troutfiend1985

Coming down in a couple of weeks. Finals will be over on the 13th, and man these pictures make it hard to study. Lilley, you have one of the best offices in the world man, and I am jealous.

Turkeys for rattlesnakes huh? Wow. I'm going to venture out on a limb and say that no, the MDC didn't trade turkeys for rattlesnakes. This theory doesn't make sense on any level, turkey, which have appeal to the hunters for rattle snakes, who are 1) snakes, 2) venomous 3) feared by most people in the community, and 4)pose no real commercial value. We could believe this theory of trading snakes for turkeys, or we could believe that animals migrate and make their ways into areas of less competition. Look at the armadillo, did MDC trade a turkey for that(I can't believe I'm asking if MDC would trade a turkey for an Armadillo). Most likely the black bear, just like armadillos and the infamous rattle snake, migrated. Arkansas has a seemingly large population of black bears, and the climate/terrain of southern missouri is compatible to northern arkansas. Animals don't know state borders, they migrate. Also, I didn't read the MDC article as saying that black bears are only dangerous. The article informed people that bears are making a comeback, and it did inform people that the MDC would rather people try to avoid human-bear contacts. Yes, bears like any wild animal can be dangerous. But in missouri, I would be more worried about encountering an animal with rabies etc. because of the sheer lack of a bear population. For farmers, the story may be different. But really, how many animals have you lost from a bear attack? Compare that number with the amount of animals lost to hawks, coyotes, fox's etc. and you can see that the fear is not justified by the facts. I'm not for MDC to reintroduce species, but I don't think that is what has happened here. Just my point of view.

Yeah I know Glass is cheap, but my thing is look at the rays, 72 mil. payroll. So, and I am no expert in baseball, it tells me that a good drafting/smart trading can bring success. Moore brings none of these qualities. Look at Nunez for Jacobs, J.P. Howell for Gathright, the reliever (I can't think of his name right now) for Crisp. I know that every trade brings risk, but none of these players are even on our team. Worst yet, we have Aviles in Omaha, and he was ripping the cover off the ball in spring training, play him at second if his arm is weak. Hillman needs to go, can't manage a bullpen, and I'm not faulting him for this season, the last two years have proven this. How the heck can you pitch Meche for 130+ pitches? The only thing that has improved is our farm system, we are ranked 16 in most ratings for what its worth. One of these days, at least I hope, the Royals will make the playoffs. I still go to 10-15 games a year and enjoy watching baseball. Maybe Glass will open his pockets one day, or better yet MLB will set a league minimum and a salary cap.

They really suck. I'm 24 and have never seen a playoff game. It almost May, and we're already out of the playoff race. So, the only thing to look forward to is September call ups and the trade deadline. I don't expect too many people to respond to this forum, but who would you like to see the Royals trade? I would have put up Meche but I don't think he has any trade value especially with his price tag.

I haven't had a personal encounter with a bear in Missouri, but I've seen tracks on one of those hush hush trout streams. A little creepy. I was in the Rockies in New Mexico and a black bear was beating the hell out of the dumpster at the hotel. Couldn't sleep through that at 3 am. I'm also going to Yellowstone this summer, more worried about the Grizzlies up there, but the fact that people feed the black bears make them aggressive as well. I'm personally excited that a native animal is making a comeback. As to whether these bears will wipe out fish, I think we can keep our worries more on: Poachers, invasive species and otters. Poachers and invasive species are more of my worries, what can you do about otters? I guess trap and hunt them. I liked the post about how we should wipe out all of the species because of the inconvenience those species cause to humans. I thought it was a clever remark on America's thought process to wildlife. I think I will probably be dead before there are actually enough bears in MO to hunt.

I guess it depends what you are looking for in an indicator. I like the twist indicators a lot, they are convenient as they float well and are adjustable. Putty works well also, but it has a tendency to sink if you are using heavier rigs. Yarn indicators are great for small creeks with spooky trout. I don't know of a perfect all around indicator, just certain ones for certain situations. I guess it would depend on where you are fishing and what conditions. My favorite is the yarn indicator as a I fish a lot of small creeks, as long as I am not using a heavy rig. Also, "dotting" is a nice tactic for spooky trout when midging.

Chief I agree with you. But I want to make sure that you understand I am not saying to go randomly picking out streams and testing navigability laws, nor am I licensed to practice law so this is not legal advice(that will be two years from now.) My conservative take on the law, stick to streams that are only considered to navigable right now. Maybe one day I will try to test this argument and intentionally go down a stream that is questionably navigable, but until then play it safe. However, I think that trapping would be commerce, the supreme court has held a lot less to be commerce(illegally selling marijuana, and I am not joking). While there is a case that states MO does not recognize canoes as a vehicle of transportation, I think there is a good argument according to Delcour that the court was saying that transportation of commerce is what defines a navigable river, not the ship that is used. I can't tell you that this is a winning argument, but it seems that other areas have said this is commerce. How can one say that today, with all the broad definitions of commerce and all the avenues of commerce, that a stream whose flow is strong enough to consistently support that transport is not commerce? Seems very hypocritical. If anything I think someone could argue that this interpretation leaves the door open to expand the rivers that are considered navigable. The beautiful thing about this case is, 1. it sets a test and 2. it doesn't list which rivers are navigable. Which means this issue is open for interpretation. I think I am going to talk to my property teacher this summer and see what he thinks of this case. The logging thing, and I have heard a lot of people talking about this being a test. I think the court was trying to illustrate how commerce has been transported on this river in the past. This does not mean that this is the only thing that can be described as commerce, but just one avenue of explaining a concept. The most interesting thing about this case, at least to me, is the court finds the part of the river in question was non-navigable but the court rules for the plaintiff. This is where I see it getting murky. What did the court mean by this? Did they mean you can not own any part of a river that is navigable even though the part in question is non-navigable? It seems to be what the court is stating. . . Interesting. My take on the case. The test is straight forward, however the fact that the area in question of this case is non-navigable is interesting. Chief, I'm not sure if this is the case that allows for camping, I'll definitely get back with you in three weeks(when my finals are over) and tell you about the camping. I'll also look for Arkansas access laws. Tight lines. Three more weeks and I'm done being a 1L.

Can go wring with midges, but don't overlook scuds either. Ginger and gray are my favorites, if the water is off then think 14 aon the large end, down to sz 20. Also, midging up top is big. Griffiths gnats are great, and I like a sz 18-22 matt's midge. Good luck on your adventure, I'm coming down late may .

Hey, I'm not trying to beat this horse to death and I know that this topic has been discussed many times here. First off, courts do set law, there role is not only to interpret but they do create precedents and "case law" if you will. Delcour talked about the use of logs on the Meramec as a sign that commerce was able to be transported on that stream. However, that is not the test nor the holding the court relied on. I know that reasonable people may differ on interpretations of case law, but the courts in Missouri who have followed Delcour seem to indicate that navigability is whether a stream can support the transportation of commerce. Let me just post how Delcour has been interpreted. A river is "navigable", with title to its bed in the State, if, in its ordinary condition, it is or may be used as a "highway for commerce". Elder v. Delcour, 364 Mo. 835 v. Delcour, 364 Mo. 835, * 269 S.W.2d 17, 22 (Mo. banc 1954). Stated otherwise, a river is navigable if, in its ordinary condition, it "has [the] capacity and suitability for the usual purpose of navigation, ascending or descending, by vessels such as are employed in the ordinary purposes of commerce, whether foreign or inland, and whether steam or sail vessels." Id. This definition of "navigable" does not include, as it does in some other states, rivers which may only be floatable by small crafts like rowboats and canoes. Elder, supra at 23; 78 Am. Jur. 2d, Waters, § 382 (1975). Skinner v. Osage County, 822 S.W.2d 437, 444 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) Again, not trying to argue, but just wanted to put out there that Delcour holds the test for navigability is whether commerce may be transported on that stream. As far as the flooding concerns, I would think that the test indicates that you can not in the state of Missouri go on a stream when it is flooded. The test states, "ordinary condition" and flooding would probably not fall into that category. Also, wouldn't you then be on that persons actual property and not the stream/river itself when boating? The old heaven to hell theory? Tight lines.

Yes, the law could change. But it is important to know that it would most likely take a super majority of the house and senate in order to pass a law like this. Also, it was not just any court in Missouri, but the Supreme Court of Missouri that ruled on this issue. Which means most likely a court in Missouri would not be able to go out on a whim and overrule this case, it has stood for 56 years without being overruled, I don't know about you but it seems fairly well settled. Finally, what I was trying to say is that the rulings on issues in the 10 Circuit do not have any direct bearing on Missouri as they are different districts. I know this seems arbitrary in nature but it is how our system works. Missouri has ruled directly on this issue, and that is of great consideration and should ease your fears. I will post the pertinent parts on a separate forum. It is important to note that I am not licensed to practice law in the state of Missouri, and anyone who relies on this information does so at their own risk not subject to my interpretation of the case. I would be glad to ask one of my professors if questions from this ruling comes up, but from what I took the court states a person in Missouri can own the stream bed of non-navigable streams. What is navigable according to Missouri, the ability to transport commerce. This is where it gets fuzzy, Commerce today is not what it was 56 years ago. Commerce is a big concept that is hard to define other than saying almost anything today is commerce, however I am not sure that the Court had this in mind. With a ruling this strong on this issue, I would have a hard time believing that Missouri would shift away from this ruling, unless it was to expand on the public access. Just my opinion, not legal advice. . .

And I agree, to a point. This is why I'm glad that we have a state who is fairly active about getting access. Yes, I rip on MDC because of the enforcement issues. But, the goods must come with the bad as there will never be a perfect system. To be honest about this whole Colorado thing, I just can't see a good solution coming from it. You have a murky(at best) law, two different sides claiming they have rights to the same stream, and two different sides using the same stream to generate commerce. WOW. This will be interesting to see how it plays out. I think that it seems the law is probably going to favor the land owner. Yes, I understand how no one can own the water or the fish, but it seems that Colorado says you can own the access rights. I pray, and hope that we will never have anything like this in Missouri, Arkansas or Kansas. It is a stupid situation to be in and a total failure by that states legislative and judicial branch. Neither side will be happy until they take this to court, hopefully stating that some form of access can be found. As for this law creeping into MO, I think its doubtful. It seems that their rules have no to little bearing on MO and Arkansas. Now Kansas, that might be different as they are both in the 10th Circuit and I beleive a person can own the streambed in Kansas(I could be wrong, but my property class has talked about this). Now about this Finley 160 hgwy(forgive me if I'm wrong about the location) situation where they are closing access points. Two things could be done. I wonder if anyone would like to call their local representatives, MDC and MODOT. I would, but I have a really busy schedule and finding time to do pro bono legal work just is not going to happen. Second, It would seem that there might be a constructive Easment on that land, as people have been using it legally to access the river. It might take a co-op to get to a middle ground where both sides are happy. I would want to know why the access was removed, i.e. was there vandalism, trash, traffic problems. If trash was the problem, perhaps a stream team, or another form of community initiative. Just my thought. I can't practice law(yet) but in a couple of years I will. Maybe I need to re-think this whole enviromental law idea. Tight lines.

Actually I don't think that wild animals belong to anyone. only when you come into possession of a wild animal are you deemed to own an animal. How/Why can they charge for the fishing, because according to the State of Colorado he owns the stream of the bed. Agian, I'm not trying to get into an argument about ethics, I don't think that people should be charged for fishing outside of permits. But, MO charges for daily tags on publicly owned property, where's is the cry about this? Isn't this double taxation? I pay for my fishing permit, a portion of this goes to stocking trout, then I am charged again to fish for these trout if I choose to fish at Bennett or Roaring. How is this more acceptable than what this person in Colorado is doing? I like seeing your thinking Ozark Trout Fisher and I respect your opinions.

Well, maybe. I can see this from two ways. First let me say that I am a broke law student who loves public access fishing who will probably never make a dime off of his law degree becasue I want to get into federal law enforcement. I love public access, I think its good for the community. However, if a person, such as this guy in this article, pays more money for land so that he owns the riverbed and makes his living from this river, who is to say that he is wrong? It seems that the state law in Colorado is unsettled as to the tresspassing if your boat crosses the property line. And, why are we talking about public access on private property? The last time I checked you cannot fish a large amount of streams in MO because they are privatley owned. This man owns this streambed, and while I think its wrong to say that a streambed can be owned, it is the law of his state. Obviously there is confusion in the State of Colorado as this law passed the house but not the state Senate. At best this law is unclear. I actually feel a little sorry for this guy. I think both sides need to work this out, but it seems more likely that this is his property according to Colorado law. Now the guy might be a jerk, but I don't think we can make a guy out to be wrong solely on his "moral delinquencies." I want access like anyone else, but I respect property owners. I have only been on this earth for 25 years, so correct me if I am wrong, but hasn't the public access in a lot of states risen in the last decade? Hasn't MDC purchased multiple lands in this last 10-15 years? I know that Utah and Colorado have their own issues, but it seems that MO is well settled on our rules other than navigability. I don't see public access deteriorating to the point of very limited access, but I can't see the future either and this is only my opinion. Just my .02, I like seeing different opinions. Tight lines

I'm not sure how public urination equates to a sex offense. I would have to see what this guy did in order to know why this is a sex offense. If all the guy was doing was peeing over the side of the boat, then he's getting screwed over. Yeah, don't pee in public, but I've done it before, guilty as charged But really, sex offender? Someone needs a lawyer. Lonkm, do you have a link for the article, if there is one?

I was just wondering if anyone here fishes the little blue river in KC. It has a river set up as public access and it looks like there isn't alot of pressure to it. Does anyone know if it has bass in it? I know that a guy who comes up to my work tells me there is a ton of catfish in it but he has never tried for bass. Just wondering. Tight lines.

Went down on Thursday and Friday. Awesome hatches, probably the best that I have ever seen. Caddis, Mayfly and Midge were all hatching on Thursday and Friday evenings. Great fishing, although they got picky in the evening. Spent most of my time in the C&R zone and had luck with BWO's and cream midges. Great water right now, although the rain and weather from today might have changed it.

I know that I'll probably catch flack for this, but I think that Hickory probably holds a small amount of wild trout. I just don't see how that many fish can be put in there and a few don't make it to reproduce. The white tips on the picture of the trout tell me it hasn't been in the concrete bottoms of the hatchery. Just my thought. Maybe a call to the MDC or Neosho hatchery is in order, just to see what they think.

Fly Fishing for Trout in Missouri listed Hickory Creek as one of those "rumor streams" that had wild trout. Check out the first edition. I wouldn't be suprised if trout do reproduce in that stream in low numbers.

Did you notice that the trout are hanging in pretty close to the banks?

I don't think that our fishing rights are in jeopardy, but if you are concerned then contact a local representative.

Fishinwrench, I understand that you don't like cameras, and neither do I. I don't know whether there are any other cameras in the park, and unless there MDC agent here who slips up and says there are, then no one will know with certainty. But it is crucial to understand two things. One, the web camera is nowhere near the quality that is needed for surveillance. Look at the images and you will understand that. I have not heard of anyone who has been written a ticket for an infraction in any MO park due to camera surveillance. Two, a person’s expectation to privacy in Bennett, or any other trout park area, is very low. You know when you go there that the park is crowded due to its popularity, and that you will have to share the water with others. Not trying to be argumentative, but I just think that the camera there is not as intrusive as cameras in other places. Its frustrating that cameras are becoming so ordinary that we no longer question their purpose, but unfortunately it looks like we’re going to have to learn to live with them.

I can see how a camera would bother someone. I, for one, am not bothered by a camera in a trout park or at Taney. I know when I go down there that I am expecting to have others around me and that I am going to have to deal with this, it is a crowded world after all. I follow the rules, hardly ever keep trout as I am a C&R guy(and proud of it ) and like to see myself as a law abiding citizen. I don't see any expectation to privacy in Bennett, neither subjectively or objectively. But I have mixed feelings about cameras on Crane. On one hand, I like that the MDC is watching for poachers and taking active steps to reduce poaching in wild trout streams. The last thing I would want is for someone to selfishly harm a stream like Crane. But I go to Crane for a different reason than to catch fish. I go to Crane to get away from KC and to be by myself. If I run into someone that's fine as there is always enough room to share. I can see, and maybe I am blind with my own ignorance, why someone would expect privacy in an area like Crane. Freedom is a hard thing to come by in 2010 and any opportunity to enjoy your privacy should be cherished. I know it's public land, however I think one would be foolish to deny that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in certain public settings. One could, and I think justifiably so, expect privacy in the back country streams of Montana, Alaska and other rural settings throughout the United States that are not commercial in nature. It comes down to a couple things for me. One is that I have a hard time seeing justification for a camera that only serves a commercial function, even if it only costs 2k. We already talk about misappropriation of funds in connection with MDC and with the parks. The other is that I see a slippery slope that has been building for years. There really is no privacy in our world, cameras are everywhere. I laugh about this because I used to go to Crane with the thought in my mind that there where no cameras or signs of big city life there, just me, a stick and trout with lockjaw. I won't stop going to Crane because of cameras, they bother me but not enough to make me want to quit going there. Just my views.

Thom I appreciate your reply. I don't think that my dogs stupidity amounted to harassing animals, just harassing me lol. Its sad to hear that an agent was allowed to kill a dog for harassing deer, if that was my dog that was shot I think someone would be getting sued.

Lots of people out there today so I went to the back corner of Coot and had limited success. I caught two rainbows, both on jigs and both very close to shore. This is a pattern that I have noticed, that the trout in Coot are hugging the shore and looking for structure. I have more luck on putting jigs under a float than fishing spinners for these trout, and it sucks less to loose an inexpensive jig than to loose an expensive Rapala or Mepps. This technique also works well for bluegill in the summer and spring. I mentioned that I brought my dog out, and the trip didn’t start off too well. He’s a one year old German Sheppard mutt that’s as smart as a bowl of rocks. I tied on a marabou jig and then started to rig up the float and the darn dog bit the jig. I didn’t think much of it until he started pulling on my line and I noticed that he had the hook in his mouth, luckily the hook didn’t pierce the skin and he only came away with a scratch. Caught and landed a 46 lb. Mutt dog on 2lb. test, probably an IFGA record.

Yeah, that is a frustrating decision. You would think that the department would be more concerned about making sure that the stream doesn't have the "trout gut hatch" rather than having a live web cam. I think that people already know about Bennett, one needs to look no further than weekends at Bennett for proof of that. I just don't see the reasoning for spending money on a live web cam instead of investing that money into a cleaning station. Wish someone would be held liable for that call.