ozark trout fisher

I've sort of come around to liking Nick Saban. I don't root for Alabama, but I don't like the idea of disliking a coach just because he's successful. And especially compared to some of the guys roaming the sideline in the SEC, he seems like a pretty decent guy. The guy is a genius, and I think you have to respect that. If anyone has to win the SEC West I'm more fine with 'bama than anyone else. Mizzou certainly has a lot of questions, but dang, I can't wait until September 3rd, all the same.

As Al said it all comes down to the O-line. I think Lock takes a big step forward but we won't notice if he's running for his life every snap. The defense should be really good again, maybe not top 5 in the country like last year, but good enough to keep us in every game except maybe a couple (@LSU is the one that I just can't convince myself we'll stick around in.) In all, a lot of uncertainty, but....I just dropped more than I can really afford on season tickets, and predictions are fun (even if the predicted results aren't so fun)! 1. @WVU 20-17 L 0-1 I think we can slow WVU down, but their defense is actually kinda underrated, and I don't see the offense being very good in week one. Closer than expected, but it's still hard to predict a win. 2. Eastern Michigan 34-10 W 1-1 Eastern Michigan isn't very good at football these days. Mizzou should win. Enough said. 3. UGA-31-14 L 1-2 I don't think it will be a total blowout in Columbia (although we all know that can happen) but their running backs will get theirs even on this defensive line and they have the defensive talent to erase our offense until garbage time. 4. Delaware State-51-3 W 2-2 They were really not very good at all, in the "wild comeback in final game to avoid winless season" sense. Missouri will be mad and it will be over quick. 5.@LSU 41-10 L 2-3 Nope. 6.@UF 21-3 L 2-4 Their offense should not be great. But their defense makes it not worth even bringing ours to Gainesville. Repeat of last years game. 2-4 is because of the schedule, but people start to panic big time at this point. 7. Middle Tennessee-31-20 W 3-4 Not a fun homecoming game. Not an SEC opponent, but they could still beat us in Columbia. Don't think they will, though. The team should be desperate, and should get the win. 8. Kentucky-24-20 W 4-4 The offense is starting to get in a rhythm at this point. And UK hopefully will be well into their annual second half of the season nosedive in time for the trip to Columbia. 9. @SC 14-10 W 5-4 I think the most important game in terms of getting to a bowl. But they are one of 2-3 teams in the SEC that appear to have less talent than MIzzou, and I'm not sure they have a coaching advantage either. And while the other Columbia is tough to play in, SC could easily be 2-6 and really beat down. Mizzou wins ugly. 10. Vandy 10-7 W 6-4 That first half schedule gives way to four really winnable games. I think they sweep the four, with the three harder matchups coming at home (yes, I think MTSU and Vanderbilt are better than South Carolina this year) This game will be an atrocity to humankind, whoever wins. Two great defenses, zero good offenses. 11. @UT.31-10 L 6-5 And that (hopefully) feel good four game run is now come to a definitive close. 12. Arkansas-27-24 L 6-6 Arkansas should be better than Missouri this year, possibly by a lot. But I think it's at least close in Columbia.

Threats of violence remain unacceptable, and if you do/have made them here, you need to be banned.

Just because you don't care/possess knowledge about a particular organism doesn't mean it is not important or worthy of research/management funding. Milkweed, in particular, is a poor example, because many of the rarer species are of extreme ecological importance. Particularly ro Monarchs which folks tend to care about.

It's all good. Maybe we should agree to disagree here.

Nope. Science (especially of this variety) gets done on the backs of by and large younger folks who, generally, know exactly what the heck they're doing and are willing to work in the kind of adverse conditions that most wouldn't and get essentially none of the credit. I have never been affiliated with the MDC and I'm not in fisheries , but I am nonetheless extremely familiar with this sort of work. Its a good life, but it ain't easy or cushy, and most take a great deal of pride in what they do and the quality of their work. And I am I think understandably touchy when people call the data that is collected poor unless that have some solid evidence that this is the case. Many of those folks out there you are calling out are people I know, and trust.

Agreed, to some extent. But I'm not entirely sure what you're suggesting in place of current data collection techniques. If you want an experienced fisheries biologist doing all of the sampling to consider the data worthwhile, then you're okay with every round of sampling taking just this side of a decade. And without hard data, you have no place to start in terms of management.

Oh, I don't know if I'd say I have been threatened by our friend but he is forever subtly and less than subtly trying to intimidate members into not saying things he doesn't like. It apparently doesn't tend to work, so I'm not sure how much of an issue it is.

Eh, I would say criticizing their data quality based on interns/grad assistants doing the collection (how do you think large-scale research gets done?) or worse, one misidentified fish, seems relatively flimsy. Yes, mistakes get made, but the vast majority out there (even "young folks", which for some unknown reason apparently matters) know danged well what they are doing. I respect the opinions of experienced anglers, but I by nature trust scientifically collected data a decent amount more. One mistake does not equate to a bad dataset. It means that human beings did the sampling. To use your example, catching mostly smallouth from a stretch doesn't mean they predominate. Maybe you just target good smallmouth habitat, and skip slower water. Those are the kind of biases you create when you base too many conclusions off what you catch, that probaby would not be reflected in normal data collecting techniques (imperfect as they obviously are )

Yep. Not that I would consider what he just said a threat, but definitely falls into the category of (failed) attempt at intimidation.

Enforce regulations, habitat improvement projects on any number of waters, countless research hours (did that electro fishing data just appear out of nowhere?), monitoring constantly for CWD in our deer here, reintroducing elk, rearing and stocking fish, studying black bear populations, managing forest and prairie for game and other species, working with private landowners to improve habitat, and improve riparian corridors. There are a bunch more. But to say they do nothing is just so far off the mark I couldn't let it pass.

I would say any and all of this to you in person. I do not, under any circumstances however, utilize intimidation or veiled threats to make my point. Not how I operate.

Really? Smallmouth bass are extremely common across about half the US and spoonbill are rare, threatened, and prehistoric as hell. I think they are probably a little more worthy of resource allocation. The point being, the MDC has a lot of things to keep an eye on. Creating trophy smallmouth fisheries (if possible) is one on a dang long list of ecological and recreational objectives that have to be balanced. It's important, and potentially worth fighting for, but if you're purely judging the department based on this it's one heck of a case of tunnel vision.

Not a problem.

I'd forgotten how delightfully ridiculous this place can be. The smallmouth threads on here are true gems.

This pretty much encapsulates how I feel. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the scope of the changes the MDC made (I'd have to study the data more to come to a conclusion) but on this site it always comes down to some combination of MDC bashing or silly statements along the lines of "well, we might as well start keeping all the smallies we catch, because apparently no one cares." That's all silly and pointless. In many ways the MDC is far better than the vast majority of state conservation agencies. You didn't get your way this time. That's bound to happen. Keep trying, keep advocating for what you want. But act like an adult.

My advice from one week of fishing...in the creeks, #14-18 pheasant tails and hares ears are consistent producers. Attractor dries (Royal Wulffs,Para Adams,etc) can work any time. Best fishing was in midday sun, when the water warmed up. It was that chilly. Evening was good too, early mornings not so much. In the high country I wouldnt worry too much about specific hatches. Some of the folks I was with spin fished and did very well with size 0 Mepps and small Panther Martins/rooster tails, especially in the pocket water. The mountain lakes were inconsistent and for the most part you need to search out rising/cruising fish, I wouldn't cast blind much unless you have to. Belly boats are a good idea. I didn't have one and it cost me. I didn't fish Monarch Lake though. Edit...I assumed you were referring to the Monarch Lake area in the Front Range. If you mean the Monarch west of Salida, I know that area is stunningly beautiful but there's not a thing I can tell you about the angling.

I'll admit I fished the St. Vrain in part because after reading about it in John Gierach's books forever I had to see what it was like. So I went up to the Middle branch and set up in a little Forest Service campground along the creek. It is just like every western creek you've ever fished, only more so. Pocket water, boulders everywhere. No back casting room. Big, snowcapped mountains west, or upstream, whichever you prefer, and smaller, forested peaks all around. It was drop-dead beautiful. The fishing itself was perfectly non-descript. It had plenty of small brook trout, from "how did that take a #12 beadhead" to "just big enough to be breakfast". They weren't hard to catch, but it was never non-stop. The browns were bigger, 8-12 inches on average, and tougher to fool. Beadheads ruled the day, but they would take an attractor dry on occasion. The fishing got better the further you walk. No surprise. That's all I have to say about the fishing. It was fine, totally satisfactory, but it wasn't the highlight. That would be the mountains, the Indian Peaks wilderness. Audobon and Buchanan Pass specifically. 10-20+ mile day hikes, heart stopping views, sleet and low-level hypothermia and ice on scree slopes in high summer. The good life,in other words. Some cellphone pics now, which are mostly not that great, better ones from an actual camera to follow probably tomorrow.

Turned out to be a pretty good trip. Middle St. Vrain is a fine little trout creek, full of pocket water and little brook trout. The Indian Peaks are tall, imposing, a bit dangerous in spots, and, as we found out climbing a couple, liable to be wrapped in sleet and snow in August. A fine trip, and I found the front range (except Rocky Mountain National Park, which is a waking nightmare along the main roads) to be much more wild and beautiful than expected. Full report with pics to follow.

We'll be based out of Peaceful Valley, but we have a couple hikes into the high Country (including one two night backpacking trip into some cutthroat lakes in Indian Peaks) tentatively planned.

As a native West Slope Coloradan, I've generally considered the front range a really beautiful place that you are nonetheless supposed to drive over and keep on going. But next week I managed to get off work to join a group that is setting up on the edge of the Indian Peaks wilderness, specifically along one of the upper branches of St. Vrain Creek. Apparently there is pretty decent fishing in the creek we are camping alongside, which I fully intend to look into, but does anyone else know the area well enough to offer suggestions? I'm willing to hike, a long ways and overnight if necessary, basicallly anything that doesn't require ropes. Lakes, streams, ponds, anything pretty and above 8000 feet is what I'm looking for. I have 5-6 days so there is plenty of time to explore. Thanks for any help.

Looks like a good trip!

I was lucky to get the chance to spend a few days exploring some new water in the Ozarks this past week, and I'm just now getting around to writing it up...because honestly, nothing all that interesting happened. Still, I fished a few Ozark streams and ponds and I figured I ought to post it here. Wednesday afternoon I made my way down to a small stream deep in the Ozarks that if you're like me, you've probably heard of, but never thought much about. The downsides are obvious-it's just about too small to float, has very spotty public access, and there are a lot of better smallmouth streams within a stones throw. But it's also spring-fed, crystal clear, and drop-dead beautiful. And not a lot of people fish it. I made my way to one of the few legal access points. Right at the access there was a deep, pretty hole that I had to cast to before wading in. First cast with a Ned Rig yielded an 11 inch smallie, which got my expectations higher than they probably should have been. After that, I proceeded to fish lovely, deep pool after lovely, deep pool, and....not a whole lot happened. The smallies were in there, and I fooled a few of them, but even as I got quite a ways from the parking lot, the fishing just never took off. That 11 incher would be the biggest fish off the day. Sometimes searching out a creek like this leads you to finding an amazing, hidden gem, and sometimes it makes you realize why those famous rivers nearby are famous in the first place. This would be the latter. I wasn't able to fish on Thursday, but got back after it on Friday. I started off at an access on the far upper reaches of the Meramec, well above Maramec Spring. The river is a small, wadeable stream in that area, and I thought since it was still early in the day on Friday I might get some water to myself. Or at least a pool or two. ...Not so much. Between swimmers and my fellow anglers, who were likely trying to escape the muddy water downstream, it began to feel a little too much like I was trying to carve out a spot at the Social Hole in Montauk. The fishing wasn't actually that bad, but it was in no way worth dealing with the crowd, so I jetted out of there pretty quickly. There weren't a ton of other great stream options nearby, so I headed over to a big, pretty conservation area nearby that is known to have some pretty decent pond fishing. I proceeded to finish out the trip in very enjoyable, if somewhat boring fashion, reeling in fat bluegill and 10 inch bass until I got tired of it on a pretty, pine and oak encircled lake with no other fisherman on it. I can think of worse ways to kill an afternoon.

You should be fine on any of those creeks unless we have another gully-washer between now and your trip. Nearly all of the small streams in that part of the Ozarks are running green and pretty right now. Different story on the G'nade and other big rivers. If anything shuts you down it's gonna be the heat... Best of luck.