eric1978

Actually, it's guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence..life, liberty and the pursuit of fish. As much as I'd like to get into the political debate you're luring me into, I'll resist. Suffice it to say, you misunderstand liberals. Nonetheless, I wish the government would buy up all the streams.

By the way...to respond to your initial argument about liability... I find it very difficult to believe a judge or jury would hold you responsible for an injury incurred by a trespasser. Yes, technically you are liable for anything that happens on your property, but c'mon, let's be realistic...it would never hold up in court. It would be like a bank robber suing the bank because he broke his ankle fleeing from the cops. Land is not nearly as limited a resource as flowing water, so I reject the premise of that comparison. There is so much public land available that you could wander off into the wilderness and not see another person for years if you so desired. That's not true of streams. I don't consider anything a "God-given right." I just believe that there are certain things in society that should be available for everyone to use, regardless of how wealthy or lucky you are. How about roads? Should it be illegal for you to pass through my neighborhood since I paid the taxes that contribute to their construction and maintenance, and you didn't? I doubt that, but in the case you're really being honest, I'll have to assume then that keeping people off of "your" stream is more important to you than angling in general. I call unsportsmanlike conduct on that one. Agreed. And look Terry, I do sympathize with your position. My family had property on the Huzzah for a number of years, well above where the liveries put in floaters. The section of stream that ran through our property was marginally floatable at best, and the number of pools that would be over your head upstream from us I could probably count on two hands. If the Huzzah stayed the same size that it was at our property all the way to the confluence with the Meramec, it would not be considered a navigable stream. But we did have floaters (dragging their canoes for the most part) and waders come through ocassionally, and I will admit that it was a bit of a thorn in my side that they were able to get the same enjoyment out of something for free that my family had paid for. But not only did they have the legal right to be there, I wouldn't have run them off anyway, unless they were breaking some other law like littering, poaching, or disturbing the peace through noise pollution, etc. Why? Because I would hope that when the tables were turned, and I was exploring new water that I didn't "own," I would be extended the same courtesy from others. We also owned the property on which Shoal Creek (a different Shoal Creek) ran into the Huzzah. The entirety of that creek, which was not much more than a trickle with a few waist-deep pools, was absolutely non-navigable. It was mine. I owned it, and the last eighth of a mile or so was one of my favorite little places to wade around in the summer with my ultralight and catch 12 inch smallies all day long. One day, making my way back downstream to our house, I encountered a father and young son walking up from the Huzzah, where they were on a short float. My first instinct was to be a prick and scold them for trespassing, but I thought better of it, and stopped to chat with them. They were nice guys, and the father explained to me that he was very sorry to be on my property without permission, and that they were only looking for a small creek to play around in, since he wanted his son to have as much fun as he remembered having as a kid in little creeks like this one. He told me how hard it was to find a place to explore and avoid the party crowds on the weekend, since everything seemed to be private or overrun with drunks. I told him I knew exactly what he meant, and that they were welcome to stay and fish, and I realized at that moment that places like Shoal Creek were too special to keep to myself. And here's the more important thing to consider...The small streams in question that this thread is about are in no real danger of being overrun with undesirable people. The weekend partiers will almost always stick to the larger streams with canoe rentals, the meth-heads are more interested in getting into your shed than they are wading through your creek, and the local drunks are too lazy and uninterested to look for new places to get hammered and blast AC/DC...the gravel parking lot under the bridge is good enough for them. I would imagine that your experience has been similar to mine, in that very few of the people you've encountered on your stream have been a threat to you or your property in any way, and that most folks who would wade upstream two miles from a public access to find fish would be enthusiastic enough anglers to know not to litter or otherwise disrespect the adjacent property. Speech over.

I'm pretty sure the "trespassing is art" remark is somehow ness' way of poking me, but it's such a convoluted comment that I can't take offense because I don't know what the hell it means. Maybe I'm wrong, who knows? I wasn't comparing slavery to my desire to fish on private streams...I was making the point that not all laws are necessarily good ones simply because they exist. If they opened up private streams for public use, 100 years from now people would be baffled when they are told that at one time they couldn't fish wherever a stream wandered. Unfortunately, this country is slowly moving in the opposite direction, and eventually things will be so locked up by private ownership that there will be a surcharge for a plane ticket to pay someone for flying through the airspace they own.

Publishable. Great read.

Hypothetical... What if all the public waterways were sold off to private citizens, and you couldn't afford to buy (or weren't lucky enough to inherit) your own section of stream...would you be singing the same tune? I doubt it. I guess the "I got mine" attitude is human nature, but it sure is sad.

Yeah, the law is the law. 150 years ago, the law said you could enslave people. 80 years ago, the law said women couldn't vote. And today, if you get caught with an ounce of pot three times in California, you go to jail for the rest of your life. The law is the law...but that doesn't necessarily make it right.

Awesomae fish! What a beautya!

I'm sure Tuesday's election has something to do with it. See what happens?

A better analogy would have been... How would you feel if someone walked past your house on the sidewalk that runs through your front yard? I know I don't run to get my shotgun when I see someone approaching my property, even if I think he might toss his Snickers wrapper on my lawn. Waterways, regardless of size, should be considered "rural sidewalks," but society has established different sets of rules for different types of property.

I don't have a problem with wildfires, per se. When lightning strikes, let 'er burn. I'm just saying we shouldn't be pitching our lit cigs out the window willy nilly and pretending we're doing the great outdoors a favor...and that's what Smokey says, too. Sounds like MDC needs to do some controlled burns in the river valleys...but let's leave it up to them instead of allowing citizens to play Ranger Rick and screwing everything up.

On the other hand, what makes a navigable waterway any different from a non-navigable waterway, other than size? Don't sit there and tell me you never get out of your boat when floating navigable waterways through private property. Technically, that's trespassing, too. If you want to deny me access to a creek that runs through your property, fine. But if I access that creek two miles downstream from a neighbor's property or a public access, I should be able to wade and fish that creek until the creekbed runs dry and turns into a hollow. I know that's not the law, and that's why I said "should." This "American Dream" argument about owning your own stream one day is a slippery slope. Not only are the odds long against us that we'll ever have the money for our own private fisheries, but you keep pushing landowner's rights instead of angler's rights, and eventually we'll all be false casting on our front lawns and tying our tippets to the neighbor's dog for a tug on the line. Some things should remain available for everyone to use, not just the rich...and that includes streams, big and small. They are a finite resource and it's not right that they should be gobbled up by the most fortunate among us to the exclusion of the rest.

I don't know what y'all are talking about. MO is, and always has been, predominately oak-hickory or oak-pine forest. http://mdc.mo.gov/discover-nature/habitats/forests/missouri-forests-today Here's what MDC says about forest fires: "Each year about 4,000 wildfires burn over 40,000 acres of Missouri's forest and grassland. Humans cause most of the fire in Missouri: 50 percent start from escaped debris and trash fires and 31 percent are started by arsonists. These fires cause millions of dollars worth of damage to forests, wildlife habitat, watersheds, and property."

Unfortunately, 99.99% of us will never be able to afford to purchase a stream, regardless of how hard we work.

So since a cedar glade doesn't offer much food for animals, we should just torch it? Cedars grow in rocky areas where most other trees will not. They fill a niche. And I've never encountered an old-growth forest so choked with maples that no other trees can grow...they're usually interspersed among the oaks, hickories, and pines. Yeah, maybe a hillside that was clear-cut for timber came back as a dense jungle of silver maple saplings...but that was our fault anyway. Hard maples are a native species of tree and are of just as much value as nut-bearing trees. If nature put it there, it belongs there. It's not our place to go burning what we consider to be of less "value."

As long as those forest fires are a result of natural causes. If it's caused by a lightning strike, then so be it, but a fire caused by a cigarette or a campfire is a different story. And I don't see how maples and cedars have less "wildlife value" than any other flora.

Yip.

Serial killer (pink hat) with his soon-to-be next victim (white hat) on the Gasconade. Poor bastard.

I thought it was make like a drum and leave? Bif...

I thought it was clean as a whistle?

Well I don't know what kind of buddy brand felt-soled boots you were using, but felt DOES work FAR better than any fancy Vibram sole...I have both. The rubber is worthless on slick rocks, hobnailed or not. I just about broke my ankle two summers ago walking on greased cannonballs with Vibrams...it was darn near impossible to stay upright. Visited the same stretch of river several months later with felt...no problem.

I find a Ringo Bugger to be quite effective during C&R.

You may have over-filled your spool...that would account for the line falling off your reel. Or you may have spooled up backwards...just because you had the label-side up doesn't mean that was the correct way. The line needs to come off the spool in the same direction your reel rotates, which is clockwise. That would be my guess if you have a bunch of twist before you've gotten the line wet.

Whoever placed those sandals so perfectly on the fire deserves most of the credit for that awesome pic. Good job, that guy! That argument is a red herring, unless... you deny the benefits of laws and consequences (established by government), and the impact they have on society (when implemented by government). How would our county look under anarchy? Hmmm, not so great. When people are allowed to do whatever they please, they eventually run amok...always.

http://stopans.org/P...dgeofDidymo.pdf Go to page 19. You can choose to believe it or not. They also mention boot tops, neoprenes, and other fishing equipment as viable transportation for didymo. For the record, I wear felt soles. But I wouldn't if I fished in infected waters, or I'd have a designated, separate pair for them. The transmission of didymo via felt soles worn by anglers has been established with scientific evidence...the question is whether or not we: a. decide we know more than the scientists and ignore the evidence, and b. should all be personally responsible for preventing the spread of didymo, or if a government entity should step in and do something about it, since every time it is left up to humans to do the right thing on their own, they invariably don't.

Awesome! What fly did he take? Got a better pic of it? I gotta do the carp on the fly thing.