ozark trout fisher

I will say I'm usually in a generalist frame of mind when fishing Rooster tails, etc. There are better lures when I'm purely targeting smallmouth. But I challenge you to come up with a better all species method on Ozark streams that doesn't involve live bait. Slightly tangential point: I think the more we specialize in one species all the time the more we get tunnel vision and lose our curiosity. I (more or less) specifically target smallmouth the majority of the time I'm fishing Ozark streams....but every once in awhile you've got to take a minute to catch a longear or a goggle eye or even the various "trash fish" if you are going to get an accurate feel for what's really going on down there. So there will always be a place for Rooster Tails, Mepp's, etc in my tackle box for those moments.

Yeah, I'd take the Mepps over the Rooster Tail the majority of the time because of exactly what you said...Rooster Tails are not amenable to a fast retrieve, or in my experience areas with faster current where the heavier (in relation to the size of the lure) Mepp's tends to shine. But weirdly enough I've noticed times when the fish seem noticeably preferential to one or the other, with those being distributed about equal between the two...of course there are plenty of confounding variables that probably explain more of that, but I've got to pretend like I have some clue what's going on down there. I usually add a split shot about a foot up the line for casting and added depth with Rooster Tails, except in small creek situations. And it seems to help the spinner work properly with slightly faster retrieves, though that could be my imagination.This is one technique I am pretty sure increases my catch rate, and rather dramatically in deeper, faster reaches. It can help with Mepp's too, but it doesn't seem as critical. Plus I am often fishing the extra deep version of the latter, which eliminates the need.

I feel like at some point I should look up what the heck a "Ned" rig is. But nah. I think I'd rather keep imagining that it's something the Simpson's character invented. My life goal is to catch a bunch of fish while never knowing what the heck is going on in "the world of fishing."

Yep, the old Mepps is still way more effective than you think for smallies. And pretty much everything else, depending on the size of the spinner in question. I will say that I have almost equal success with Rooster Tails and Panther Martins, but once you get away from those three inlines, productivity/reliability tends to drop off a cliff in my experience. I've found I can get away with off-brand almost anything in fishing...but not here. You try to cut cost and you almost invariably end up with the joy that is a spinner that doesn't spin. I'll admit these are my primary backup plan behind the Rebel Craw in the summer months. It's nice because I can alternate between the larger ones to weed out pretty much everything besides bass (and the occasional and particularly rambunctious goggle eye/longear/etc) but you can just downsize whenever you want variety, or panfish for the frying pan.

Lovely brown there.

A lot of people know that property and that stretch of the Current very well. That's sort of the problem.

Well, the Broncos take Shane Ray. I love the decision.. Even having to move up, he's really good value that far down the first round.

I will have to believe you...but dang, you had better be pretty confident in your skills cause I can't imagine there's much margin for error.

I saw that too and had a similar reaction at first. Still, I'm intrigued by the thought process of someone who goes after large, deadly game with a bow. I suppose it's something like "Yes, I know it will probably take awhile for the arrow to kill the mountain lion, and yes, it will be extremely desperate, angry and ready to lash out in the interim, but no, I can't think of anything that could possibly go wrong."

I will say this...Shane Ray did a really dumb thing at the worst possible time (at least in terms of his financial situation.) How you could put yourself in that situation right before the draft is pretty mind-blowing. But let's not pretend that this incident means he's an "off the field risk" as many are saying. From what I can tell he's a pretty good guy,with an awesome story who screwed up in a pretty forgivable way. But he may well drop while those with much more serious, repeated histories of poor decisions and simply better "timing" for their mistakes (looking at you, DGB) get selected before him. All because he didn't leave any time for a "I'm a totally different person now" narrative. Not that I'll feel sorry for Ray if he falls out of the first round. The financial hit of falling to the 2nd isn't exactly going to drive him to poverty, and it might in fact be an extremely valuable lesson. But the teams that pass on him because of this incident may be making a regrettable choice.

Oh no. A Mizzou and KU flag side by side? I am going to have to process that for awhile and get back to you, but I'm pretty sure if it isn't illegal it should be.

My only regret is that I only have one like to give to this post.

Just my advice: if you are looking for a quiet place on a river where you can chill and catch fish, that's probably not the right place. That is a lovely stretch of river there from this fly-fisherman's standpoint, but it is right on a heavily used road, will have a constant (and I mean consant) stream of fisherman wading down from the park and up from Tan Vat, and there will never be a measure of privacy. If what you are looking for is one of the few opportunities to own a home right on a great trout river in Missouri, you may not have another chance. But if you are looking for literally anything else, then I'd pass.

I have no idea what you all are talking about given my brief absence from the forum....but fish being held the wrong way, Chief getting yellled at/yelling back, and "hypocrites getting exposed"....yep, sounds like a pretty classic multi-page OAF thread. If someone posted something involving "beating a dead horse" somewhere near the end, I'll award you full points.

I think this is a very worthwhile thing to post. I often cringe a little when I see fish pictures. Here's my reality: I take an occasional fish picture, almost entirely because I finally got worn down by the "Really, no pics, man?" comments on my fishing reports here. But there is a reason it's so occasional. I hate taking extra time to get a camera out, get a decent angle, and snap off a shot. I always feel like I'm recording this moment, but there's always going to be a tinge of concern every time I see that picture, because I wonder what the impact of that extra time had on the fish. So in essence, that lovely fish I'm showing you might not be in the water the next time you go there because I fiddled around for 20 seconds trying to get a pic. I'm considering just going back to reports filled with stream/landscape pics. Those are so much more interesting than most fish pictures, anyway, aren't they? My best, most guilt-free fish pictures? Those would be the ones with full stringers of panfish that are already dead (or soon will be.)

Those are some absolutely lovely wild trout, Geoff. They look like they've been eating well enough.

This is all making me laugh a little because I'm remembering so many of my own experiences on BSC. Exactly the same as what you are going through. Almost all of the trout streams in Missouri I once considered "tough" have opened up to me in terms of ease over the years. But I still struggle with that creek. I can scratch and claw my way into catching a few (on a good day) but I can't "crack the code" when the formula seems relatively simple on most of the other wild trout streams in this state. I think it's just because there are so many things simulatenously working against the angler there...they can see you from a mile away, know what fisherman are (getting an undue amount of pressure) have a rootwad in every pool they can disappear into, and on top of that it's basically a tunnel through the willows. The worst thing about it is that there are some real beauties to be seen (and spooked) on occasion, so you can never really resort to the excuse that they just aren't in there.

I would guess the largest smallie I've ever caught on a rebel craw is in the 17-19 inch range. As for average size? That's a pretty tough question, seeing that I don't have an Excel spreadsheet recording the length of every smallie I've ever caught. It's clearly not a "trophy" lure, at least for smallies. It's a numbers/variety (ie, picking up the occasional longear, rock bass, drum, gar, bluegill, catfish along the way) lure. I feel like I'm expected to apologize for approaching stream smallie fishing from that perspective, but it's how I go about things and I always seem to have a good time on the water. My point being: unless you are a real trophy hunter (and admittedly, there are a few people on here that are good enough to make that claim) smallmouth fishing is simply not that hard or complicated. It's my belief that we generally tend to over-think it.

While all of our stream's populations have gone down a bit I don't know if that's the big problem. BSC has always been really hard, and there are still plenty of trout in there. It's just that it's tiny, crystal clear, and brush-choked. It's pretty much impossible to sneak up on the larger fish, and when you are successful, it doesn't matter because your fly is in a willow and your rod-tip is in the tree. It is frustration embodied in a little blue-green ribbon. That said...I caught my first wild Missouri trout on a fly-rod there. So it has a special little corner of my heart.

Eh, one 6 inch rainbow on a creek like that beats the heck out of the best day at Maramec Spring. You're doing fine. It's just a tough creek. Try some of the other wild trout streams. They are all easier than BSC.

I appreciate what you're getting at. It's just...I can't agree. In many ways, those three spring-creeks you listed as examples (and especially the first two) represent what is wrong with fly fishing. When you think of those creeks you think exclusivity, you think about "experts" with plenty of money and split-cane rods presenting dry-flies only to rising trout. Nothing wrong with that kind of angling, and nothing wrong with shooting for that on a private stream. But the Current represents the epitome of a public river, starting in a state park, spending the rest of its life in a national park. This is the river that so many (including myself) have gone to learn how to fly fish for trout, to decide to head down there on a moment's notice, pitch a tent, and spend a couple days on the river tossing egg patterns to stupid rainbows. Not to put too fine a point on it, but for everyone that is targeting huge browns and wants a "highly technical" experience, there are a whole bunch of us who are just there to enjoy a beautiful river and hopefully catch a few trout. If you try to limit anglers and begin to manage this like a Paradise Valley spring creek, you're going to have a lot of very disappointed anglers at best, and some people simply refusing to go along with it at worst.

By the way, I just want to say I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Ideally this is what all conservation-related threads would be....civil debates with the arguments of both sides based at least loosely on solid scientific information. After so many of the gigging/C&R/spotted bass threads have devolved into I-don't-know-what (as much through my fault as any) this is really nice.

Heres the problem: the Meramec is simply not a good trout stream for any classification of angler in its present state. Why should the "trophy hunters" who are a significant minority, have the possible best stream in the state managed for them exclusively, while the rest of us get marginal water to fish? Not choosing to target the biggest fish in the river all the time does not make one a "novice." It's just that everyone tends to go about things differently, and value different aspects of a fishery. Wouldn't it be better to compromise with such a fishery in a way that produces good numbers AND a high percentage over 18 inches? I don't like the idea of either camp having a lock on a fishery that should be managed for more than one type of angler. I guess I don't know what you mean by "it's too delicate of an ecosystem not to manage it this way." Why is having a few very large trout inherently more valuable than producing high quality fishing for the rest of us? Right now, there are a whole lot of people that think that this fishery is very valuable, and is being managed in a way that is working very well for us. I think a lot of those people are ones that target pig browns. I just don't see a lack of big fish (unless, again, you have White Riveresque dreams dancing around your head) being a problem at all. I may not catch them, but I do see them, especially when I'm not fishing and just carefully observing (something I find myself doing almost as much as the fishing lately.) They are there, and in as good of numbers as you could reasonably expect.

BruteFish I can't say I disagree with anything in your last post. What I still don't quite understand is how removing 18-20 inch trout would help. What you're saying is that the Current River is extremely fertile, and thus has the potential for fast growth of brown trout. I don't think anyone is going to argue with on that point. But doesn't that kind of contradict the idea that the population needs to be managed at relatively low levels in order to produce large fish? I guess my question is, exactly what resource do you think competition is currently limiting right now that reduces the growth rates/survival of fish in the "trophy" size classes? I think there is one real limiting factor in the Current River in terms of producing huge browns. I think the biggest factor would be the limited amount of holding water that is adequate for truly large fish at the dead-low water levels we often see August-October. There just aren't that many places suitable for these 25-30 inch browns we're talking about at this time of year. So when I say the Current will never be a "trophy factory" that's what I mean. It's capable of producing a very small number of huge trout, or a decent number of very nice trout (18 inches-mid 20s) but I don't think we can have both. You have to think about this from the MDC's perspective, and the management objectives they have to weigh. You can certainly manage the Current for huge trout, but because of size it will never be the White River, where the numbers are enough to build a whole fishing culture around big brown trout. Right now, you have a stream with about 20% of the brown trout above 18 inches, and that's a very strong number by any standard. I also am confident that the vast majority of the anglers on the Current River are going to be excited as hell with anything in the 18-20 inch range, and certainly aren't going to be asking where all the 25 inchers are. I think what the MDC is doing right now is managing the river for the anglers who like catching good numbers of smallish rainbows, as well as having a constant and very real opportunity of hooking into a brown trout that may not be a hang-it-on-the-wall trophy, but is nonetheless a trip-maker for 95% of fisherman who use the river. We're balancing that against sacrificing a number of the "good trout" to have a few more honest to goodness pigs to be targeted by a small percentage of anglers. From a pleasing the most people perspective (which is the only perspective that counts when you are talking about a non-native fishery), it doesn't look like a particularly hard choice. As to your last point on how harvesting could be a positive impact on the fishery...I don't think there's any evidence to say that. I also think, that compared to almost any non-C&R fishery anywhere, harvest is extremely low on the Current, even as a % of legal trout. I've seen a lot of legal sized trout taken on the Current (alas, usually by someone else) and I can't immediately recall any of them getting strung up. It happens, but I don't think legal harvest right now is enough to have a huge impact (positive or negative) on the population dynamics. I'm open to being proven wrong.

Yep. I don't see the Current as a fishery that has potential to be a record-book factory. It's basically a good-sized spring creek...good for holding decent numbers of trout, and plenty of good ones. But let's not pretend we're talking about the White River here. The amount of holding water is pretty darned limited at low summer/fall flows, and some sections can get a little warmish. It's a very good trout stream all things considered, but it generally doesn't possess many of the qualities you'd expect to produce a hog-factory. There might be some management tweaks that would be helpful (figuring out a way to offer some protection for the browns that migrate into the park due to warm water comes to mind) but in all I think the numbers indicate that the fishery is pretty close to its ceiling. The only way we're going to see huge improvements to size/numbers is if we can string together a couple of cool, wet summers.