ozark trout fisher

Very sad to hear. I love that our rivers are here to be used by everyone. But many think of Ozark streams as a theme park and not a dynamic, powerful, and (if you're not careful) dangerous waterway. That can lead to a dangerous lack of respect which can end in tragedy. It is worst when it is parents taking their kids on a river completely ignorant of how to handle a canoe or any potential dangers. When I see that on the river it always makes me a little sick to my stomach hoping they make it okay. It's a miracle more tragedies do not occur.

That seems like a fair point, and I know fatigue regarding this stuff is a real issue. But I have to ask what you are suggesting in lieu of that? I don't have a good answer. I keep saying it, but it gets redundant for a reason: the bills keep coming, and in many cases, getting far enough to pose a threat. Should we freak out at every bill drafted? No. But like I said, it's often really hard to tell which will morph into a real threat and which will never get anywhere. It seems better to inform people (and thus take the risk of them ignoring it) than to stay silent. I want to emphasize that I'm not writing these things. A story that occurs frequently does not become less of a story...it just becomes an annoying one. Some people say the same about my posts:)

I disagree, because as the threats are pervasive so must the awareness/response. Can't pretend there isn't a new threat to conservation in the state just because the quantity is annoying.. A big part of the reason more of this stuff doesn't come to fruition is because there are conservation organizations (and citizens) actively fighting against it...all the time. But I'm told that's just "flowery bs" like everything else I post here.

I clearly touched a nerve. Apologies. Moving on.

I will simply note that I phrased my response in such a way to insure that we could have a respectful discussion. Guess that got lost. I've learned not to be thin-skinned here, but I didn't necessarily expect that from you. Just being honest.

Though I think I may have to add that to my "member title" along with that bloviating comment from a while back. Rapidly remembering why I was gone for a few months.

Wow, okay bud. It certainly seems this is going nowhere fast, so good night.

I don't know what you're upset about. That you wrote a couple letters saying that you opposed a bill that didn't end up getting voted on? What exactly did you give up? My guess (besides a few minutes/possibly hours) is nothing. Listen, I don't read every single one of these threads, because I already have a solid handle on what is going on in Jeff City. So I don't know the entirety of what the OP said. I do know that there are always a bunch of potentially debilitating bills that are constantly being proposed. Most of them will get nowhere. Some of them will (I've presented one key example, but there will be others.) Most of the time, it's not easy to tell which is which. So as long as the folks in Jeff City see fit to keep churning these bills out like they're going out of style, we have to stay on high alert...and yes, keep writing letters, and occasionally showing up to events in Jeff City like the recent Conservation Day. Leaders of conservation organizations excepted, no one (certainly including me) is giving up a dang thing besides an ultimately insignificant amount of time. Even if the year to year danger is relatively low (especially with the current governor vetoing most of the blatantly offensive bills) there is no harm that can come from keeping the voice of conservation-minded folks at the forefront when those on the other side constantly have a forum in the state capital to air their opinions. Your last line is unnecessarily bitter and angry. No idea where that is coming from, but if you are so inconvenienced by someone requesting you write a letter, you are free to sit out. It sounds like that's what you'd prefer.

Nothing like the surprise trout where it doesn't quite belong. A 12 inch trout on the Current River wouldn't make me blink but when I've caught the same fish in a place where it never occurred to me that I might catch one, all of a sudden it feels like a heck of a fish. As for whether smallies or trout fight harder...it depends. In fast, western rivers, with wild trout, I would say trout fight a little harder, but that's aided by a speed of current you're almost never gonnna deal with while smallie fishing. If you are comparing smallmouth to drab, stocked rainbows in a trout park (or a lost escapee of a trout farm) then it's no contest. I've had stockers put up surprising fights, but just as often I've had them in my net before they even knew what was happening. That will almost never happen with a wild trout, which, even if it's too small to put up any resistance, will always make it clear that it's pretty pissed off at the situation. I also think in Missouri browns (regardless of size) tend to be a bit more game than rainbows...less acrobatic and showy, but overall, a better fight.

Ness, I know you're on the right side of this, so don't take what I'm about to say for more than what it is. That said, I think this statement is really, really off-base. Just because the actions of concerned citizens had the desired result (or, at the very least, played a part in reaching that conclusion) doesn't mean the actions and the calls to it were not justified. Do I think that those of us who went to Jeff City, contacted representatives, etc. were the sole cause of these bills never getting anywhere? No, probably not. But can we be confident that such a strong reaction helped tip the scales in that direction? That's not a stretch. One more point: I understand why it seems that we are constantly "crying wolf." Conservation organizations, posters here, and anyone else concerned with conservation in this state are constantly posting about this bill or that bill which has the potential to have dramatic, negative impacts on sportsmen. But that's because these bills are always out there, and always have some level of support. We've had a number of issues, such as the one regarding captive cervids, that did indeed reach the final safeguard, a veto that, if elections go the way I figure, won't be a safety-net much longer. The threats are constant, some more immediate and likely to "succeed" than others, but all real and most potentially disastrous. Letting our guard down will not do, even if it seems over the top. Beyond that, I can only thank Ron for keeping this stuff at the headlines of a site that sees as many (hopefully) concerned viewers as about any other in the state. If there is one way a community like this can truly be a net positive, that would be it.

We'll just have to disagree on that. What do you say, for a tiebreaker, we just go with whether the animal is supposed to be here in the first place? So if we're keeping score, yes on mountain lions, technically yes on wolves though there is no chance in heck we will ever have the habitat or the inclination in this state (to be clear though, if they would be even the tiniest blip on your radar screen in even a high population area, you need to research their behavior and the number of attacks that have actually occurred. It would calm your fears in a hurry.) But moving on, no on Grizzly bears, gorillas, and bigfoot, the latter an invasive species with an exponential population rise since the invention of photoshop.

I guess I just don't identify with the "I don't want to have to think about it" mentality towards big predators in Missouri. If that were such a big problem, you wouldn't have so many fisherman going on trips to Montana, Colorado, and (gulp) Alaska. I kind of enjoy the edge of not knowing exactly what that rustling in the bushes is. I also know that (a little extra edge) is basically all it is. Unless I'm walking through a blueberry meadow on Kodiak Island, there will ALWAYS be far greater concerns than any large predator causing my demise. Almost every trip out west, I have one "wow, that was kinda interesting" encounter with some type of large predator. But it's never actually because it was threatening. It's just because I happened to cross paths with a large animal who invariably responded by getting the hell out as quickly as possible.

So a mountain lion would be a game changer? Then I think you're underestimating some of those "bad critters" we have running around right now. Take your pick. Black bears. Irrationally angry people cooking meth who really don't want you to know about it. Stepping into the abiotic (and much more deadly) realm, you've got flash floods, root wads, the effects of the alcohol you may be drinking on the river, dehydration, skin cancer from sun-burn. A veritable firestorm of mortality if you want to look at it everything natural (or in a few cases, unnatural) in the most negative light possible. Read "A Walk in the Woods." The author is a card-carrying city boy, but given his fear of the woods he does a pretty good job of outlining everything in the eastern forest that is worthy of fear (none of them are mountain lions. Most are a lot less cool and a lot more boring.) But mountain lions are where you draw the line? I can't say I understand that.

Real bummer. At least this one wasn't intentional. I guess that's better. It's probably just indicative of their secretive habits, but it really is a shame we almost never hear about/see mountain lions in Missouri until they're dead, one way or another. It doesn't really apply to this case, but given what are assumed to be very small numbers, and a secretive nature, it sure does seem residents of this state go out of their way to create conflict with them. There really is no reason for there to be this many incidents involving the death of mountain lions with a population this small, and zero human injuries having been caused in the interchange. There just has to be more of a focus on awareness/acceptance of the species in Missouri.

Not sure how specific you want. In a general sense, I have full confidence that all of these pictures were taken in the Blue Ribbon section. In a (slightly) more specific sense, based on the fact that the majority of anglers seem to think the river goes underground about a half mile below Baptist Camp (only to resurface as a smallie stream 20 miles later) , I will pretty safely assume that said anglers started fishing at either Baptist Camp or Tan Vat. I'll also say that the idea of a "secret spot" (even a secret pool, riffle, or run) on a place like the upper Current is silly. Every trout you catch (besides those 8 inch browns) will have seen a whole bunch of flies. Might as well accept that, and it's okay because they're somehow still stupid enough to eat a fuzzy orange glow bug more often than not.

I'm not sure I agree with calling someone a "moron" because they have a different definition of fishable water, but okay. That said, I have found that in most cases it's better to just go when there is a question as to whether a stream is fishable. If you skip out on a trip because the water is too high, you're admitting defeat before you even have a chance to find out otherwise. Worst case scenario if you go is still a day spent on the river, which is generally quite a bit better than whatever you'd be doing instead. The exception of course is when the water is high enough to create a hazard, a lesson I learned the hard way on the Bourbeuse. It had not rained at my home, so I didn't suspect anything and never checked the gauge. When I got there the river was very high and up in the willows, clearly unfishable, but I deemed it safe enough with a good life-jacket and decided to go anyway for the scenery. What I didn't account for was that the flood waters were still pouring in from the headwaters following what had apparently been a real gully-washer early that morning. By the time I got to my take-out, things were pretty hairy. The creepiest part was actually how peaceful and non-threatening the water looked, totally smooth, nothing to break the surface even in the shallowest riffles. But simultaneously, the sheer power of the river was literally palpable, and you knew what was going to happen if you ended up in a root-wad. It was definitely an interesting experience, and one that gives me a level of appreciation for our rivers that you never get at summer low-water. But I will never willingly put myself in that position and thinking back it was a pretty horrible decision that luckily turned out okay.

I only knew him from his posts here, but he seemed like an awesome guy and a lot of fun to interact with. He surely will be missed.

Most certainly not. If anything, we just have slightly different views of how that happens .

I enjoyed that conversation too. You will admit that fisherman tend to overblow things every once in awhile, and I was poking fun at that. One time I posted a fishing report basically stating that an entire (long) stretch of the Current was no good and it was because it needed to be managed differently. Based on one mediocre trip. And I did well the next time and promptly forgot about it. It's how (many of us) are wired. So I'm not singling you out if that's what it sounded like.

Oops. Not sure how that happened. I could have sworn I saw it on the recent post lists. Guess I never read the timestamps. Who knows. It was kinda late. Crap. I hate it when other people do that.

Dang. I can't make it down there for a couple weeks yet and you are not helping me become more patient. Weren't we writing that river a eulogy a couple weeks ago? Fishermen are weird.

Edit: I'm dumb and this thread is three years old.

Dang, you always hate to hear that . Hope it was just indicative of somewhat odd weather conditions this spring and not something worse. Keep us posted.

There are a lot of areas near Montauk with a TON of potential to be both really cool and profitable if they were managed right*, but for some reason just never seem to be. Ozark Mountain/Inman Holllow is one intensely cool place. I paid a good chunk of change to camp there once (despite there not being much in the way of amenities, or anything else) because when else do you get to camp on a Civil War battlefield alongside a trout stream? I bet I'm not the only one that feels that way, and it would be that much more so if it were actually run well and didn't cost what was a pretty exorbitant price. The right owner could really do something with that, though you'd hope it involved a healthy amount of preservation of the history there. *Also, if you're thinking this is a conspiracy to create more campgrounds, and thus redirect people away from the various informal campsites that I so prefer, you're totally right.

I'm sure you're right that the Beetle Spin can do most of the same things. I don't know though. I've just never fallen in love with it the way I have some of the other lures I rely on day to day. I'm sure there is not much reason for that beyond the total faith I have in what I'm usually throwing, which I'm firmly convinced is more important than anything else. If I don't believe in it I don't fish it well. On a side note, is the ned rig really what it looks like to me? Just a piece of a rubber worm on a jighead? Is there a fisherman alive that hasn't tried that at one point or another out of sheer "well, I'm out of bullet sinkers and I still think these bass want rubber worms, so what the heck?" Sure, that can work, but once again, it probably doesn't hurt to stop and remember that if we put any plastic thing on a hook and make it kinda look and move like a crawdad/minnow/random aquatic creature, there are going to be quite a few bass that are going to want to eat it.