eric1978

Agreed. Plus, they stop stocking the White Ribbon section below Milldam in early spring (I believe).

And despite Wheat's reputation, I wasn't forced to squeal like a pig at any time.

We floated Milldam to Newburg Friday. Yeah, water's up a bit and a little murky. No trout for us either. A few smallmouth here and there, lost a couple pigs right at the canoe, both 18"+. Not the greatest stretch I've ever floated, but worth doing once for sure. About half the float was muddy banks.

At least he didn't make you eat his sausage...his usual trick on the river. The after-effects from that will give you nightmares.

Gin clear, although it was stained the day I caught him. flytyer, the fish down here do get nice and fat, but they just aren't gonna get as BIG as your fish up north. You're gonna have to learn to adjust your standards, and judge your fish based on the Ozarks scale. Anything over 18 inches is a darn nice fish down here, and even anything over 15 inches isn't anything to sneeze at. A 20 incher is pretty much a trophy, and a fish that hits 21-22 inches is a once in a lifetime deal that most people will never experience...I haven't...yet. So, you know, appreciate what you're catching based on what's available HERE, instead of 500 or 1,000 miles from here. Never fished Crooked Creek. That smallie had some nice color to it!

This one came out of a small Ozarks stream in late September. How's that for fat?

Periods, Brother. You need to use some periods. Please. And take some pictures, I'd love to see a 49" musky!

Are you talking about Wisconsin stream fish? Because you can't compare smallies from a lake and smallies from a river...they have different shapes. Smallmouth that come out of those northern lakes are shaped more like footballs, where stream smallmouth, at least here in the Ozarks, tend to be shaped more like torpedoes. They do get fat here, though...keep fishing. That Crooked Creek fish doesn't have the biggest gut on him, but he looks perfectly healthy and quite typical, if not slightly skinnier than average.

Me plus wife and kid plus gear equals no more than me plus a buddy plus gear plus several cases of beer...and I've done that many times. I won't be getting anything longer than 17 feet, mainly because I've got nowhere to put it and it would be too heavy. Thanks for the idea though.

So what would you guys say the best "family float trip" canoe would be with our Ozark streams specifically in mind? The baby is coming in a few weeks, and as soon as she's old enough to swim, she's gonna be wrapped in PFDs and doing floats with me...I know it's a little premature to be thinking about this now since it'll be a few years, but I'd like to start getting some ideas so I can jump on a used one if I stumble across the right deal. I need something I can put all three of us in (my wife is only about 110...normally, and I'm currently a fat pig) will hold plenty of gear for two and three day trips will be maneuverable enough for me to do all the steering from the back (she's a worthless paddler and at times it seems I'm not much better) and most important, at least for a few years, pretty stable so we can minimize swamping with the little one with us. It will most likely end up being an Old Town or Wenonah, but I'm open to all suggestions. Whatever it is, I would prefer Royalex. Thoughts and experiences?

I say all of the above, but my guess is that is has most to do with the fact that Ozark streams are relatively small, compared to many good smallmouth streams in other parts of the country. By the time that our best Ozark smallie streams get big enough to support considerable populations of large fish, the habitat and water quality on those rivers is less than ideal for smallmouth...with a few exceptions. I don't agree that the upper portions of most spring-fed Ozark streams are too warm for smallmouth in summer...they can tolerate temps well into the 80s as long as there is good current and enough riffles to keep the dissolved oxygen levels up. But when the flow slows farther downstream, the higher temps in combination with lower DO make the water intolerable for smallmouth. So they are forced to inhabit the slightly cooler, faster moving, and smaller sections of our streams, which IMO limits their growth. Many of the good smallmouth streams are big (compared to ours), but also contain the correct habitat, flow, temps, DO and forage from top to bottom. So they have the best of all worlds. The streams in our country that produce the most and largest smallmouth are ones, as far as I can tell, that look like large-scale replicas of the middle and upper-middle sections of our better Ozark streams. Add to that our generally liberal creel regulations, poachers, and habitat degradation, and I'm actually amazed that we have the fishing we do. Another consideration is that smallmouth in our area have just evolved to be somewhat smaller to be better suited for survival here, for whichever reasons. Of course that's more of a result than a cause, but it's pretty clear that we just don't grow fish the same size as some other smallie states do. I'm pretty sure that even in pristine condition, untouched or influenced by human activity, our streams still wouldn't produce a world-record smallmouth...but we can certainly help make it better.

No, of course not. What a joke. I hope the state's prosecuting attorney isn't from South Elgin, too.

Totally agree. And yes, it is also illegal in MO to waste the edible portion of a fish, so it's against the law to throw back a floater here, too.

What a way to go out...hit by a car then a trooper writes you a ticket. What a drag.

Nice fish! But that's not a bluegill, that's a green sunfish.

Gotta agree with you on this one for a change JD. Those idiots should eat whatever they want...they probably keep and eat every smallmouth they catch too. As a general rule, if I have to be dared to eat something, I usually don't.

For a dog that size, 14 years is ANCIENT. Most dogs that big won't live half that long. You should feel lucky you had your buddy for as long as you did. The kid that hit him should be shot in the face. It's funny, it seems the bigger and more menacing a dog looks, the gentler they usually are, unless of course they're abused. It's always the stupid little dogs that attack. Mastiffs are good dogs, and Wheat mentioned Great Pyrenees and Newfoundlands, GREAT dogs. I don't have a lot of experience with St. Bernards, but the ones I have encountered have all been gentle. If you don't have to have a 100+ pound dog, don't forget about any retriever, almost always good dogs and great with kids. Chesapeake Bay retrievers tend to be somewhat bigger than other retrievers. And boxers are good dogs, too. Irish Wolfhounds are massive, but in a more tall and lanky kinda way. They almost always have hip problems when they're older, and they're not my favorite dogs in either looks or disposition...but they are big, and I wouldn't jump your fence if you had one. The best thing you could do is rescue a dog from a shelter. They're being put down by the thousands every day. Mutts often make the best pets, and they are less inclined to have the same problems that pure-bred dogs have, be it with skin, ears, hips, whatever. If you have to have a puppy, go to the pound and pick the one with the most disproportionately large paws that wags his tail and plays with you. Gavin, your mutt looks like he might have some doberman genes in him, but you're right, the combo of Great Dane and Rot could be it, too. Cool looking dog.

You're killin' me PC. Those are some nice fish, and that first smallmouth is a real beauty.

Okay, well I figure it has to be one out of three or four that I would guess, so I suppose that narrows it down.

Nice! That pic with the fog is a good one. What stretch did you float and what was your magic lure?

Educate yourself. Suckers are traditionally considered trash fish, or rough fish. "Trash fish" does not necessarily mean "worthless." It's just a euphemism, it's not literal. One day I hope to be as wise as you JD. Treehugger??? Maybe. So what? I thought an "avid outdoorsman for 40+ years" would enjoy trees. Yes, I get what you're saying OB. I hate conventional poachers as much as I do gigging poachers, they're just harder to pick on because they blend in so well. Did you say anything to that guy on Jack's Fork? I may have gotten myself shot if I saw that.

Yeah, poaching is poaching, and I condemn every type of it. But the problem with gigging is that it tilts the table so drastically in the poacher's favor. The fish are spotted in gin clear, cold water, stuck and plucked out of their hole. They have no chance. They are not given the opportunity to reject a bait and swim away. You get a couple free-for-all giggers on the right stretch of river on the right night, and the numbers of big fish on that stretch can be cut in half or worse. A poacher with a Zebco and a worm might well get lucky on occasion and catch 5 fish over 18 inches on some miracle day, but I'm sorry, your average Joe fisherman just doesn't have the skill to consistently catch big smallmouth like that. Giggers, however, can select whichever fish they want to stick, and that's that. I do agree that if you added up all the fish poached by conventional anglers, it would greatly exceed the fish poached by giggers...I get your point. But giggers can much more easily and quickly annihilate the big fish population on a given stretch of fragile stream. And my preference for trophy-size fish does not outweigh someone else's preference for taking home a few to fry...they can have as many suckers and carp as the law permits. But they cannot, however, take the smallmouth, because it's illegal. And why is it illegal you think? Maybe because it would be so easy to have a huge impact on the population of an already somewhat elusive and slow-growing species. My point was that since I don't affect their hobby, why should I be okay with them affecting mine? I have no problem with people harvesting a resource as long as it's not exploitative and detrimental to that resource or any other. "He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones." It's not from the bible; it's an English proverb, and the problem with your use of it is that since I'm not a poacher, I have no reason to reserve my comments about poachers.

I never would have expected to hear you say you "trust" a government agency, but okay, good for you. That said, MDC's gigging regulations are moot to the argument we're having, because we're not talking about the impact gigging has if practiced within the limits of the laws. I'm sure MDC's research on gigging "trash fish" led them to the conclusion that it has no impact on other species' populations, IF the giggers aren't breaking the game laws and poaching gamefish...but some clearly are, which throws a wrench into any statistics they might have. Bowhunting may affect your gun season, game fish are caught and harmed while snagging paddlefish...should you campaign against that? MAYBE. If you think those activities are having a significant negative impact on your recreation of choice...MAYBE. Why not? My angling modus operandi has zero impact on other people's ability to enjoy our resources, save for the occassional C&R stress-related death, which is minute. You've heard of carbon footprints...well how about fish footprints? Mine is tiny. I've gotten as close to leaving no trace of my presence as you can without giving up angling altogether. Why should other people's behavior impact my enjoyment of our resources? You can call it selfishness, I call it fairness.

So don't...just change the channel like ness. I'm absolutely positive no one is changing any minds here, but who cares? This is purely for entertainment value. Having the same argument over and over again ain't really that much fun, but it beats playing referee. If you're bored enough to sit there and type about how pointless this is, you're bored enough participate in a more contentious manner. Pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and get back in the fight soldier. I've got enough friends...when I hear someone spewing nonsense, I'm calling him on it, I don't care if it's constructive or not.

Of course! You're only a jerk when you're sitting at your computer...I can tell, because I'm the same way.