower Flat Creek/Stubblefield accesses James (Stone Cty) - HL Kerr access Finley (Christian Cty) - Jim Turner Anyone who frequents one or more of these areas and who's interested in helping to spread the message of SMB conservation, please send me a PM for more details. Signs, directions and posting materials will be delivered to you via US Mail. Thanks.

Floated from Ross Bridge to FLW on 6/10 at water levels similar to current and was find. Not loaded with camping gear but my Coosa kayak still draws a fair amount of water. Don't recall doing any dragging that day.

Saw that AG&FC stocked between 5 to 8000 SMB fingerlings in 5 of Arkansas notable SMB streams in May including Saline, Ouachita, War Eagle, Caddo and Kings Rivers. Not sure if this is an infrequent occurrence or they do it every year. If you happen to know how to contact Mark Oliver at AGFC who is a senior guy in fisheries perhaps pose the question to him regarding the need for any purpose of this stocking program. As far as I know, the MDC does not engage in similar activities in our SMB streams in Missouri and has not for decades as I've been told.

that seems like an odd fisheries management tool these days. The MDC, as well as most fisheries depts, concluded many years ago that stocking SMB in stream fisheries were not viable long term strategies. Is there a news link that you can post so we can see the facts from AG&F -- or I'll do some research on my own. Would think stocking would only be used in response to a localized fish kill rather than to supplement native populations.

Clearly, we need to hold some sort of smallmouth management summit including the knowledgeable folks on this Board and retired and current fisheries biologists responsible for managing our stream SMB resources. Lots of good scientific data and an abundance of anectodal experience (and admittedly plenty of conjecture) can all be thrown into the mix and perhaps we can reach some actual conclusions about the best way to manage our stream fisheries for desired outcomes -- both in a general and specific waters sense. I would prefer to wait to convene such a meeting until the the MDC issues its two most recently conducted studies referred to above (the angler survey and the reward tagging study) as both should provide helpful insight into angler attitudes and practices. Probably does no good to continue to kick these issues around amongst ourselves as we sort of go in circles (myself included) which is typical for such online discussions. Lots of things to think about but it might be best to run our concerns and observations by the folks with the scientific credentials and physical data in a face-to-face discussion. Given the geographic dispersion of the interested parties on this Board, it might make sense to hold such a summit in Jefferson City or some other more centralized location. MDC fisheries guys routinely present to Missouri Smallmouth Alliance at least annually at one of our meetings in STL, but that is not too convenient for lots of folks concerned with these issues. I will kick around the idea for holding such a summit with MSA president Matt Wier and then put forth the idea with the key players at the MDC as well as some of our retired biologists/fisheries contacts to see if such an event would be feasible. Likely hold it in winter months when more folks would be likely to attend. Meanwhile, later this summer, I intend to reach out to fisheries managers in other states who have instituted protected slot limits on SMB streams to determine their underlying rationale, results observed and angler compliance/reaction to these regulations. I've seen plenty of articles lauding such limits, particulary wide slots like 12"-20" which end up essentially protecting about all the reasonably harvestable fish from the dinner table, but would be best to hear facts straight from the horse's mouth via personal converations. Minnesota Tennessee Illinois Virginia and others have implemented slots on one or more waters in their states and will be the ones I will target for information. A summary of these conversations would likely be published in upcoming issue of MSA's newsletter, Bronzeback News, with a link to it offered on Ozark Anglers. Could also just post that article directly with Phil's permission. I'll get back to folks as things come together on the SMB Summit concept.

Again, I'm no fisheries biologist. I'm just echoing what I've read from fisheries reports, smallmouth bass conservation experts and my own observations. The slots you refer to are generally the 12"-15" variety and have been imposed on small lakes and ponds with very limited food supplies inherent with their being closed systems. Natural stream environments are considered open systems, and in areas with decent habitat, boast sufficient food resources for normal stream growth rates. Predators in streams grow much more slowly that their still water counterparts due to more energy being used for survival in a riverine environment which can have low water, high water, fast currents and other issues. Slots are used in those areas where growth rates slow due to unsustainable high competition for food resources in order to reduce the number of fish to improve growth rates and affect size structure. Folks I've spoken with at the MDC have not noted slot limits as regulations they're considering for improvement in our stream SMB fisheries as they typically do not fit these criteria. There may be some differing schools of thought amongst these biologists but the SMB survey you mentioned did not even mention protected slot limits as a potential regulation for folks to give their opinion of. Sort of reflects the MDC's thinking on this topic perhaps. Surveys which the MSA conducted with angler groups in years past did indicate good support for protected slot regs if they were shown to be effective in imrpoving average fish sizes and overall fishing quality. Whether they would be as effective as a high MLL / low creel was not the issue. Regardless, as I noted earlier I would like to have a more structured dialog with say, Spence Turner, retired MDC fisheries guru, and a couple of the current MDC fisheries team to discuss the merits and de-merits of slot limits on our streams. We, as MSA, did not propose such slot regs to MDC Regulations Committee back in 2010 because they differed so much from what the MDC was currently doing in the Special Regs areas. We didn't want to suggest complicating steam SMB management still further. MDC repeatedly has stated they like to keep regulations simple and easy to understand. Not that slots are all that complicated, but . . . As I understand it, yes, you'd need there to be harvest below the protected slot if indeed a fishery was overpopulated for the avaialble food resources. Otherwise, the slot won't work any differently than a miniumum length limit. High MLLs work very well for fisheries with good habitat = food production such as our streams overall. As far as catching dinks is concerned, that has been my recent experience all over the place the past two months. Seems the larger fish just ain't taking what I'm throwing. I will once again state, we don't have too many small SMB in our streams -- rather simply too many of our fish are small cause all the 12"+ fish get taken shortly after reaching legal length under our current maximum sustained yield statewide regulations regime. Would an appropriate protected slot limit improve this situation? Quite possiblly but high MLL would be even better from fisheries mgt perspective. Awaiting results of MDC SMB tagging study to gauge relative fishing pressure on those streams selected as well as preponderance of catch & release vs. harvesters of those tagged fish. My 15.75" tagged smallie from the North Fork actually made it a full 365 days exactly from the date it was tagged by MDC until I caught it and removed the $25 tag back in early May. Results for first 7 months of that study showed a 40-45% catch rate of those tagged fish which was alarmingly high. Haven't told us what percentage were released vs. kept yet though. Final SMB survey results also finally due out in late summer. Looking forward to diving into the details of that survey to discern angler preferences, attitudes, etc. Initial results were somewhat enouraging but I withhold judgement until can see data for myself.

Based on what I've been told by learned fisheries biologists, daily creel limit changes have little overall effect on fish populations/size structures. Very few 'average' anglers anglers reportedly actually catch a limit of keeper sized fish. The real good anglers can, but the vast majority of anglers don't. Reductions in creel limit then serve to spread the harvest around amongst more anglers and only prevent the better anglers from keeping more fish. Size limits, particulary high minimum length limits, have a much more widespread impact on size structure than do creel limits as I understand it. Now, if the premise is that the more proficient anglers, particulary those using natural bait (another issue but likely the most effective and widely used method used by those whose goal is the harvest of SMB), would thereby be limited in their legal harvest of keeper fish if you dropped the creel limit from 6 to 3 fish. That point does seem to have some merit if that is the assumption. Some would bristle at the assertion that it is the catch and keep angler that is keeping our fisheries below their potential because they are harvesting fish at an unsustainable/undesirable rate under our current outdated creel limits. But, we all know that harvest of legal SMB is the biggest reason why the Ozarks do not boast the midwest's best fishing for better average size fish -- too many of them are kept. In exchange for a more restricted creel limit, what "concession" would the MDC need to then make? In terms of suggesting a protected slot limt from that 14"-18" desired size is concerned, my belief is that the current population of Ozark smallies which would fall within this range is a small minority of the catchable fish -- as little as 15% on most streams.This is far from a natural distribution as we see from our experiences on other streams around the country which lack the harvest tradition we have here in Ozarks. So, if the slots only protect 15% of the catchable fish, regardless of the creel limit allowed below the slot, I'd doubt that the number of fish that would squeeze through the "release to the grease guantlet" would increase markedly. Rather, with the prevalent harvest mentality of many local anglers, we'd see a modest change in harvest within the population with a lower daily creel limit. I'm sure that the MDC could conduct a myraid of scientific modeling using various potential regulations regimes to determine the expected impact on fish populations, average sizes, expected catch rates, etc. -- and I'm certain they have internally. Judging from the types of special regulations which they've put forth for our streams --- higher MLL and 1 fish creel limits -- I'm thinking that those are the type of regulations they believe are most effective in improving angler catch rates and average sizes. Again, I'm no fisheries biologist -- I just read alot -- and have fished enough areas to realize that angler harvest is the number one limiting factor determining the quality of angling between different streams with suitable SMB habitat. Now, once a fish manages to get above that 14" suggested slot threshold, it should have a much better chance of eventually reaching that coveted 18" size within about 3-5 years as natural mortality at that size is quite low and typical C&R mortality is usually about 90% or above. They would certainly have a better chance than under a 15" MLL or our general 12" MLL. But an 18" MLL would be much better overall biologically speaking than any proposed slot limit. Slots are generally used to thin out an overpopulated fishery whose food resources are limiting fish growth and size structure. This is not the case in our Ozark streams. Our stream smallmouth are not "stunted" and are not overpopulated. We don't have too many small fish in the Ozarks -- rather too many of our SMB are small. They grow very slowly and need more protection from harvest not less. In unexploited or no harvest stream fisheries, biomass of SMB are much higher than we currently have and the proportional size density of larger fish is much better. Larger fish do not get crowded out of feeding lanes/rootwads/etc -- they are the most effective predators in the population. Problem is, a good many of our best holds contain 12"-13" fish rather than the 17'-18" fish they might elsewhere. Somebody keeps putting them on a stringer. While, if forced to, I would support a protected slot limit of say 12" - 18" or even 12" - 15" with a 3/1 daily limit or similar as that would be a marked improvement over our current 12" MLL/6 fish creel, I would have trouble believeing that a 14"-18" slot would be that effective in improving things here in Ozarks for the reasons noted above. Now, if everyone would just release all their SMB anyway, we'd be getting somewhere -- those danged Ozark 'traditions'. Respectfully. PS -- I would like to have an in depth conversation with one or more of our stream fisheries biologists (either current or retired) sometime soon to kick this discussion around further. Clearly, certain states are implemented protected slots on specific SMB waters but their harvest dynamics may not be the same as ours here. I'd like to get better understanding of their specific rationale.

Although I've not fished their rivers yet, several of Tennessee's better SMB streams (eastern half of state) have been managed under a 13"-17" protected slot limit for the past few years. A few others, including the one that forms Dale Hollow, Pigeon River, I recall, are managed under a 20" MLL. No statewide MLL in Tennessee as their research determined that a 12-13" MLL would have nearly the same impact on river fishereies there as having no MLL at all so they just went straight to the slot limit deal to allow some amount of harvest of smaller fish by folks interested in cleaning a couple of little ones. I am no fisheries biologist, but I do know that slot limits are being increasingly used in many states to manage SMB on some of the better rivers. A fisheries biologist of some experience has told me direct that in stream fisheries with suitable habitat the best regulation is total C&R, followed by a high MLL (18-20"), followed by a slot limit (say 12"-18") and then a 12" MLL maximum sustained yield reg like much of our state has had for many years. From what I've heard from the MDC, they believe slots are specific regs for specific fisheries (mostly smaller lakes with limited food supplies) and are not biologicaly sound measures for most of our Ozark streams. I'll be doing further research on this for The MO Smallmouth Alliance in the coming months as I realize some knowledgeable folks on this board and others who write for certain outdoor publications have been preaching their merits for our rivers. More on this later. Now, I don't trust for a minute that removing Missouri's 12" MLL would be good for our streams long-term. It's tough enough to find 12"-ers now. With the amount of localized harvest in Ozarks we'd likely be going back 40 years in stream SMB management if we went that route. Perhaps the rivers in Tennessee are as 'loved to death' as ours here in the Ozarks. Quickly, while I know Al Agnew is down fishing in Arkansas, I'll warn against even suggesting a protected slot from 14"-18" as that would not serve to protect many fish in our streams from harvest. Only about 10-15% of SMB in our streams surveyed through electro-fishing typcially exceed 14" in the first place. So, we'd be opening up a can of worms IMHO with that type of harvest-friendly reg thrown as a bone to the catch & fry contingent as an appeasement for having to throw back some bigger fish. We'd not have any fish surviving long enough to make it into the slot limit in some areas. MSA is not against all stream SMB harvest as a state-wide management tool, but it sure doesn't do any good for the quality of the catch & release angler's experience.

Accesss below Hwy B bridge (MDC Long Ford Access) are pretty numerous and well spaced on Osage Fork. Long Ford to Drynob is a long day float for most folks or a possible overnighter if you want to go slowly. Drynob to Davis Ford is a short trip which I've usually combined by taking out about 6 miles further downstream at Hull Ford (MDC). Hull to Gasconade is about another 5 miles with another mile to Hazelgreen access on Gasconade. Driving shuttles are pretty easy here. Special SMB regs water (15"/ 1 SMB) starts at Orla about 7 miles upstream of Long Ford. But, local landowner restricts access around Orla and it looked like the bridge there was fenced off near stream when I was last in area in early 2011. Stay away from posted low water crossings for the next 5 miles or so upstream as same landowner's family has nasty warning signs at crossings. Upstream of say Hwy J, there are several LWB crossings that you could try. Likely not much water up there currently. I'd stick to Long Ford and below for now as there's lots of decent water from there to Gasconade. Gasconade Hills CG over on Gasconade will shuttle private canoes on Osage Fork if approached in advance and likely not on a Saturday in summer. If live in area though, it's no big deal to take 2 vehicles to do self=shuttle. Enjoy.

So far, I have a little over 100 canoe rental operations in MO Ozarks identified from various sources. Not looking to expand my 'research' into who will do shuttles/what stretches/etc. but that would certainly be a worthwhile project for some kind smallmouth anglers to undertake. Info on websites I've visited is somewhat helpful but a phone call or a well-crafted e-mail would likely be much more effective to ferret out information of value. Might be a good late season project for someone as all the outfitters are likely pretty busy gearing up for Memorial Day weekend festivities. I will certainly share the database, perhaps we'll post it on the MSA website as a general guide, with any members of OA who would like to see it. Includes name, mailing address, phone number, website and e-mail where avaialble

In my research of Ozark canoe outfitters, I am not finding many listings for liveries on a couple of float streams in SW MO area. These include Spring River, Center Creek and Shoal Creek. There are a multitude on Elk River and its major tributaries, but I'm surprised there aren't more shown for these other streams. Can anyone out there help me out here? So far, I've got just over 100 commercial canoe outfitters across MO Ozarks in my database which I've been able to verify as currently in business. I want to have the complete listing as I wrap up Phase II of the MSA SMB sign posting project. Thanks.

We had a great turnout last Sunday morning for MSA sign posting project with 18 volunteers showing up to help. Just that day the group posted nearly 100 separate locations on 15 different rivers in MO. Yesterday, I just mailed out about 50 signs to 6 other volunteers who came forth to answer my solicitation for help on the Ozark Anglers board == and 4 of these guys weren't even MSA members YET. We took care of that as thanks for their efforts. One approval from NPS is received, we'll post another 25 or so locations on Jacks Fork and Current rivers later this summer. Thanks to all who helped out with this important project. It will really make a difference in educating anglers on the slow growth rates of stream SMB here in the Ozarks in hopes that they think twice before reducing one of these wild fish to the a quick meal. Now we begin Phase II of the Sign Posting Project -- hitting over 100 outfitters across state to have a larger format SMB angler educational sign posted at their locations. These signs will include info on the general statewide regulations for management of stream SMB -- something that's sorely needed based on a general lack of understanding by the casual angler. Our results from posting public access points certainly indicated a lack of angling regulations info at those locations. Hopefully, having these larger and very noticeable signs posted at the offices of most canoe outfitters in MO Ozarks will further angler education in this area. MO Smallmouth Alliance doesn't need any volunteers to deliver these signs -- we're going to mail them out once we make initial contact with each outfitter. Would have been great to deliver them while we were out posting last week but that was just too much to ask of the volunteers many of whom spent 8-10 hours driving 300-400 miles of backroads hitting accesses already. Thankfully, given the planned posting location for the larger outfitter signs as being either inside a building or posted on a wall near the door, we won't have to go to this trouble and expense distributing them again for many years.

Just got back from 2 days on upper North Fork (Hale Crossing to Hammond Camp). Water was in real good shape but several trees down required some minor portaging above Twin Bridges. Topwater fishing was strong although smallies a bit size challenged on this trip. Saw many nicer fish in holes but they weren't as aggressive as I hoped. A tagged 15.75 incher ($25 value) helped pay for a portion of shuttle cost. Could do more water above where I put in. Bryant Creek would be nice alternative from Monesatary bridge (Hwy 00) down to Sycamore for about 3 days. Do it yourself shuttle, however. Piney a real nice choice as well.

LaRussell is one as you note; the other is Talbot and MDC lists 'canoeing' on Spring River as an activity as well as 'bass fishing'. With your great knowledge of area around Joplin et al would you be willing to post a few signs around there if I mailed them to you. We can only do the MDC approved signs at official public accesses (MDC, USFS, NPS). I'm going thru the approval processes with a couple of these separate agencies currently just to cover all the bases. We have another sign that is larger in format and similar in messaging that we are free to post at any semi-private/private access for which we get the owner's permission. I've had several folks contact me via this board and elsewhere wanting to post SMB signs at these types of locations. Initally, we will be sending these signs to canoe outfitters across state but could also get those put out at selected popular access spots later this year. Back surgery for me late next week will keep me from fishing until mid-June at earliest. Plans sort of up in the air for summer.

MDC shows one called the Lamar Access. Just assumed that due to the geographic area that smallies swam there. Thanks for the clarification, Chief. Obviously being unfamiliar with the North Fork there what is the reason for no smallmouths? Water too cold or too turbid? When and I going to get the time to spend a week in the SW corner of MO to fish those waters? Conservation Federation holding its next Board meeting in early June in Neosho with visit to fish hatchery planned. Might need to attend if I can convince the spouse this represents fulfillment of a "responsibility". With the NF off the list, we now just need to find some posters to do the 2 listed MDC accesses on Spring River and the two on Center Creek.

We have received greate response from Ozark Anglers forum posters in helping with the Sign Project. In SWMO we've got Buzz on Shoal Creek/Hickory Ck; Cricket on Niangua/Little Niangua; Bobby Wren on Big Sugar, Indian & Elk; MO Smallmouth Alliance Rodeo attendees will be covering the James, Finley and Flat Creek -- looks like we still need some folks for N. Fork Spring, Spring and Center Creek as well as Pomme de Terre River, Sac, Weaubleau Ck and Turnback Ck. If you leave close to these areas, please let me know if you'd be willing to post a few signs at public stream accesses. I'll mail you the materials later this month and e=mail other necessary info (maps, directions, posting instructions, etc.) In SEMO, SIUSALUKI is covering Castor, Whitewater, Crooked Ck and Apple Ck; Ron Kruger is taking care of Marble Creek and Black River; we could still use some help with Bear Ck, Indian Ck and Cane Ck (just 3 accesses open) Also looking for some help posting the lower Current River below Van Buren and West Fork of Black River. Event this Sunday is expecting good attendance in St. Louis area where we should be able to cover at least 120 accesses that day. Volunteer sign posters are eligible for no cost one-year membership in the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance as an enticement to help out. Thanks.

Given your familarity with the Meramec, I'd suggest that you take the public accesses from Meramec State Park downstream. There are 11 public accesses in total on this stretch. Matt and I personally posted all these last year as well as those on the Bourbeuse in about 10 hours door to door so you should be able to knock just those on lower half of Meramec pretty easily. Confirm that you are going to be joining the group in AM at Denny's on the 6th and I'll set those accesses aside for you to post. You just so happen to be Team #1 on the checklist coincidentally. Thanks.

Do you have any specific accesses you'd like to post? We have it set up for 2 Teams on Current River -- #1 to do those accesses from Cedar Grove down to Paint Rock Access and #2 from Waymeyer Access down to Doniphan. I assume you'd prefer to do those accesses on the upper river. If so, I could carve out some of the easier ones to access == from Cedar Grove down to Round Spring (total of 8 accesses in that stretch including upper & lower Akers and upper & lower Round Spring). Let me know what you want to do and we'll work it out. Send me a PM as I'll likely need to get your mailing address to send you signs and an e-mail address so I can get you the various checklists, access directions, maps, etc. needed to post these accesses. Thanks much

Lower back surgery in a few weeks? Me too it turns out. That's why I needed to get this 3 day trip on Jacks Fork in. Small world.

make that a "gobbling" turkey.

I will send interested posters the specific posting instructions/locations/checklists/directions via e-mail when they contact me with a PM. Didn't want to get into all those details on the message board here. All questions will be answered in the materials provided.