ozark trout fisher

Eric 1978, Outside Bend and others have made my point as well or better than I could. I don't really have anything to add. Just one thing. There are over 500 views of this thread, and just over 30 votes. Although from my perspective it does look favorable, that is simply not a large enough sample size to draw any conclusions. I am frankly trying to determine whether it is worth taking the next step-possibly in the form of a petition to send to the state capital. This is the only way I know to get an idea of how the Missouri fishing community (the basis of any effort to enact a stream access law) feels. If you have an opinion, please vote. Either way.

The mean high water mark does not mean the highest a stream ever gets. It only includes the area that is below the "stream bank". Basically the the stream itself and the gravel bars, nothing else. This law would by no means allow someone access to your fields in the creek bottoms. And Al Agnew is right. It is our responsibility to leave no trace whatsoever that we are on the stream, public or private. Some fisherman don't act that way, and that's why this is even a problem to begin with.

No we shouldn't. First, all lakes and ponds (with the exception of a couple oxbows) are man-made, and so a landowner would seem to have complete control. Secondly, such a law would create a new set of difficulties not present in a stream access law. You would have to go across a landowners property reach the lake/pond presumably, which no one is advocating to be allowed. As Eric said, the vast majority of us will never earn enough to buy our own little creek. It's just not going to happen. Dream all you want but it will never be a reality for me or most people I know.

I am not a city dweller as you indicated. I live in a community of 600 people right now, and I moved here from a very small high desert town in Colorado. That's all I have as a response here-otherwise this topic is covered in another thread.

Montauk during C&R is a lot of fun. In my opinion it's too crowded the rest of the year, but during the coldest days of December and January..........It's game on. One more thing about catch and release fishing at Montauk-bring lots of small orange and pink egg patterns!

Very nice. Especially since that fish looks stream-born. Very, very pretty fish.

I guess I just see this from a slightly different angle. As I've mentioned, I'm not advocating that anyone be able to cross land to get to the stream (unless, of course permission is granted), just to walk up the stream below the high water mark. I know I've repeated myself several times on that count, but it's really important to be clear. I think a misunderstanding of that point is why some landowners are opposed to such a law. I guess I just don't see a waterway being opened to public fishing as "taking away" from anyone. Landowners that have put in work to better the stream should be applauded. It is a noble effort, and I do not want to offend or hurt conservation minded folks in any way. But a stream is a natural body of water, placed there by geologic forces or God, (depending on your viewpoint on an altogether different issue that is irelevent here) The stream was never anyone's to own in the first place, so I just don't see how it can be taken away. That's just the way I see it, and I don't particularly expect my viewpoint to matter to anyone else. I do not at all mind that some disagree with me on this. That was expected. I was just kind of testing the water(no pun intended) about a very specific point with this thread and poll.

I hear your opinions and they are all absolutely valid. I agree that there needs to be a provision in the law that would exempt landowners from any possible liability from an anglers fishing. You are absolutely right there that if that wasn't included, it could be a real problem for landowners. You seem to truly care about the streams that flow through your land and I have nothing but admiration for that. By the way, I'm with you about the gravel operation. It really sucks the life out of that little creek.

No one is proposing that anyone be able to step onto your land without your permission. This law would strictly apply to stream-beds below the high water mark. The laws that are currently in effect would allow anglers to use the Meramec River below the high water mark anyway. Brazil Creek, under current laws would at least be a gray area where I've been on it (maybe navigable, maybe not probably depending on the county judge and/or prosecutor). So you don't stand to lose much if any privacy or control over your property if this law were passed.

It's a fair question. I am always meticulously careful with my fires, but I'll throw an extra bit of caution in. It sounds like we may get some significant rain between now and then-early next week. I hope so- it's badly needed on many counts. While I'll role with the punches if it's the smartest decision, I do hope opening day isn't moved back for purely selfish reasons. The thought of the first weekend of deer camp on a certain deep Ozark conservation area is what's getting me through right about now. But as I said, I will be okay with any decision so long as it is best for the area.

This is a topic that came up in another thread,and I thought it was deserving of its own. Montana has a stream access law that goes something this... The stream-beds of any perennial streams are considered public property, and not just those of navigable rivers. Any natural creek, stream, or river with year-round flows is included. Anglers must still enter the stream in at a public access point or get permission, but after entering the stream, it is legal to fish in private land, so long as they stay below the high water mark. Let me make this clear- This law would not allow anglers to cross private land to access a stream, just to access the stream at a public area, and use the stream-bed to walk in to private areas without going above the normal high water mark. So, a simple yes or no (or not sure) question. Would you support such a law?

Naturally, but nothing worthwhile ever happened that didn't involve overcoming some opposition. I think there are more fisherman than angry landowners in MO, although the latter may be able to put more money into a possible campaign if a stream access law did appear on the ballot. Also, the fact that Trout Unlimited has recently decided to stop taking stands on stream access issues would make things more difficult from a funding standpoint. Still, I believe such a law would have an excellent chance of passing as a ballot measure if it ever got that far. I could be wrong about that, it's just a wild guess. But you do have to start somewhere, and I think it's a worthy cause.

I heard they shocked the river this September-does anyone know what the results were?

Exactly.

Of course none of this would be a concern if like Montana, Missouri passed a law declaring all perenially flowing stream-beds to be public property. Whatever else you may say about that, it would clear up a lot of unnecessary confusion. The fact is, most fisherman I know do wade-fish on private property, and constantly have to worry about a landowner calling the sheriff, even though they are not hurting anything at all. Stream access laws are just too complicated for most anglers to adequately understand them, and I think that landowners definitely take advantage of that. I also understand that Crane is not a navigable stream, and therefore not even a legal gray area. Still I think landowners keeping anglers out of a section of Blue Ribbon trout water is at least an ethical gray area. I know I will be roasted for that, but I feel pretty strongly about stream access issues.

Thank you. I was hoping someone would actually cite some research instead of relying on insults and unsubstantiated claims. There is enough there that I may consider changing my mind on this one. I have no intention on being a hold-out on this, I just wanted to see some evidence. I still have one question though. If I have never fished anywhere that has Didymo since I bought my wading boots (and I have not), then why should I be concerned about spreading it? I check before I wade a new water to see if Didymo is present, and if it is I wouldn't wear my felt soles. I honestly don't see how you can say that I'm being irresponsible on this one. I would not do anything that I thought would risk spreading Didymo-I think that's very important. But I'd rather be careful to not use my felt soles in infected streams than throw them out altogether.

Chief, you're sure good at trying to get people on your side. I'm about 80% of the way there, but then you start. Insulting everyone who is not entirely on board with you is not going to get anybody on your side. I never said "to hell with going without felts." Nothing like that at all. Another case of you twisting my words to make some point. All I'm really asking you to do is provide some evidence that felt soles are linked to Didymo infection. It doesn't have to be entirely concrete, it doesn't have to be the primary cause, but you do have to present some viable evidence. As I said, in the meantime I will be washing my felt soles between trips and never using them anywhere Didymo exists. And I think that will be enough to insure that I am not contributing to the problem. If you can provide some evidence, then I'll be on board 100% inconvinence or not.

I believe it is considered a lesser offense to trespass on unmarked private property than it is to trespass on marked property, but it is still technically your responsibility to know. I will not bring into this how I feel about stream access laws, but I will say that if a landowner doesn't bother to post a stretch of stream on his property, you can probably get away with fishing it, even if the stream may not qualify as navigable, so long as you enter at a public access, never leave the stream, and act like a gentleman. I understand that is not the letter of the law, but it has been my experience. I am not advocating that others break laws (even if the law does make it a little unclear as to what a navigable stream is), this is just the way I choose to handle it on the streams that I fish. I do not know anything specifically about the situation on Crane Creek.

I don't know enough about it to be sure either. If there is evidence that felt soles are a primary cause of the problem then I'll give them up, and banning them would definitely be the right way to go. And the evidence that felt soles does cause this is not exactly overwhelmning. But just to be sure, I will definitely not use my felt soles in any waters where Didymo is known to exist, and I do wash them between trips. The long and the short of it is that I'm split on this. On one hand, I think it would be intelligent to ban them because it may help to prevent the spread of Didymo to some waters. On the other hand, the connection between felt soles and didymo infection seems pretty shaky, and felt soles have saved me from busting my butt pretty seriously several times. Further evidence could sway my opinion either way. I think that voluntary angler responsibility is the best answer for now, until further evidence is found. But I wouldn't be opposed to legislation if enough a solid connection between felt soles and Didymo infection can be established.

Chief, I think that's a pretty good idea. I do use felt soles for the simple reason that I've never wade fished anywhere that has Didymo with my felt soles, but I'd be willing to give them up if it could help prevent the spread of Didymo or other non-natives. Felt soles do give you an advantage of fast, rocky streams, but it's still probably not worth it. Didymo is pretty bad stuff.

Very nice. I love Montana.

Nice. Good pictures-those are pretty fish.

Nice

I haven't heard a statement in a long time that made as much since as that one. I am a wading angler , and my "fish of a lifetime" didn't come from a tailwater-I can promise you that. Rather it was an intensely colorful 9 inch rainbow from a little brush-lined wild trout creek- a fish that was actually born in the stream it lives in and actually showed me firsthand why these trout are called rainbows. I don't get the whole big trout head-hunting game. Frankly, I've always been a lot more impressed by the pretty little parr-marked wild fish than the hogs. But that's just me and nothing more than my opinion. I understand that a lot of people feel differently and more power to 'em.

I got you. As I said, no offense taken at all. I just think that sometimes people get the wrong idea about fly fishers in general and I was just trying to clear that up a little.