ozark trout fisher

That's also true. The fact is, I know a fair number of folks down in the area where the elk will be re-introduced (I hunt and fish there on a very regular basis) and I'd say the majority of them are level-headed, honest folks, who don't like the deer doggers and support the elk re-introduction. But there are enough ignorant people down there to pretty much ruin it for everyone else-the MDC had better been on a sharp lookout for poachers when these elk are reintroduced. I hunted some public land in the general area this weekend for deer and saw several radio collared deer dogs running around. While most people in the area are fine, upstanding folks, some people don't even seem to be ashamed over their poaching ways-I've actually had guys ask me on public land on opening weekend of deer season "Have ya seen ma' dogs?"

Are you sure Taxi? I looked online for quite a awhile just now looking for any news about such a lawsuit, and came up with absolutely nothing. I do not understand why people are opposed to the reintroduction of such a beautiful creature, and a native one too. Especially now with the live animal disease testing that is available. "They also say that if MO. gets Ark elk, that means open season on ever elk they see.... It may get real sticky down here if you are an elk. " If people do poach any elk I hope they are punished to the full extent of the law. I've had just about all I can handle of the "shoot anything that's good to eat" mentality that is so prevalent in the Ozarks. Some people need to start going to jail, and not just for a week or two.

I'd always seen the sign for Camp Zoe along 19 and wondered what the deal was (and now I also know where the loud music was coming from whenever I'd camp anywhere near Round Spring)...Sounds like the people were causing some problems, but then so are the people at Round Spring CG. You can't tell me that a joint never gets smoked on the National Park Service property. A drunken flotilla on a national river is probably a bigger problem than some hippies partying it up on private land. But I have no idea about exactly what went on there, having never really known what the place was about until today.

My opinions on this are solid, and are not changed by circumstances. I know that I treasure the ecosystem on a free flowing, healthy river above just about anything else, and I just wouldn't ever give that up for any amount of money. Let me use an example. I am originally from a pretty poor area in Colorado. It is not the tourist trap type place you'd find in some areas of the Rocky Mountains- but the country is beautiful as the day is long with mountains, foothills, high desert, clear, cold rivers and the whole bit. There are mountains that could be famous ski slopes, streams that could be transformed into money-making and power producing reservoirs, but instead it is a quiet area, economically troubled, but still beautiful and perfect the way it is. Could this area be transformed into a tourist trap like Steamboat Springs, Aspen, or, to use a local version, Branson? Probably it could, and it would be great for the economy. But although some want exactly that, I didn't then and do not now believe that it would be anything other than a tragedy if the area lost its natural, authentic character. Truly unique places are few and far between now, mostly because people want to "develop" those areas economically. Rant over. I'm leaving for deer camp way down in the Ozarks and won't be back for three days.

Those of us who place more value on the natural world than the dollar sign are not going to lay down any time soon. No amount of money can replace a broken river system. The economic benefits of a dammed river system are an entirely moot point if you ask me. It can never be worth it. I think of the rivers I fish, the beautiful, natural ecosystems that they encompass. I could not be paid enough money to give a single one of them up.

I've always wondered why everyone congregates in and just below the park-there is 8 miles of Blue Ribbon water and 7 miles of White Ribbon most of which wadeable and fishable. There is plenty of good trout water for everyone, but most people don't seem willing to make the extra effort to find the less pressured water. There are places on the upper Current after peak float season where you can have long stretches of water to yourself. No specific directions-but look further downstream. Glad you had a good trip though.

Make sure to get the smaller, beadhead eggs-a natural pale yellow (peach) might actually be good to have right now-the browns just got done spawning and early winter spawning rainbows will soon be getting ready. The fish should be on eggs. If you do go below the park, you are in the Ozark National Scenic Riverways, where hunting is allowed. In case you didn't know, next weekend is opening weekend for deer-don't go wearing anything tan,brown, or white if you're gonna fish down there. Hunter orange wouldn't be a bad idea either. Good luck

You are probably right about that. But we can never stop doing what you can to help. Terry Beeson I find it comical that you are concerned about the well-being of streams that are opened up to the public through a stream access law, but you're happy with a whole river system being drastically altered (ruined?) by man, and say that it is "a good thing." Nothing that destructive of a natural resource can be anything like a good thing. I know you enjoy catching the trout and probably appreciate the hydropower, but is it really worth it? I don't see how you can call yourself an environmentalist and still say it was. Heck yes I would rather have wind farms and solar than dams.

That was a fun one. I haven't seen anything quite like that in a while. Arguments are good-politics don't even bother me, but that was kinda ridiculous. Even I wouldn't have even said some of that stuff and you know me. I couldn't care less what folks on here say to one another, but I must tell you that no one came out of that looking like anything but a child.

It's a forum. People will talk and opinions will be aired, some of which other people will disagree with and argue against. That's why we're all on here. And if the discussion is political-I don't really see a problem as long as it's relevant to the thread-as most posts on this thread have been.It would be different if we were arguing about the health care debate of the stimulous package No one honestly expects to change others opinions. It can happen-what others have said on this forum has before changed my opinion on things -but it's not really the point. It's a discussion board where we all get the chance to hear the opinions of others, some of which I agree with, some of which I simply disagree with, and some of which I find downright offensive. That's just what you'll find on any forum. In the mean-time, I'll be fighting for stream access rights. The poll on the other thread about this indicates that many, and probably most Ozark fisherman think that the access issue is a problem worth addressing. And I agree. I'm not yet exactly sure what the best way to address the problem, and I'm not sure what impact I can have on it. But I do plan on giving it one hell of a try.

The water would be cool enough, or the MDC wouldn't have stocked. That shouldn't be a concern. I haven't been to Busch yet, but I have made several visits to a local pond that is very nearby... This one is not open to any fishing (not even C&R fly fishing) until Jan. 1 when it is usually an ice fishing game, but they stock it late October and I enjoy observing trout. I got a chance to watch some really nice fish rising-couldn't tell to what though. It was just about as fun as actually fishing for them.

I don't doubt that Crane has some narrow areas that would have to be portaged on private land-the stream I paddled did. But in that case the law in New York (like it or not) allows paddlers to portage around obstacles so long as they stay as close to the stream as reasonably possible. I'm not saying we should run our state like New York does. They just happened to make one good decision. By all accounts, the stream has been treated very well and kept in great shape since it was opened to public use. I know I saw no litter or any other signs of degradation.

I have seen pictures of Crane, (never fished it) and can tell you I have canoed streams of that size. The idea that it is a floatable stream is not fanciful-similar sized streams have been ruled navigable in other states. I'm thinking specifically of a small wilderness stream in New York that I paddled this previous summer-the landowners tried for years to keep folks off the stream, but it has been recently considered navigable and opened up to floating. And now everyone gets to enjoy it. Not just one person.

Won't be there for the opener (will be getting stuff ready for that other opening day this weekend), but Maramec Spring can actually be kind of fun during the winter. Good luck to those who do give it a try.

Great report. Thanks p.s I had always wondered why the spring creeks weren't covered in the stream access law there-now I know. Interesting stuff. I have yet to fish any of the Paradise Valley creeks, but that may be one situation where I would break an aesthetic rule of mine and pay for a day out there sometime. It sounds pretty neat.

That's not why I don't like them. I've caught lots of fish each time I have fished a tailwater. I just never enjoyed it much for the reason mentioned above. Maybe I am too negative about it, but when I see a dam and a reservoir, I just think of what is under there, what used to exist before we messed it up. Being on tailwaters has always deeply unsatisfying for me, because I know what was lost for that fishery. Or rather, I'll never know.

As for the cattle drinking from the stream, and negating the landowner's rights.... I don't see that happening. The law would be worded very specifically, simply stating that so long as a fisherman accesses the stream at a legal access point and stays below the high water mark, he can fish areas where the stream flows through private land. How in the heck would that restrict your right to allow cattle to drink from the stream? When I said I knew I had a right to be on these streams, I did not necessarily mean in a legal since. I means that I know that streams are too valuable to be controlled by a single person, and I believe that I have every right to be there. Also the law, at least the way I would like to see it written, would not include the right to hunt in the stream. The discharge of firearms would add a safety element that fishing does not. As for swimming-I don't know about that. You've made the complaint several times that I do not say "in my opinion" after each statement. I'm not a lawyer here, just a fisherman who is concerned about being able to fish the streams that I love, and it should be obvious that everything that I say is my opinion. You complain about my opinion being "to heck with the landowner" while your opinion seems dangerously close to "to heck with the bums that can't afford to own a stream." In the final analysis, neither one of probably has as extreme of an opinion as the other suspects.

Let me explain the "Spring Ridge Club" game plan to you in case you are not familiar. A person decides that he could make a boatload of money buying land off of struggling landowners that live on trout streams. After he acquires the land, he closes it off to all the locals that have been fishing the water for many years. Then he forms a club, and members only can access this water. The initial membership fee in the case of the Spring Ridge Club is in the $70,000 range. Only the filthy rich can afford to fish these waters anymore. To heck with everyone else. If that doesn't seem wrong to you, then I'd venture to say we are on a different wavelength entirely. I worry about that happening in Missouri. Donny Beaver (the man behind the Spring Ridge Club) has already extended his influence in other states besides Pennsylvania, including Colorado and the steelhead streams of Ohio. And others are seeing his success, and no doubt will try it elsewhere. There are some trout streams in Misssouri that are currently open to fishing to anyone who asks, but could have long stretches closed off to everyone if some unscrupulous landowner saw that he could stock a bunch of trout, build some posh cabins, and charge a hefty membership fee, leaving just a very short stretch of public water to everyone who is not filthy stinking rich. Our lack of a stream access law would allow this to happen on any non-navigable stream. That seems unnacceptable to me.

In case my last post wasn't clear, maybe this one will be. Terry, you may well be the nicest guy on earth, willing to let any nice looking fisherman fish your stretch of stream if they ask permission. And I appreciate that. But, heaven forbid, say you have financial trouble and have to sell the place. The guy who buys it starts an expensive fishing club/developement, and won't let anyone in who isn't a member that can pay the fee of several thousand dollars. And that can happen. Look up the Spring Ridge Club in Pennsylvania. Formerly open "just ask permission" water is closed to all but a wealthy few. If we don't have a stream access law, this guy can have his way. That's wrong.

I've stayed mostly out of this, but this post really shows me that you don't seem to know what it't like to be the fisherman that doesn't own property on a stream. Why not ask the landowner? Good question, but one you would probably know the answer to if you'd spent much time as a normal, run of the mill angler that is just looking for a place to fish. I'll ask if that's an option, but much, maybe even most of the time, it's not. The landowner isn't home, he doesn't even live there, or the landowner is some self-righteous person who believes that no one else should be on "his" stream, and says no. I am of the opinion that streams are too precious to be owned by any one person. I will access the stream at a legal point, stay in the stream, and act like a perfect gentleman. My attitude is never "to hell with the landowner". I'll treat the stream running through his land better than I'd treat my front yard. I will leave absolutely no trace whatsoever. And frankly, the landowner would have no reason whatsoever to try to kick me off, and if he does, he is a jerk, no matter what the letter of the law is this week. I know I have the right to be there. I guess you could call a subtle, non-confrontational form of civil disobedience with the laws as they are now. I'm not saying to hell with doing what's right. I feel I am doing the right thing, even if it is looked down upon by some. In the years to come, I want my children and my grandchildren to be able to fish these streams. So the least I can do is to make a little stand on this now. Not being a lawyer I'm honestly not sure if these streams are navigable or not, but they are very precious to me. Can landowner types not understand where I'm coming from here?

Stocked freestone trout streams are natural streams with the same basic ecosystem that they've always had. Tailwaters are entirely altered ecosystems not capable of supporting the same species they've had for centuries. And on a stocked freestone trout stream, there is no river valley buried under small man-made freshwater sea. That's the difference. "other than the tailwater fish being bigger and a little wilder." I find many stocked freestone trout streams (the Current or Eleven Point for example) to have much more wild acting trout and much more wild scenery than any tailwater.

I'd like to see all the big dams be taken down, everywhere, not just on the White. But that is not exactly what they call a "majority opinion". I've never been able to get into big reservoir or tailwater fishing-I just find my self constantly thinking of all that is lost. But what would all the big money tournament guys do if I had my way? I'd feel so bad for them.........

It's certainly an interesting idea. I like the stream keeper idea. The idea that the landowner should maybe get some compensation from tagholders- I'm not sure what I think about that, but if the tags were reasonably priced enough that a run of the mill fisherman could afford them without hardship, then maybe I could get behind that.

That is beyond excellent. It is of similar or equal quality to what I have read by true fishing writer greats-Tom McGuane and John Gierach come to mind. You are crazy not to write a book. Just sayin'.

I use marabou jigs shamelessly on my fly rod. They are very effective for both trout and bass, either drifted under an indicator or stripped in as a streamer.If you think about, it's no different from fishing something like a Beadhead Mohair Leech or a Woolly Bugger. Chuck and duck is what it is. The most graceful method of fly fishing it is not, but it often works well when nothing else will. I enjoy dry fly fishing and swinging wet flies a lot more because it allows a true fly cast and a delicate presentation, but I will more or less happily resort to chuck and duck if that's what it takes to catch fish.