eric1978

POST EDITED No doubt she's a great fundraiser.

The shot caused the deer's death indirectly. It wasn't the arrow that killed it, but the act of shooting an arrow.

The whole set up is great and I'm really happy with it...now if I could just cast the thing correctly... Should money be spent on a put and take trout lake? Depends!

By indefinitely I just meant they are capable of living their expected life span without dying from heat or low oxygen levels 6 months after they are stocked. I didn't mean they would reproduce and become a self-sustaining inhabitant of Taney indefinitely.

Oh, I thought you were saying that MDC gets one quarter of one percent of sales tax revenue, of which you had 103,000 in the last 12 months. That number would be 257.50. I guess I'm missing some other info for you to get that other number.

But they don't die at Taney unless they are caught. They survive. No, they don't reproduce, but the stocked fish survive. Maybe we're talking about two different things. Trout stocked at Busch will live about 6 months. Most trout stocked at Taney will live out the best part of their life expectancy, given they are not harvested. I do know that if the stocking program stopped there, they would eventually disappear from that body of water. My point is only that stocking Taney, to me, is not as ridiculous a program as stocking Busch, because individual fish can survive for years there, while at Busch they cannot. As far as the idea that MDC should focus their efforts more on native species, trust me my friend, we are on the same page.

I said they can survive indefinitely, not spawn. That record brown looked pretty healthy to me...

You have to wonder why the LA Times is covering that story anyway. I don't think they do a lot of deer hunting in Compton. Gotta kind of disagree with you here. It wasn't a clean shot and I don't know how proud I would be of the kill, but he was responsible for its death. His intention was to kill it, and ultimately that's what he did. It would still be alive had he not drawn his bow. Not exactly the same as plowing one over on the highway.

Supposed to be less wind tomorrow, though, at least in the St. Louis forecast...should feel better

One quarter of one percent of $103,000 is $257.50 103,000 X .0025 = 257.50 Or an easier way to think about it is: 1 percent of 103000 is 1030...one fourth of that is 257.5

$7 sounds really high to me, too, but what isn't more expensive than you'd expect these days? I'll ask this question again: Is the point of the trout program to provide angling opportunities for sportsmen, or to feed people? If it's the latter, then it's welfare. If they tightened the regs and reduced the creels, the program would require less stocking and therefore would cost less money, no matter how much it costs per fish. -OR- Perhaps I'm totally wrong on that, and the apex of the graph that shows cost per fish for MDC hatcheries is at $7, and if they raised fewer fish the net cost of the program would remain the same, but the price per fish on average would increase. Maybe it's a matter of matching production to hatchery potential, where the cost of raising a thousand fish is relatively close to the cost of raising two thousand fish. Know what I mean?

That's right. And not just in and around Taney, but all over the state. Since MDC provides trout fishing in MO, people fish for trout in MO, which means they buy trout-related products state wide...everything bought at the fly shops in BPS and Cabelas adds sales tax revenue for the state. All said and done, I'm sure the state makes more than the $7 per trout it costs them to raise and stock. I still think it's stupid to put fish in a pond they will die in in 6 months.

Should be? Yes. Will be? Doubt it. Money is always the trump card.

Absolutely. And if I had to pick one or the other it would be the smallmouth and even goggle eye over the trout, since they were "meant" to be there. But they all seem to do okay with cohabitating, from what I hear anyway. I don't know diddley about the Niangua, but I think the Meramec is pretty similar...the trout hang around the spring, and the smallmouth do pretty good in most parts of the river above and below the park until you get way downstream. From what I gather it's not nearly as good as it was 20-30 years ago, but I think that has little to nothing to do with the trout program there.

I'd go with elated. That's a good day.

Well there is a slight difference, since they can survive year round in the rivers, but they die in the mudpuddles. They're not native to many good trout streams in the U.S., but that doesn't mean they don't thrive in them.

Well Wayne, my instinct says that since you're asking that I'm going to be way off. But my guess would be, on a hypothetical stream, say with one major spring that could be traveled upstream or down from, that the trout wouldn't move very far above it at all, except possibly during winter. How far downstream? That depends...on the volume of the spring and how far down the river the water temp is regulated by that spring. I suppose on some rivers they might move down 10 or even 20 miles or more during colder months. On others perhaps no more than a few miles. I really don't know.

I pretty much agree with you OTF, but it's been said a million times and I'll say it again...the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Compared to the Bourbeuse, there are many more people who fish Taney and others who have a vested interest in keeping the lake chock full of "tourist attractions" all year long. You get into a lot of gray area when you consider how subjective it is. I'm totally opposed to the Busch program, even though I'm 5 minutes away from it, and I really couldn't care less what they put in Taney since I don't fish it. But if Taney was in my backyard I'm pretty sure I'd be enthusiastic about any money dumped into it, natural or not. If they started a program on the Bourbeuse and turned it into a put-grow-take smallmouth-producing machine through constant stocking, I'd be happy as a clam, even if it wasn't a "natural" ecosystem. Would I enjoy it as much as fishing a wild and untouched stream? No way. But it's close, so I would go frequently just to get a fix. Other guys wouldn't care a bit about it, especially if they lived in the opposite corner of the state, and they'd probably be opposed to their tax dollars going to fund a project they'll never get to enjoy. But your philosophy in general I agree with, that the native species should come first, and then worry about the trout. But let's face it, as long as the state is making money from the programs, they will exist and be a priority since nothing is more important than the almighty dollar. Trout bring in more bucks than smallmouth. You need look no further for an explanation or a rationale.

The grip is really cool...unique. Well done!

I would also guess around 2.5 for 1 and 2. 3 and 4 are really hard to tell from the photos. I would say 3 is somewhere in the 4 pound range...and number 4, no idea...somewhere between 3 and 5...there's no reference in that picture.

Yeah, I'm just not really convinced they have that much negative impact on smallies. The trout won't leave the general vicinity of the springs, so it's not like they can take over the entire river. You don't have to convince me to think about the smallmouth over any other fish, though. They're still my favorite.

Sock fly... Good pics Sherwood.

Yes, true. But they can survive in the Niangua, but not at Busch. Good points, Wayne. I think we do encourage keep and kill with the creel limits most fisheries have. In self-sustainable fisheries like Taney, we could reduce the cost of the stocking program if we reduced the number of fish being kept. MDC might as well be running a grocery store where you can have all the fish you want for $7 a year. Are the stocking programs intended to provide fishing opportunities for sportsmen, or to feed people?

I'm all for any program that makes sense. Like I said, I think they should spend the money on managing the warm water species at Busch, species that can actually survive indefinitely there. I just think it's a total waste to put fish in water where they can't survive. People that don't have the means to access trout streams could go to Busch and catch other species and enjoy it just as much...if the lakes were managed correctly and the fishing improved. I'm also personally a "tree hugger" in the sense that I don't just enjoy water, but forests as well, and I support funds going to managing hiking trails and other habitats. But I wouldn't support a program that involved planting a bunch of tropical flora in an Oak/Hickory Ozark forest in spring so they could grow through the summer then die in the fall, just so Missourians could "experience" a South American rainforest. Which pretty much means I agree with this sarcasm: If you're fanatical about hunting monkeys, go to Africa. If you're fanatical about catching trout, drive to the Ozarks. What would be wrong with Busch simply providing fishing opportunites for species that belong there? A kid could catch bluegill or bass instead of trout and still get hooked on fishing...they wouldn't know the difference. If it becomes a passion for them, they can travel a couple hours to a trout stream.

Urban trout programs are a misallocation of funds, plain and simple. How many trout stamps do you think MDC would lose if they discontinued the urban programs? I would venture to say very few. A lot of you know I just got my first fly rod, and I've been taking it out to Busch to practice casting. While I'll admit it's nice to feel a tug on the line while I'm there, it's certainly no thrill. Part of the enjoyment of fishing is the setting, the atmosphere. Pulling rainbows out of a mudpuddle is incongruent and unnatural. And stocking a lake with fish that will only survive 6 months or so is just flushing money down the toilet. Any funds spent at Busch should be used on managing and improving the populations of warm water species. Taney is a different story because fish stocked there can survive indefinitely. I have no problem stocking fish in a habitat in which they can survive. My main beef is that there should be more emphasis on the growing, tighter regs and far less taking, and therefore would be less need for putting, and consequently less cost involved for stocking efforts. I'm torn about where the MDC revenues should go, because I want as much funding as possible for worthy fisheries programs, but my wife is also a public school teacher. And I'll tell you this...for a person who is a few hours away from obtaining a PhD in her professional field, and puts in ridiculous hours of work, she is not compensated appropriately. Same goes for police, firefighters and (on a federal level) military. I like fiveweight's pseudo-libertarian ideas about community funding of programs. Unfortunately, we know that won't work because most people will have the "let other people pay for it" attitude. If you were one of the few people actually contributing to a program, and you see no one else is, how long will you continue to cut checks? Not long. That's why we have taxes, because we must be forced to pay for the things we all need but no one wants to pay for.