ozark trout fisher

This is just a little article I wrote awhile back that I feel like posting. What do you do if you drive to Bennett, Montauk, or one of the other trout parks (or Taneycomo for that matter), and you can see fisherman from horizon to horizon? That sight is all too familiar in Missouri. As the numbers of trout fisherman rise, and the number of miles in our trout parks stay the same, crowds keep getting bigger and bigger, and the experience becomes poorer. Some disgusted anglers are giving up the sport of trout fishing altogether, in favor of other species where they can find waters with more solitude. But there's another way. There are 150 miles of managed trout water in Missouri, only eight of which are contained in trout parks. So that tells you right off the bat that there is upwards of 140 miles of trout water in Missouri outside the parks. None of these streams are anywhere near as crowded as the trout parks, and they all offer some kind of quality trout angling. These "outside the park" streams are the answer for trout fisherman looking for a little solitude. One thing that keeps many fisherman inside the parks is the concern that they are somehow incapable of catching fish elsewhere. That is untrue in almost all cases. You probably will have to adjust your techniques somewhat, but if you can catch them in the parks, with a little bit of flexibility and maybe a bit of work, any trout park fisherman can make the transition. One difference between park waters and non-park waters is the level of spookiness in the fish. Trout park fish are used to people;indeed, the fresh hatchery fish actually associate humans with food. Stream-wise fish on the other hand, consider human beings predators, and if they know you're there, they will often get lock-jaw. But you don't need to be all that sneaky except on the very touchiest of streams. I have caught many perfectly wild trout in Missouri from within 15 feet of my boots, but I also make an effort not to crunch gravel excessively or position myself directly over the fish. This isn't rocket science;you just don't want to make yourself dreadfully obvious to the fish. Also, you'll need to get in the habit of presenting "natural" flies of lures. Matching the hatch can be helpful, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm just saying that you need to use a lure or fly that is at least somewhat representative of what the fish eat on a regular basis. Since trout eat a wide variety of foods, naturally a wide variety of flies can be effective. During the warm months outside of the parks, I wouldn't be without some Hare's Ear Nymphs, Pheasant Tail Nymphs, Stonefly Nymphs, and Scud patterns in a variety of sizes. For dries, Adams, Elk Hair Caddis, and Wullf-type attractor dries are all very useful. I rely a lot on egg patterns during the winter. But one specific pattern is not usually the key to success. You just have to be fishing a reasonable fly in a natural manner most of the time, although the fish do have their moments when they are exceedingly picky. So next time you go trout fishing, give the water outside the parks a try. I'd suggest starting with the Blue Ribbon stretch of the Current River in South-central Missouri, the Niangua in southwestern Missouri, and the Red Ribbon portion of the Meramec in eastern Missouri. All three of these rivers offer relatively easy fishing that is fairly similar to trout park angling without the ridiculous crowds. Why not give them a try?

I am in total agreement. The old tried and true lures have stuck around for a reason. This isn't intentional, but pretty much all of the lures and flies that I use with any regularity have been around for quite a number of decades. Some would think that my fly and tackle boxes are far too simple and old fashioned, but when I do buy the newer, more expensive stuff I find it just sits uselessly at the bottom of the tackle box while I'm catching fish on Rebel Craws,Jitterbugs, and Rapalas. Or for fly fishing, Hare's Ears, Pheasant Tails, Woollies, and Ausable Wulffs. In all honestly years ago I learned to fish for bass from my Grandfather on my mothers side, to fly fish from my Grandfather on my father's side. I inherited most of their techniques that they learned goodness knows how many years ago, and they still work.

It's a special one for sure...It is the kind of river that you find your self thinking about constantly, that makes you seriously consider finding a way to move closer to it. From September through sometime in May there is no place in the world I would rather be.

Going fishing without any Hare's Ears or Pheasant Tails...Who could do such a thing? For trout fishing I have a Hare's Ear or Pheasant Tail tied on something like 80% of the time.From Missouri to Colorado to Montana they just plain work. My fly box is half full of them. I think fly fishing can be a much more simple affair than many people make it out to be.

Looks like a break is coming, although it's in like 10 days. The highs then are supposed to drop into the 70s .Or at least so says weather.com, which of course means that the opposite will happen. I too, have caught many of my best fish late in the year. And even't if that weren't so October is easily my favorite month to be on the water. Nothing like being on an Ozark stream in mid October with the woods are every color known to man.

I would say that two 17"+ largemouth being hooked on the same lure is a little unusual to say the least. I bet that was a heck of a fight! As to whether you should have released them or had them mounted, that's entirely up to you. Though I'd be tempted to say that you did the right thing releasing them.

Sounds like a great trip. I'll be heading down next weekend, and it's good to hear that there are plenty of rising fish.

Naw, that ain't my style. But the gillnet does help.

Just 175..really. I can do twice that easily in a half hour.

Well goodness gracious, is every old thread I ever started gonna get brought back from the dead? I don't mind, it's just kind of funny to see these old topics coming back after so long. This was two years ago. I don't even have the same beliefs on this particular issue that I had then...That is to say that I still believe essentially the same thing, that the better trout streams with high quality habitat should be managed to allow the fish grow to trophy size. But when I think about it now the idea of banning treble hooks and restricting to barbless only just seems too much like an attempt to push a certain kind of angler off the water. I don't spin fish for trout anymore, but I certainly don't think there is anything wrong with it.

I have to say I am pretty darned happy that we are at the tail end of summer...September can't come soon enough. I love bass fishing, but I am ready to hang up the spinning rods and focus on trout for the next 7 months or so. Leaving for the first fall camp trip on the Current September 2nd, I can't wait.

Yeah, whatever. It is just that when I have been a jackwagon I am willing to admit it...

Yeah, I'm sorry too...I was being far too defensive.

We didn't see any elk, but lots of mule deer. The first night I woke up at about 3 AM, and heard something big crashing through the brush just feet from my tent. Of course in that neck of the woods, your first thought is an emphatic "I sure hope that isn't a bear!" It wasn't, but when I unzipped the tent to look (bear spray in hand) there was a beautiful 10 point buck mule deer standing about 15 feet from my tent. We saw him milling around in sight of camp several other times throughout our stay. We did see lots of elk sign and were expecting to see them, but we never did encounter any.

Okay, yeah, you were not the one who resurrected the thread. Sorry about that. But still, and for goodness sakes please pay attention to this, if you want to bash on someone by all means read the thread! If you had simply done so, you would have seen that there were several posts nearly identical to your previous one, which is exactly why it got the reaction from me it did.

Honestly TC, I have no interest in having this discussion with you. Whether or not it was the right thing to do which it may not have been, I can assure you that my intentions were to keep these streams from getting too much pressure in the summer heat. I defended myself already a year ago on this and I will not do it again. Why dig up an old thread just to bash on someone who was just trying to do a good thing, and maybe went about in the wrong way? And finally please do take the time to read the thread if you are going to bash on someone. Someone may have already done it for you. Have a good day sir.

Honestly TC, I have no interest in having this discussion with you. Whether or not it was the right thing to do which it may not have been, I can assure you that my intentions were to keep these streams from getting too much pressure in the summer heat. I defended myself already a year ago on this and I will not do it again. Why dig up an old thread just to bash on someone who was just trying to do a good thing, and maybe went about in the wrong way? For goodness sake, please do take the time to read the thread if you are going to bash on someone. Have a good day sir.

Nice browns. Big fish like that aren't easy to come by this time of year either.

The real question here, to me, is not so much ethics as just how you like to fish. How many fish do you need to feel like you've had a good day of fishing? There's a different answer for everyone depending on what you are trying to get out it, and no one answer is better than any other really For me I would have to say just a few, or in some cases none. I like to go fishing in places that are remote and pretty enough that I can have a good time even if the fish are off, so I never really worry about it too much. If they are biting of course that's better, and I'll just fish till I've caught a few, and feel that I've learned where they are and what they are taking. Then, as I said earlier, I'm liable to go for a hike or something. This is why I will probably never be much more than an average fisherman, but it also allows me to have a much better time overall than I used to when all I did was fish, and fish hard whenever I went down to the Ozarks. It is possible to get so focused on the fish and the fishing that I can forget about the beautiful place that I am in. Now I try to avoid that as much as I can.

No Al, I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. But that is not my goal, and for one simple reason. For me, fishing is in a large part about satisfying curiosity, and answering the ever present questions. What do the conditions tell me about how I should fish? What are the fish feeding on? Do I have the right fly in my box? Where should I be presenting that fly, and how? And if I do have the right flies and the right presentation, is my skill level enough to catch fish in these conditions? After I catch a dozen or so fish or often less than that, those questions seem answered to me. And I'm always happy when that happens, because it allows me to spend time checking out the area, hiking in the beautiful country that surrounds nearly all of our trout and smallmouth streams, maybe getting on top of one of those big tall bluffs along the river and seeing the scenery from that vantage point. This is a big part of why I like to spend time on Ozark streams (and an especially big part of why I like the Current River so much), and without this the experience just wouldn't be complete for me.

That's a good question and there is no clear answer. I don't really think a fisherman should have to stop fishing after they have caught and released 4 trout. I do think that if you're catching and releasing, say 50 fish in one day, you are probably not doing other fisherman much good. After you have caught a certain number of fish and keep fishing, it is possible to begin to wonder what point you're trying to make anyway. You are educating all of the fish you catch, and probably some of them aren't surviving either. I think that like most such issues it is just a matter of judgement and depends a lot on the situation...I usually stop fishing for the day when I feel like I've caught enough, and when catching more just seems kind of cheap (not that I get to that point very much, often enough I'm struggling just to catch one or two!). How many is enough just depends on where I am fishing. I fished one tiny pond in the Flat Tops wilderness earlier this month, that was so small that you could cast easily to the other side of the pond pretty much wherever you were. In a place like that, I caught one native cutthroat trout and that was enough. Mainly I just wanted to get a good look at one of these beautiful fish. Anymore would just be unnecessary and there were few enough fish that a few trout that didn't survive release could have a real negative impact. But somewhere like the upper Current where the trout densities are high, I can feel pretty okay about catching and releasing 15 or 20 fish. But if I get to that point I will more than likely do something else for the rest of the day, maybe go for a hike or something. Not because I'm trying to make some ethical point, but just because I've usually satisfied my urge to catch fish by then anyway, and it's just time to do something else for awhile.

I've often wondered the same thing...Everyone talks about fishing Cracklebacks, I've never had much success with them for trout. Not to say they don't work, I also just use them as dries, and I don't think that's how everyone does it. I know a lot of people fish them on sinking lines. Bluegill absolutely love them though. It may be the best bluegill dry fly I've ever come across actually.

I tend to agree. That situation would be as annoying as heck, but the right thing is almost surely to be nice about it and just explain the situation. It isn't the people who don't know any better that get to me so much. What gets to me are the fisherman who know and understand how to be a courteous and just choose not to be.

Incredible pictures. Thanks for posting them.

Incredible pictures. Thanks for posting them.