eric1978

I got my Penobscot 16RX like new on ebay for $545...so yeah, keep your eyes peeled and you can find a steal. Frankly I like it better than my solo for everything except day trips on really skinny streams. And I agree with Gavin, don't go shorter than 13'...actually I'd say 14' if it's gonna be your only canoe. My solo is 12' and it's about worthless for overnights. I can fit all my gear in it, but it doesn't leave any room for convenient storage and access to your rods...if you like to fish with more than one rod while you float. And stowing fly rods in a 12' solo? Forget about it, unless you don't mind the tips sticking out and getting hung up and snapped off all the time.

If you buy Royalex it won't be 80 pounds.

How do you blow past that spot without taking a cast?! Aarrgghh! Slow down partner! Very cool video of a better time...and better fishing. Why do ALL narrators from the 50s and 60s sound EXACTLY the same?

There certainly are, and I'm happy to think that more anglers are converted every day. Unfortunately a few meat hunters can trump the efforts of all the rest of us. So frustrating. That's kind of Chicken Little there, Ron. I don't know of sport fishing threatened anywhere except where there's rampant overharvest and it's shut down to allow the fishery to recover. And young people aren't staying home because regs are too complicated...they stay home because our culture promotes laziness, and air conditioning and X-Box is more appealing to lazy people than July heat, insects, snakes, paddling frogwater, portaging obstacles and long drives home. Anyone who is truly interested in the outdoors and responsible use of our resources can figure out the regs easily with little effort, and honestly I don't want anyone without those characteristics involved anyway.

I have no interest in deer hunting so I pay no attention to it. The regs are extremely confusing and mysterious to someone who doesn't care, like me. But if I were interested, I'm assuming it would take about three minutes of research to learn the regs. If someone is interested in smallmouth fishing, it wouldn't be difficult to find the regs for that, either. And it's a sportsman's responsibility to learn the regs for whatever fish or game they seek. The internet makes it simple. If they don't have the internet, they can look in the booklet that's available wherever they get their license. And if they don't like the complexity of the regulations, they can stay home. That's their problem. And to whether or not smallmouth fishing in the Ozarks could be world-class...how can you even venture a guess? We've never tried to establish world-class smallmouth fishing here, so your assumption that it's not possible is simply that...an assumption. My opinion is that it could absolutely be world-class, but it never will be if the regs allow EVERY fish to be harvested before they reach trophy status. There is ZERO protection for adult fish on the vast majority of Ozark streams. How on Earth could we know if it's capable of world-class fishing? One thing I'm sure of...our smallmouth streams reflect the current regulations...sustainable harvest - translation - consistent mediocrity.

Simple but ingenious. Gotta love engineering in fishing.

http://youtu.be/Lb9n4oa_Pus

I'm like Oprah...I gain and lose about 30 pounds every year. Right now they're a little snug in the gut. When I'm the size I should be and not a fat disgusting pig, they fit just right. Larges are huge, even for me when I'm a lardass.

X2 on this. If you can get the Freestones for $160, jump on it. If you know you'll really use them, best to get quality waders that'll last instead of buying garbage that you'll have to constantly replace when they fall apart and leak. Only problem with the Freestones is they don't come in odd sizes. I had to get the Headwaters because they were the cheapest Simms had in Med-Short. $300, but still totally worth it to stay dry and comfortable.

I like #5. Wonder what some rubber legs would do to that beast?

I'm breaking my vow of silence to let Al respond to this...again.

I'm pulling my hair out. Later fellas.

Well it sounds like the biologists don't really agree with that, but you're entitled to your opinion, right or wrong. Remember we're not talking about little infertile ponds and lakes with a finite amount of forage...we're talking rivers. I've never been on an Ozark river where a smorgasbord of prey wasn't present. And again, who was in charge of thinning the smallmouth populations a few thousand years ago? No one. The fish did fine, apparently. Maybe you feel like there's an overabundance of small fish compared to bigger fish because that's what you tend to catch due to overharvest. Just maybe.

I say they favor the meat hunters because, as I stated before, their presence and behavior has significant impact upon our (C&R anglers) experiences, but our presence on the same rivers has little to no impact on their experiences. It would be fair if we both had to sacrifice. But they don't have to. They take what they want and leave the river less enjoyable for the rest of us. It would be like if the MO taxpayers bought the Mona Lisa, but then we decided to put it in someone's house instead of a museum for everyone to see. We conserve, they exploit. We put back, they take away. I see no reason why someone shouldn't be able to keep a trophy. I wouldn't because I don't feel the need to hang animals on my wall, and I'd argue that a 20" fish isn't truly a trophy anyway, albeit a rare and exceptional catch for sure. Maybe a 22 incher would make me stop and consider it, since that fish is so near the end of its life anyway, but still, why? And replicas are so much better looking than the real thing anyway...not to mention a good photo...that's better than either. But sure, if some kids sticks a 20" smallmouth and Dad wants to get it mounted for him, that's fine, and that's why I'm okay with a slot including one over 20". IMO it's the 15-20" fish that make smallmouth fishing so much fun, with their heartstopping strikes, aerial leaps and bulldog fights. And with tighter regs to protect those sizes of fish, we would see a lot more reaching that 20" mark and beyond and offer more people the opportunity to hook into a fish of a lifetime.

Well I guess we've hit a brick wall when this becomes your rationale to dismiss my opinion, because it's totally irrelevant. You're absolutely right that I'm only able to schedule a trip every month or six weeks...at best. But that's irrelevant. Jason is also right that I used to spend nearly entire summers chasing smallmouth when I owned property ON a river. Irrelevant. And how often would you be able to hit a stream if you had to drive at least two and a half hours to do so every time you had the urge? Because I'm quite certain that if I had good rivers in my back yard, I'd be on them far more than 50 days a year. But that's irrelevant. None of this means that I'm any more or less passionate about pursuing these fish than you are, nor does it mean that either one of us have a degree in biology or fisheries management. We're both just pulling arbitrary numbers out of our butts and making cases for them without any formal scientific education or legitemate understanding of the complex ecosystems we both love and enjoy. It's all irrelevant. What IS relevant, though, as you correctly and constantly point out, is establishing regulations that make the resource work for everyone, instead of regulations that favor one group over another. Well guess what? Our current regulations do exactly the latter, by favoring the meat hunter and allowing one group of "anglers" to keep our rivers in a state of perpetual mediocrity. How is that fair? Why do they get to dictate the quality of our fisheries? The argument cuts both ways, but the difference is proponents of C&R and tighter regulations have a far smaller impact on those who exploit the resource than they inversely have on us. I catch a great fish and return it to the water for others to enjoy down the road, possibly several times more. Maybe you'll get to catch that same fish one day when it's even bigger and fights even harder, maybe Corndawg will. That's good for at least two of us. The meat hunter catches that fish and he turns it into poop. That's not good for anyone but him.

The only concept I'm not grasping is what the frequency of my smallmouth trips has to do with anything. How did they make it for thousands of years with zero human intervention if they so badly need thinning? That's my question.

Who said I was talking about you? If you agree with the mission of MSA, I don't understand why you're constantly badmouthing them. Join, don't join, whatever. Why talk smack about an org that's doing the work we should all be doing?

Yeah, but those lakes suck.

I was just pointing out to Dan that it's unnecessary to worry about people who claim to have the same interests yet also appear (for no intelligible reason) to be against the only structured entity in the state who fights for those very interests...which leads me to believe those people may have some issues. That is all. Do carry on.

Man, you're sensitive. Okay, sorry...how about, got beat up a lot in grade school? That better?

You don't have to, Dan. Ignore the trolls and keep doing what you're doing. People who are smallmouth enthusiasts yet rail against the MSA...you have to figure they have some issues, God knows what. Maybe they didn't get enough attention when they were kids.

I called about Prairie Lake a year or so ago and inquired about the boat thing. No go. Would be nice to be able to drop the canoe in a local lake around here...I know of none. I wish you could put your canoe in the BW lakes, too. I'd go out there a lot more often if you could...a lot more often than never, that is, which is how often I go now. Overcrowded, overfished sinkholes. But with a canoe you could access some of the lakes no one fishes or only fishes one bank of.

Then how exactly did the smallmouth make it through the tens of thousands of years when there was NO human impact at all upon their streams? If they so desperately need to be thinned out, they'd be long gone, thousands of years ago. They don't NEED thinning. Never have. That's a problem you run into with little forageless man-made mudholes, not a gushing vein of neverending nutrients. Let's be realistic...the smallmouth would be better off with NO human impact than any arbitrary slot or creel limit. Of course C&R won't be implemented, but let's not pretend we're doing them some biological favor with a slot limit.

You gotta consider the population densities when making those comparisons. We're packed in like sardines up here...of course it's a mess. And yeah, people everywhere are hoosiers and throw their trash in rivers and generally don't give a darn. I'm not making the case that living in the city or suburbs means you're not a disgusting pig. I'm just making the observation that our nicest, prettiest, cleanest Ozark streams...they tend to be molested most by the folks who live nearest them...generally. And again, I'm all for reaching out and educating the public on C&R. Of course that's a good thing. But it's not realistically enough on its own...at least not in my lifetime. There are so many people who are totally incapable of or resistant to education and change, and those people are gonna have to be brought with us on leashes, kicking and screaming, to the new world. They'll thank us later.

Uh, no it isn't. Doh! You Lebanon boys...gotta wonder about y'all.