troutfiend1985

I checked out their website and the property is absolutely beautiful. Looks almost worth 50$ and I'm sure that it would be fun as heck to fish their. It looks like that little stream would be fun.

Ness, I know that history and tradition is important. I don't want to see the whole state go C&R. Just a small section of each trout stream have a C&R zone. Look, the trout keeper could go fill your limit in another zone of the same stream, but then have the option of taking a Rapala, or Fly rod, and chasing bigger fish in a protected area. Looks good to me, satisfies both the conservationist(I get a chance to go into new waters that may have big fish) and the trout keeper(I can keep fish at this same stream using bait, but if I choose to use artificial lures I could chase more wild, possibly bigger trout). Al, I know that the White Ribbon zones serve a purpose. But there is a large conservation movement, not just in one area but nationwide. You could effectively feed "both animals" here, appease both. Win my tax money, and others like me who are conservative about limits and keeping. Keep the others happy, by making the less accessible areas(or whatever the situation calls for) C&R, but keeping the majority of the stream white ribbon. I don't see a guy who wants to keep trout all of the sudden going to Crane, or any other blue ribbon stream, because a new regulation which makes a small portion of white ribbon streams C&R. Crane would never be easier, there is just too many variables in that little creek, or any other blue ribbon stream that plays into it. In furthering my point, I would think that these fisherman would already go to a Blue/Red Ribbon stream when the stocking is over and most of the trout are gone/spread out/or do whatever it is these trout do(move to the Himalayas and become a hermit), but I just don't see this happening. Chief, I think that OTF was pointing to the loose regulations on White Ribbon streams and how the population of stocked Rainbows decreases substantially after stocking. Just my interpretation. However, I do think there are some politics behind the White Ribbon Management. How long is Capps? Something like 1.5-2 miles long rough estimate. Lets say 1.5 miles, so what about a C&R zone that is roughly .5 miles long? Would that kill the people who like to keep trout? Ollie, I would love to come to Olliefest, but I won't be down there this year, busy schedule. Like I said though, probably this December I could get out once or twice.

Joe, let me start off by saying: "Schwing and a miss." This isn't an entitlement theory, or that Fly Fisherman are superior to other forms of fishing. If you are that insecure about your angling method of choice, then I am sorry. All I am proposing is a simple change that could allow a better chance of angling. That’s it, you want to make it flies and artificial only, I’m down for that too, whatever it takes to improve angling qualities in these streams. I just do not buy the idea that White Ribbon areas are managed with the purpose to feed families, they are there for fishing and I agree with Eric on that point. Man, I would have never thought that an idea as simple as a C&R zone would stir the pot so much. I would think that increasing the amount of quality angling water would be a good thing, leave the majority of the water as a white ribbon area and a small section as C&R. Who knows, some of these streams could have a little trophy section. What is wrong with that?

First off, the tagged part of my post wasn't there. So however it got there is inaccurate, that wording was not the MDC's wording on their website and it is irresponsible to take my words out of context. That is a completely inaccurate statement, and really ticks me off that someone would put their words in my post, quote it as if I wrote it and respond to it. To put it in bold and then underline it only adds to my frustration with that post. Now that I have that off of my chest. . . What other information can you go off of? I don't know what other source you can go to as I would consider MDC to the authority on their streams. Yes, the statistics have room for error, as all statistics do. But I'm taking those statistics with my experiences as a whole in regards to white ribbon fisheries. White Ribbons are either hit or miss, and I think, along with other opinions that I have seen on this board from previous topics, the reason for the fluctuation in the success of these fisheries is due to the regulations. Do I think Capps has more browns that rainbows, yes at least in a consistent manner. There might be more rainbows when the truck drops off the fish, but in a few weeks the numbers will change. I just don't get some of these opinions coming on here. Look, I like the idea of allowing people to catch and keep fish, no problem with that. But, what is the point of allowing a fishery to become basically wiped out? I haven't done shocking surveys, and as far as I know no one else on here has conducted there own shocking surveys of Capps, but MDC has. Question the statistics all you want, but you are arguing then with the people who manage these streams and know a heck of a lot more about Capps than either you or I do.

About the browns, I would say that I have caught around 10 total and I think about 5 came on one day a couple of years ago. Never really big as far as size, though I have heard rumors(Ollie)

- A 2009 population survey confirmed previous tagging study information - which indicated that rainbow trout are rapidly removed by anglers between stockings - as only 9 rainbow trout were captured. - A few rainbow, however, likely survive as four of these fish were 15-17"; - larger than the normal stocking size. I guess its all how you break it down and what modifies what. Here is how I read the statement. I don't believe that there are only 9 trout in the whole creek, what I believe is that the study shows that only 9 rainbows were found during this survey. There may be more at any given time, but the wording to me reads in the way I listed above. 1. MDC is aware that rainbow trout are being taken out of the very quickly, and 2. that the survey in 2009 found very few rainbow trout in Capps Creek I am planning to write MDC for a few reasons; one being to clear up what is going on with this survey, the other to see if they would be open to a C&R zone on Capps and Hickory. Chief I would love to meet up with you at Capps, but it would have to be this winter. Honestly I never thought that I would have debate with you over this issue of conservation, but I have no hard feelings whatsoever and enjoy your insights . Anyways, one of these days we still have to test out the Missouri Property law of Navigable waters. Let me just put this out there, I am not trying to accuse anyone of being unethical. I don't have a problem with people who legally keep trout. What I have a problem with is how MDC is managing the white ribbon areas, most specifically Capps and Hickory. I know that MDC manages the white ribbon areas for a reason but I don’t see why a little compromise would hurt anything. I will write to them sometime in the next couple of weeks and this try to post on here what I get as a response. Tight Lines

"A 2009 population survey confirmed previous tagging study information which indicated that rainbow trout are rapidly removed by anglers between stockings as only 9 rainbow trout were captured." http://extra.mdc.mo....ects/?m=14#a131 To me what this says is that the 2009 population study confirms previous tagging study information, not that they only found 9 tagged trout. I guess you could read it two ways, but please look at what they are saying on the site and make sure that I am not taking it out of context. This isn’t my little theory I hatched behind my laptop, this is the exact wording of the MDC regarding the fishing prospects of Capps Creek in 2009. And this report specifically refers to the population study confirming the previous tagging study information. These two terms were not interchangeably used throughout the web site. I'm not sure if the comment about the finger pointing is addressed to me, but if it is the only finger I am really pointing is the one at the MDC. Yes, its not being managed the way I want it to be. However, that statement by the MDC seems to suggest that there were very few Rainbow trout in this stream. And I know that elctro shocking doesn't get all of the fish, but this is the way that MDC conducts population studies. I don't want blue ribbon type fishing, what I would like to see is a different type of management. I want to hear the MDC state that things are great at Capps in a C&R zone regardless of when the stocking truck came. What’s wrong with the idea of improving an area that could be something more? Or are you oppose to change? Chief, if you read my previous posts I already point out that I have more success at Blue Ribbon areas than I do at Hickory or Capps. I love Capps because it is a very intimate and a neat stream, I don't go to Capps as often as I used to because it seems that there are less fish there than Blue Ribbon streams and that is frustrating to an individual who drives 3-4hrs to get to a stream. I think you have misread my ideas. I’m not sitting here and claiming that I wish Capps would become Crane. All I am saying is that if MDC would make some changes these streams would be better for it. Who knows, if MDC did make these changes you might see more quality fish in these streams.

I can't say for certain, and no one can say without speculating to some degree. Yes, you are probably not going to discourage the poachers because no law does, plain and simple. I'm not sure if arresting individuals really discourages poachers, they seem to be habitual. However, Ollie I do know that nothing will change unless MDC tries something new. Capps has some potential, but if it is managed in the same way that it currently is nothing will change and MDC will continue to find 9 rainbows when conducting their surveys. It just doesn't make sense, why stock rainbows to just allow people to walk off with them? Isn’t the real point of public fishing to allow the most enjoyment for the most people? Would changing the streams regulations change streams like Capps? I honestly don't know. The argument that nothing would make Capps better seems to rely on the idea that either all anglers do not abide by laws, or that there are a few anglers that poach so much that they can wipe out a whole stream. In reality, it probably is a combination of too high of a limit, people keeping their daily limit and a few poachers who just don't care. I do think that changing the regulations would have some effect on white ribbon streams such as Capps and Hickory. A C&R zone by itself would change things, it would make it easier to spot a poacher, and to report a poacher. If I just arrive at Capps and notice a guy keeping a trout, I wouldn't be able to tell if that is his first trout or his 12th of the day. And to really be able to tell, I would have to watch him for a while in order to know. However, adding a C&R zone on a portion of a white ribbon stream and I would know immediately if he is breaking the law, if I see him put the fish on a stringer he is in violation. Let me turn the question a little bit, what else would give these streams more protection? I know, increase enforcement agents, but then we are talking about money, tax dollars etc. This experiment would be cheap, and if it fails, what do you lose besides 9 measly trout?

Ok, we know that rainbow trout have pushed out smallmouth, but what about the views on White Ribbon management? I'm not trying to downplay this, but this was started on a thread of Trout management. OTF posted a really interested piece about how the trout aren't just spread out, people are effectively wiping out a fishery. If only 9 trout were found through electro-shocking then what does this say about the effectiveness of managing a stream in this way? To me, this is evidence that the white ribbon streams management is a horrible idea, and needs to be changed. "Angling should range from excellent to fair for rainbow trout depending on length of time from stocking." Here MDC is basically saying that this stream is being taken advantage of by anglers. So my question is whether managing a stream in this manner makes sense? To me it doesn't, and I would rather see MDC abandon white ribbon conservation all together, or preferably change the way they manage such areas. Right now, this practice is more a waste of tax dollars than anything else.

Yes, Trout Parks take away alot of the pressure from the local red/blue ribbon streams and smallmouth streams. However, trout parks are not in the same situation as white ribbon streams. Trout parks are stocked daily and are expected to be heavily pressured, white ribbon streams on the other hand are stocked periodically and are not big enough to handle the pressures that trout parks recieve. There are other differences I'm sure, but those are the two that popped out at me. What I'm trying to say through all this is white ribbon areas have potential, in my opinion, to be something more than they currently are. However, this potential for higher quality fishing won't be realized unless some regulations are changed and these streams are managed differently.

I'm not too sure about that either. In Hickory, I have caught fish that would be considered at least residents. Also, Fly Fishing for Trout in Missouri listed Hickory as one of those wild trout areas that were private. I think what really is going on here is MDC is throwing a bone to people; come fish here and keep trout, don't go to neighboring blue/red ribbon areas or native smallmouth streams. Also, I'm not sure how one considers the water to be marginal. Hickory and Capps both possess alot of food sources, mainly scuds. But I have seen some mayflies and occasional caddis at both. I think the real problem, at least in fish size, is that too many fish are taken by bait buckets. I agree with Buzz in that Capps might be best suited for a division. I'm thinking about writing to the MDC, but I want some imput. Check out my post under Conservation Issues: White Ribbon

Even so, what is the point of stocking this fish with the current regulations in place by the MDC? To me it just doesn't make since, and with the minimum amount of enforcement this state has, you have basically free access at these white ribbons to do what you want i.e. poach. I know the fish are spread out, but the last time I went to Capps I didn't even see signs of trout. It could have been a bad day, but it happens too often to chalk it up to bad days. I see less trout, and have less success consistently at white ribbon streams than blue/red ribbon streams. I'm not a great fisherman, no doubt about it, but I am at least adequate when it comes to trout fishing with a fly rod. To me this lack of productive areas means that MDC is mismanaging these areas. It could be just me, but I get a general feeling from this forum that I am not the only one. I'm not being argumentative, and I hope that this doesn't come off that way, but I am just generally perplexed by the MDC on this issue.

In another forum, one of our members brought up the idea of a trout management wish list. I put down that I would like to see the MDC change its policy on the white ribbon management areas. To me, I just don't understand why MDC has a white ribbon management area at all because it creates a put and take fishery. I refer to the regulations as "law of the wild west" as just about anything goes and there is no real focus on maintaining a quality fishery in these areas. In my view, stocking these streams wastes our tax money as the fish are removed almost immediatley from the stream, and the current regulations fail to provide a consistent quality fishing experience. In my opinion, the White Ribbon areas are almost a policy of appeasement by the MDC. I see it as a statement of "lets give the people a place to fish and keep trout and while the trout will probably never get big because it's put and take regulations, it will take pressure off of the blue/red ribbon streams of that area." And to me this regulation policy is baloney. Capps and Hickory Creek, the two white ribbons that I fish, could both be quality fisheries if s different management strategy was taken. I would like to propose two regulations to the MDC, but before I start writing letters I want to know what you think. 1). Decrease the daily limit from 4 fish to 2 fish in White Ribbon management areas. The purpose of this rule is obvious, even if some, or most, people do not adhere to this at least a few will. And even if only a few people keep only two fish there are more fish in the stream for everyone else. Let the limit stay the same at the Trout Parks, but the White Ribbon streams simply cannot handle the type of pressure a four fish limit places on them. 2). Make a catch and release area/"flies only" area on each White Ribbon management area. This area does not need to be a huge portion of the stream, just enough to make a "buffer zone" where the trout can become more "wild." This would also give the stream at least a chance to offer quality fishing year 'round. I know that I would rather fish Capps any day over RR or Bennett, but the whole idea of bait buckets wiping out the fish tends to scare me away from fishing them more frequently. These two changes would keep the white ribbons popular with families and people who want to fish with bait, but at the same time would allow other anglers an opportunity to experience quality fishing all year. If anyone has a different view, post it, but I would really want to know why, and not just my opinion is off or irrelevant.

IMO the White Ribbon areas are almost a policy of appeasement by the MDC. I see it as a statement "lets give the people a place to fish and keep trout and while the trout will probably never get big because it's put and take regulations, it will take pressure off of the blue/red ribbon streams of that area." This is wrong, and I think that a few changes could really make a difference. Take Capps for example, we could effectively split Capps into two areas, a catch and release/flies only zone and a "wild west" zone where anything goes. The upper area, from the waterfall to the bridge could be the zone of "white ribbon" policy. Then we could make the lower area a catch and release area. Win-win to me, you allow people to catch and keep, take kids fishing in the highly accessed area, but at the same time the lower area is managed differently. The same could be done for Hickory. Now, I know people are going to say paper laws and that people will not abide by this. . . But what do you have to lose? Anything? At worst people will continue to do what they already do, that is keep the fish they catch. However, the upside is that maybe a few more poachers get tickets as more people, like myself, would be able to easily spot poachers. Also, this might convert some people from catch and keep to catch and release. If these people see that the stream can hold fish year round, and that the fish get bigger the longer they stay in the stream, then there is a chance that people would change the way they view there local streams Just my .02

Are the Chiefs serious this year? I really thought before the season started that the Chiefs would be 1-2 at this stage of the season, not that I’ve ever really been a diehard football fan. But I can’t believe that the Chiefs are actually looking semi-decent so far. Anyone think this is going to last?

I would like to know why Missouri has a white ribbon status of stream in the first place. I fish a few of these, Capps and Hickory, and it seems that if you missed the stocking truck you missed the fish. The bait buckets come in and out go the fish. It's frustrating to even go to these streams as they receive so much pressure that there are hardly fish in them at times. So my change would be two-fold: One, decrease the limit from 4 to 2 on white ribbon streams. Just pure math says that at least some people will heed this change if it was put out there. Let the Trout Parks stay at the current 4, but the White Ribbons aren't stocked as often and can't handle as much pressure 2). Establish "flies only catch and release only" areas in white ribbon streams. It wouldn't have to be the whole stream, just enough of an area to allow fish to settle in and become more "wild" and it would also garauntee, if there is such a thing, some quality fishing in these streams. Just my thoughts.

I just can't figure out why we don't practice sustainable harvest instead of creating some genetic mutant. I know it's all about the $$ but let the price of salmon reflect the amount of demand, low supply + high demand = high price. The main concern I have is that these fish are going to get loose. And if they are bigger than wild salmon all hell will break loose and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it. There is no off switch on a living organism, and I don't think they can produce sterile fish with 100% certainty.

I'm not so worried about the human consumption aspect of this, I'm more worried that this may harm the Atlantic Salmon population if the fish escape. Fish do escape, flooding cannot be controlled and I think the only safe way to do this would be to put the pools in areas in which Salmon cannot survive if they escaped. They're not even planning on making these 100% sterile, they have to have some breeders or the economics of this plan won't work. Again, I think the issue here is not whether these fish would be safe for human consumption, but rather would these fish pose a threat to the wild Atlantic Salmon population if these fish excaped.

This article is talking about a genetically engineered Salmon that is capable of growing twice as fast as wild salmon. I guess a company is trying to get this type of fish approved by the FDA for food consumption. The company says that there is a low risk for escape of these genetically engineered fish, but I believe that most people thought that silver carp where the same way (and now they're flinging themselves at boaters on our rivers and kicking out native fish). Cheers http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39265727/ns/health-food_safety/?gt1=43001

I guess my big question would be why? And I'm not asking this to start fights but honestly I would like to know of when one of us has been denied the right to hunt or fish. It seems to me that fishing and hunting rights in Missouri are doing fine. As for hunting with guns, I don't see that ever stopping. Guns are fundamental to our society, and the Supreme Court has stated this as recently of May this year in McDonald v. Chicago. However, if there was an amendment, what would fishing include? Would fishing be open to gigging? If gigging would be considered under the fishing umbrella of law, would people be able to gig on Native Smallmouth Streams and Blue Ribbon Streams? You can count me out on that one, I sure wouldn't want to open the door to possible gigging on Crane Creek. I guess I just don't see the use of an amendment except for the one California drafted that basically states if the state sells the land the people of the state can still hunt/fish there. I would be up for that(although that would open another can of worms with landowners rights), but I'm not sure I would be up for stating gigging as a fundamental right of every Missouri citizens. Now that I have opened a can of worms, I bid you goodnight. LOL

I think that is great advice. I have also read about picking up rocks from the stream or seining for a half hour before you even fish, so that you know what what flies to use. Great advice.

I could live with a lead ban. However I am an angler and not a hunter, so I don't know how effective bullets are/would be if they could not use lead. Getting back to my point, I don't see the harm of banning lead. I know that lead can't be good for the environment and I currently don't use small lead sinkers. Yes, it costs more to buy lead alternatives, but I would think that after a while the alternatives would become less expensive than they currently are because of supply and demand. Yellowstone has a total lead ban, except for a few lakes where only very large weights are allowed to target lake trout. About the "eco" groups: I get sick of them as well. But on this issue, I don't see how banning lead would hurt, at least small sinkers for fishing. Just my .02 Tight lines

That where I normally go out there, but I was looking for a chance of bass and Coot seems to offer that (for me at least). I don't know if it has anything to do with the banks dropping off a little more quickly or what, but it seems that I usually tie into a largemouth or two on the fly rod. WIsh I would have taken a picture of that greenie, easily my biggest.

Greenies must be hitting well out there, I caught another nice one last night(although not as nice as the one the night before). It was fun, lots of greenies and crappie. Nothing really big. My girl got in on the action, mainly small stuff again as we tried a different part of Coot. If everything goes right then I'll be out there one more time tomorrow.

Went out to coot today with the fly rod. Fishing a small jig about three and a half feet off an indicator was very good. I caught one bass that had to be 3.5 pounds, and a very large sunfish. Outside of that the main fish were small sunfish and small crappie.