ozark trout fisher

First of all, I promise this will be my last long-winded post for awhile. I'm boring myself. This is just an issue that I'm pretty passionate about, for a number of reasons, and I hope that comes through. If this was a state issue, small in scope, and specifically designed to transfer land from the USFS to the MDC, I am not sure that it would be a big deal to me. There is a pretty strong consensus that the MDC does a good job managing the lands that it owns, and if every agency (state or federal) had the same standards of quality we would probably be in better shape. That, however is very much not what this is. This action by congress not only makes it easier to transfer federal land to states, but also to ultimately privatize it. Even if you don't care about the public access issue, almost all federally owned land is managed in such a way that while resources may certainly be used, they are used in a more or less sustainable way, and a way that is at least somewhat consistent with the target ecological conditions in the given region. Once it is in private hands all ability to dictate that goes away. I've said it before but you are opening up destructive mining techniques, terrible timber harvesting practices (which directly affects water quality and fish populations) uncontrolled grazing, and removes any protection of sensitive ecological or cultural features (wetlands, fens, caves, historic sites, etc) that can be easily ruined even by well-intentioned actions of landowners. But of course, we do care about public access. All of us on here are fisherman, I'd presume most of us hunt, too. I don't know about you, but I do a ton of that on Mark Twain National Forest, and this in a state with a comparatively VERY low percentage of federal land in contrast to western states. Removing federal land in Colorado or Wyoming or Montana means you are removing the very lifeblood of all hunters that are not wealthy enough to pay exorbitant trespass or lease fees. State land in those places is sparse and often tightly regulated in terms of hunting, compared to federal counterparts. Then you have the impact on hikers and other recreational activities. If you start picking away at Mark Twain, how well do you think the Ozark Trail is gonna work out? Think a bunch of private landowners in the Ozarks want a bunch of "greasy-haired college kids" as I'm sure they'd term them, hiking across their land? I'm wagering that's a no. And finally, let's say that the land is actually transferred to the MDC or the DNR or whatever. Sure, with relatively limited total acreage both do a fine job. Double or triple that and you can't even maintain access roads, let alone manage fish, timber, and wildlife resources. You are going to end up with either poorly managed or entirely unmanaged (and unenforced) land that is going to look like crap and not produce anywhere near the recreational opportunities we see on actively managed USFS land. In short, any large-scale implementation of this action has potential to be an abject disaster for you and me. That isn't being alarmest and it has nothing to do with my feelings on the party in power. It's just the reality for someone who likes to hunt and fish and hike, and needs a place to do it.

I have had several experiences similar to those described above. Most of them have come in the Gasconade watershed...some very proprietary landowners down that way, it would seem. I do really only wade streams that I think I could make a reasonable case are floatable most of the time. I know that may not match the definition of any lawyer but none of them seem to agree..... so they leave me to just try my best to be reasonable. If the person confronting me also seems at least a little bit reasonable I will explain why I'm there, why I feel have the right to be there, that I won't keep anything, and that I'll not only litter but pick up as much as possible. All as succinctly and politely as humanly possible. I have had that be enough on more than one occasion for folks to think that I was apparently not worth the trouble and leave me alone to fish. But when someone comes up to me yelling and screaming and otherwise belligerent from the word go (and I'll be forthright in saying this isn't a common occurrence, certainly not common enough that it doesn't freak me out when it happens) then self-preservation dictates that I am getting out of there in a hurry. Nothing good can come from sticking around at that point. Any explanation I try to give in that moment is likely only to make them more agitated than they already are. That said, if and when I encounter a truly threatening situation I would absolutely not hesitate to call the local sheriff and alert them to the situation afterwards. If absolutely nothing else it makes them aware (if they aren't already) that there is a potential problem brewing between fisherman/floaters and that person that may be avoidable with some degree of intervention.

Yes.

I think the whole purpose of having those large blocks of public land is so they can be "just sitting there". Sure, the intention of some public land, particularly here, in heavily populated midwest, is essentially to serve as a park, or "entertainment". That's why we have state parks and Yellowstone and the Riverways. All very worthwhile. But there are also many animals, ecosystems, and landscapes that can only survive in their present state if there are pretty vast quantities of relatively untouched land. In the west (and specifically in Alaska, since we're already talking about it) species like wolves and Alaskan Brown bear are perfect examples. If we don't have a whole bunch of protected or otherwise untouched lands, there will not be viable populations of those species. Their size of their range areas and requirements for interconnected habitat dictate that much. It is a similar story for grizzly bears and mountain lions in the mountains and high desert of the parts of the west closer to home. And Red-cockaded woodpecker just to our south. Those are just a few examples of many. And the point you bring up over losing control over land-use if federal land is sold is a huge one. Sure, some folks might build a summer home and just enjoy the 10,000 acres they own, or at most hunt and fish occasionally. That's still a net negative, since they are keeping you and me off their land in all likelihood, but I am willing to set that aside. The much larger issue is that many MORE people are going to see the resources on that land and exploit the heck out of them. Out with responsible timber harvest, in with vast clear-cuts and vastly reduced water quality (and fishing opportunities) in the surrounding watershed. If the land has anything worth mining or drilling, you can add in mine tailings or other even more destructive inputs into the water supply. Or maybe they develop the land, clear it, pave a bunch of driveways and cookie-cutter houses for the yuppies who want to get away from it all. You've just interrupted critical habitat, reduced the amount of permeable soil, increased variability in the flow of nearby streams and probably increased the fishing pressure. I am originally from western Colorado, where there are vast quantities of BLM Land, the most vulnerable type, "just sitting there". Those high-desert lands are where we hike and hunt elk and take in the big sky and generally are able to enjoy and celebrate what is still a remarkably intact ecosystem. I can just picture the "No Trespassing, Don't Even Ask" signage. I can see the cattle and sheep trampling the fragile, semi-arid vegetation that the pronghorn and elk and mule deer rely on. I'm optimistic and resilient as the next guy, but I think that might just break my heart. Places like that exist all over the west, and even in southern Missouri and the Appalachians and the Great Lake Country. Nationwide, basically. I will tirelessly and wholeheartedly oppose anyone and anything that puts them in danger.

This is very dangerous. All those proposals/half baked ideas about transferring ONSR or parts of Mark Twain to the state and/or private sector are suddenly much more plausible. I no longer live in or near the Ozarks but none of us can stand idly by if (and by that, I mean when) that issue comes into play. What a time to be alive. Some of us, myself included, are going to have to come out of the shock we've been in since, oh, I don't know, November 8th*, so we can be there to stand up for our public lands as their integrity is eroded over, I don't know, the next 4-8 years.* *Note: these dates and times are completely random and have nothing to do with elections or elected officials.

Now I am picturing vast herds of mountain lions just standing on the edge of the Mississippi looking confused. I do know that black bears have been documented to swim across the Missouri. I always wondered what is going through said bear's mind. Must be some combination of overly energetic and anti-social to see a half-mIle wide expanse of deep muddy, fast moving water and say, "Yep, we're doing this."

I've spent a lot of time both working and playing in the remote woods where all those purple dots are concentrated. It actually can be more than a little spooky in those hills and hollows (it is also beautiful enough to make it worthwhile, thank goodness)... but that's because there is an entirely unhealthy amount of meth use and production, and it's in evidence constantly. I have gotten yelled at by paranoid folks with confederate flags and had them harass me when I was quietly trying to camp on public land. When you are way out in the middle of nowhere and by yourself that is decidedly unenjoyable. Lots of things to think about in the Ozark woods. I don't know that mountain lions were ever on the mind. If any animal out there freaks me out in a big way it's the feral hogs.

I'm gonna assume your trollin' and not take the bait..... But I will say that I would have a heck of a lot less good stories without bears and moose and other large and potentially dangerous animals. I personally enjoy the extra little edge you get when I am in bear or lion country. I'm more observant, aware of my surroundings, and for that reason I notice more. And on the rare occasions you see a bear running away from you (which is the only way will generally see them) it's usually much more exciting than spooky. My only mildly scary experience was when I spooked a black bear whIle in the juniper/oak/pine scrub on top of Mesa Verde. It was impossible to see more than about 20 feet and we basically both scared the crap out of each other at an uncomfortably close range. But as soon as the bear realized what was going on he was out of there. I now know how incredibly loud a bear is running though an impenetrable thicket, but no harm done. I have never seen a cougar, despite spending a ton of time where they are common. My loss. Granted I would prefer my first sighting not come at close range. I will admit I am more afraid of lions than bears, but that may just be because I've never encountered them...and I have more than enough anecdotal evidence that your average black bear will just be looking to get out of the situation even more than you do.

Yeah, my story is quite similar. Fishing on a meadow stream in the Bighorn Mountains, I suddenly found myself between a cow and her calf (they were on opposite sides of the stream, I was wading out near the middle). I just sorta backed my way upsream until I was no longer between them, then exited the river and got the heck out. Spooky but exhilarating. My other experience with a moose came in the Indian Peaks of Northern CO last summer. We had been hiking all day, up to Sawtooth Mt. on the continental divide. It was a long hike, 19 miles, and we were on mile 17 or 18, it was already almost fully dark, raining, 45 degrees, hypothermia weather. There was one really good ford of a boggy stretch of middle St. Vrain Creek and a cow moose was blocking it. I was at that point too exhausted and cold to be scared (or excited to see a rare moose in that area, come to mention it). I was just annoyed. I yelled at that darn moose for what felt like 15 minutes before she finally moved out of the way.

I have spent counless hours fishing in places where cougars are actually common. I've never been chased off a stream, trail, or anything else by one. I probably never will. Now moose? Different story. Actually that's a pretty good story but I don't have time now.

Yeah, no question they are coming through MO more and more often. The consensus, to such point it exists, seems to be that we probably do not presently have any breeding pairs, but given the number seen, that could soon change if it already has not. To me, that sounds reasonable based on the available evidence.

I'm not really sure many are saying with confidence that there are NOT a couple breeding pairs in the state. There just has not been any firm evidence that they exist. The MDC isn't really in the business of making claims in the absence of evidence-or based on anecdotal evidence or "common sense". That isn't how it works. I would make the firm assertion...that we just don't know if there is a breeding population yet. They are by nature elusive animals and ridiculously uncommon here. Researching them here is about impossible, unless one wanders in front of a car or- the crosshairs of some jackwagon with a rifle and a deficient supply of IQ points

I find the "Well, those fishermen/canoeists/etc leave trash behind, so we ought to be able to close off access" argument unconvincing at best, and an outright strawman at worst. Two reasons: 1. The argument here is that navigable streams, and their channel are public easements, not unlike a highway. Highways are concentration points for litter. That sucks. But we aren't going to suddenly stop allowing cars to use the highway without permission of every adjacent landowner. That would make sense to exactly no one. Why exactly are waterways different? 2. Some landowners along streams are great stewards, maintain riparian corridors, etc. But MANY make the actions of a few parties look inconsequential in comparison. Ever been to the wrong stretch of Little Piney Creek towards the lower half of the blue ribbon stretch? Some of the most angler unfriendly landowners in the state around there. They also make the stream and "riparian area" perpetually look as if a nuclear blast has just occurred. I'm calling you out. Either do a better job not ruining our streams or shut the heck up about anglers chasing the fish that are increasingly non-existent because of your efforts. Again, that's not aimed at the folks that care and are doing things the right way.

Shades State Park in Indiana is a really unique area with some nice flowing water that I intend to check out in due time. It is a bizarre mixture of weird rock formations and knife-edge ridges and hemlock-dominated forest you wouldn't expect in SW Indiana. I don't think these pictures really do it justice.

That man did more for conservation over the past half-decade+ than anyone I can remember. That is to say, he kept our sometimes almost clinically insane state legislature from gutting the MDC and doing all kinds of fun things that would do plenty to harm our states natural resources and the day to day experiences of hunters and fisherman. So this is fine. I'm also glad that I promptly moved two states over upon the conclusion of his term....and before the inauguration of, let's just say, a governor who is likely to be very different. A coincidence, but a happy one if 1/10th of what I'm expecting comes to pass.

Yeah, and these days most phones take such good pictures that the playing field had been leveled to a large degree. I have a good camera but often find myself not bothering to bring it for that reason. Honestly, photography has more to do with the day and the light and your patience and what you have in front of you than how much you spend. Not terribly different from fishing in that respect.

I hear rumors of big smallmouth. I intend to verify ASAP.

Spent the afternoon exploring Western Indiana, where I now live. The local smallie streams are too muddy and cold to fish, but the scenery is worth sharing. I have to say finding groves of Eastern Hemlock in Indiana was not what I had expected.

Thanks! Found some pretty cool stuff in Turkey Run State Park that will shortly be the object of a thread in the photography section.

Huh, I just moved to northern Indiana. It is cold, but other than that not much different from home. Driven down to Hoosier NF a couple times now. Not a short drive for me, but nice area. Very Ozarky. Lucky that my job will take me down that way a bunch in the near future. I can't wait to head up north and chase steelhead here shortly. Definitely in the market for an 8 weight. Gonna head over to Turkey Run SP a bit southwest of here to hike and get a good look at Sugar Creek, supposedly a nice little smallmouth stream. Will let you know what I find.

I drove all the way back to CoMo for one afternoon to watch my 3-8 team play a 7-4 team. On the surface not a rational decision. Just had that feeling on Senior Day something special might happen. Was not disappointed. Mizzou should be VERY good offensively next year with what they return. Lost in the rubble of the defensive collapse is an offense that went from historically bad to one of the best in the SEC. Drew Lock was inconsistent but still an above average QB, and the running game has endless potential. If the defense gets back to where they should be (and that is a huge question mark) the SEC east is always winnable.

Public land hunting in the Ozarks is awfully touch and go. Can absolutely be rewarding but there are a lot of days where you have to just be happy with scenery and solitude. Heck, I cannot complain. During a particularly warm, sunny afternoon, I generally won't even try to stay awake. A ten point buck could basically come sit on my lap before I'd know about it. I love deer hunting, wouldn't miss it for the world, but it has been years since I have stopped pretending to take it seriously.

It is probably a good thing the MDC knows to pick it's battles. I've no doubt you're right that it can cause disease problems. But...the MDC is gonna have to lay low and try to avoid being noticed for awhile. The reality is that the state and national political climate is going to extremely unfriendly to conservation for awhile. It's sad, but now more than ever they really can't afford to anger anyone. Or the sales tax is gone. It might be anyway, sooner than later. Fun stuff, huh?

No, but now I'm really enjoying the mental picture of a gigantic deer fence around a 350 square mile area. I bet THAT would get people talking.

Just for the sake of clarity, they do not. Not trying to point out an error, but there is no limit on carp in MO and you absolutely should keep every dang one you catch. If you're into that. Suckers, redhorse, etc are native and have harvest limits.