troutfiend1985

Drew, I wasn't trying to educate you, just trying to add to the fact that there is a reason people get defensive about Crane. I know you know about Crane, but I was just telling you why these people get up in arms about seeing pics like that. To me, landing a fish as you and STL described is a great way of doing it, but that method is a far cry from beaching a trout on the gravel.

That's the stuff we want to hear. Nice having you aboard. Drew, it's just that handling these fish is an important thing to keep Crane being Crane. Yeah, some stuff on here is a little un-diplomatic, but the point was made and SpringfieldFF seems to understand. Sometimes education hurts, and the rules to the game depend on the circumstance. At Crane, a few fish dying may have a large impact, especially if these fish are the spawners. There are no hatchery trucks(or magic trucks, as I like to call them) that automatically present new fish to this stream. So a little extra care is needed. I don't think it's a "high and mighty thing" more or less a "hey, nice report but let's talk about handling fish" thing.

Hope he's got the point, other than the fish handling it was an excellent post. One reason why I don't take pictures of wild trout is that I don't want to keep them out of the water very long. The other reason is that I don't want to invite Eric to my spots Just keep them in the net, snap a photo and be on the way if you must take a pic.

On a side note, go fishing. Grief

Has anyone heard of this fashion trend that is making whiting euro hackle extremely expensive? I have never bought euro hackle before, but from what I've gathered the prices on these things have at least doubled due to fashion trends. I guess hippies used to wear flowers in their hair, now my generation wants to wear chicken feathers. Good grief. I saw one cape that was hot pink on ebay going for around 100 dollars, and although I could be wrong, that full saddles went for around 50 dollars or so. Check out this link. http://hatchesmagazine.com/blogs/Hatches/2011/02/26/whiting-eurohackle-fashion-killed-the-fly-tyer/

Yeah, Marabou jigs are always a good bet for trout. Either jig them or put an indicator on the line, cast them up stream act like its live bait.

DD, are the wolves in contact with humans alot up there? I don't know much about wolves but I've heard that wolves are pretty timid around humans. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's always been my impression. I know that animals coming into contact with humans and getting food from humans can become aggresive, and it almost sounds like the wolves hear your drag as a dinner bell. Kind of a Ducky's wolf instead of Pavlovs Dog.

I think it would be a neat thing to have wolves in MO. Cool animal, and the only animal I wanted to see in Yellowstone, unfortunatley no luck on that end.

I like that damsel fly JD, might have to give that a shot.

I was wondering if any one could help me out here. I have a couple of hours to burn this weekend in KC, and I was wondering if its time for white bass? I was thinking Jacomo, up one of the arms, but any help would be appreciated. I have never fished for white bass, although I have caught a few. I was wondering tips on flies, leader size and location. Any help would be really appreciated. TF

Just call me full service Only three rivers within Kansas have been declared navigable: the Kansas, the Arkansas, and the Missouri. Likewise, only three rivers have been declared nonnavigable: the Neosho, the Delaware, and the Smoky Hill. State ex rel. Meek v. Hays, 246 Kan. 99 (Kan. 1990) Whether a river is navigable in fact is to be determined by inquiring whether it is used, or is susceptible of being used, in its natural and ordinary condition as a highway of commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water. Navigability is a question of fact to be determined from the evidence Title to the waters or bed of a navigable stream cannot be acquired through private use or occupancy, whether adverse or by permission, however long continued, or by prescription Neither occasional use of a creek by a large number of canoeists nor frequent use by a small number of canoeists gives rise to a prescriptive right in the public to use nonnavigable streams. A public prescriptive right arises during the prescribed period when public use becomes so burdensome that government must regulate traffic, keep the peace, invoke sanitary measures, and insure that the natural condition of the stream is maintained. Drew, I've attached the primary case of KS. Remember, this not legal advice. So please rely on it with caution. LEXSEE 246 KAN.doc

Yeah, I could probably find some stuff on KS law. But don't count on it on any time scale, ask buzz. BTW Buzz I have that letter about the C&R thing on Capps and Hickory done, but I figured I'd wait until this didymo and mountain lion thing calms down before sending it to KC.

Good to hear chief. Here's what gets me about Elder, the meramec was declared a nonnavigable stream, and yet the state held for fishing and wading rights. I almost wonder if there was an easement placed on that section of the stream(to my memory the court did not mention anything about an easement but I would love it if someone could find those words in that section). This is a confusing issue to me because it sends conflicting messages to the public about the importance of navigability and rights to fish. I think I'm going to have to sign up for water rights class next year, and then bug the hell out the teacher about what went on with Elder as it is a case that has been cited outside of MO. I will stand by this one though, I don't think you're going to win an argument that Crane is navigable. However, the court in Elder seemed to place a lot on the fact that the fish belong to the state. Truly an interesting case, but one that is difficult to interpret. If you guys like this stuff then I'll try to post some more modern cases that have interpreted Elder in the next few months. Just let me know.

I wouldn't rely on that information. Ok, here's my jargon I have to tell you. I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, if you rely on this advice you rely on it to your own detriment, and you must promise to indemnify me at any legal proceedings. There, now let me post what my sources say. Elder v Delcour (1954) 364 Mo 835, 269 SW2d 17, 47 ALR2d 370 (boating, fishing, and wading rights in waters regarded as "public" though "nonnavigable" for purposes of establishing title) Springfield v Mecum (1959, Mo App) 320 SW2d 742 (recognizing to the same effect as Elder v Delcour (1954) 364 Mo 835, 269 SW2d 17, 47 ALR2d 370) Public rights to fish in nonnavigable streams The public may be entitled to fish in nonnavigable rivers despite the riparian owners' objections where the courts have considered themselves authorized to regard factors other than navigability as overriding. This was true in Elder v Delcour (1954) 364 Mo 835, 269 SW2d 17, 47 ALR2d 370, where the defendant owned both banks of a stream which flowed through his farm. It was navigable by small craft, such as canoes and rowboats, had always been used extensively for fishing, and in years past had been used for floating and transporting logs in lumbering operations, but at the date of trial there were dams and other obstructions to navigation which required portaging for continuous travel along the stream. While the court held the river nonnavigable, and the defendant was the owner of the river bed, nevertheless the river was held to be a public way, over which members of the public had the right to proceed despite the defendant's ownership. Moreover, since the fish in the river belonged to the state as long as they remained uncaptured, the public also had the right to fish in the river where it flowed through the defendant's farm. Similarly, members of the public were held intitled to fish in the waters of a nonnavigable stream, the bed of which, though not the fish swimming in the water, was concededly owned by the riparian owners, in Medlock v Galbreath (1945) 208 Ark 681, 187 SW2d 545, because the latter had not enclosed or fenced off this portion of their premises. It was held that it had always been the law of the state that the public was at liberty to hunt and fish in any wild uninclosed land, even though it might be privately owned, and hence so long as these waters remained uninclosed the defendants could not interfere with or object to the plaintiffs fishing therein. Moreover, the general rule that the right of fishing depends on navigability may yield where a statute authorizes the public to fish in nonnavigable streams, and is a legitimate exercise of the state's right to regulate fisheries. Where the plaintiff as a member of the public was authorized by statute to fish in a certain nonnavigable stream, the defendant riparian owner could not charge the plaintiff with trespassing while fishing there, nor could the defendant erect a dam which interfered with the public rights. It was held that the statute was constitutional as being within the legislative prerogative of regulating fisheries in the state, as such legislation had been in existence (though not the particular statute here involved) governing the waters of the state prior to the state's creation. Lunt v Hunter (1839) 16 Me 9. 47 A.L.R.2d 381, 3 All credit given to A.L.R.2d Hope this helps. Maybe Chief will read this and think twice about not wanting me as a lawyer here in a few years. Again, this is not legal advice and not to be relied on, please contact a MO lawyer for legal advice.

All right, you got me, I was wrong with that first beer influenced statement. Ok, Mr. Semantics it should read that "MDC HAS ONLY CONFIRMED ONE FEMALE MOUNTAIN LION SINCE 1994." Is that better for you?? Motion to amend pleading your honor Objection to irrelevant statements as I never argued that there were secret breeding populations in MO, at least not on this post. Motion for a 12(b )(6) failure to state a claim that is wasting our forum space. Ok, over with the semantics. By no means am I a journalist, so if my lack of journalism skills (while sipping on beers ) deters you from hiring me as a lawyer in the future then I can understand.

Chief, the site you linked shows one female sighting which was in 1994. That would tend to state that there has been no confirmed sighting of a female since 1994 by your own source. I'm not bashing you, but what I was trying to say is that this journalist did use a funny wording and that MDC seems adamant about the fact that MO lacks a breeding population because of the lack of a female sighting. The reason that this is sloppy is that "most" tends to show that there are at least some female sightings, instead of the one that was sighted in 1994. That’s all I'm trying to get at, and that's why I think it was a little sloppy.

Yeah that could be. But still you would think the MDC would rather have wording that read "All confirmed sightings have been male since. . ." But it was probably just sloppy journalism.

I like mine. I thought at first that the system might only allow a person to print one copy of the license and then charge you for subsequent copies. However, allowing a person to print 5 or 6 copies of their license allows me to have a license in my car, in my waders, in my tackle box and two at home just in case. I think this is a great system and I was wrong about it being arbitrary in my initial views of the system. So, MDC I owe you an apology on this one. The system is a nice addition.

If he's going to chase both bass and trout, and only can get one rod, then I would say a 9' 5wt, unless you're going to the back country streams in which a 3 or 4 wt. I have a 6 wt, I use it to chase bass and to throw streamers for trout. I agree with 3wt in that a 6 wieght rod is just too much for typical trout situations. My 6 wt is mainly a bass rod and it works great for that appliacation. Stick with a 5 wt, get a 4 or 3 wt in a few years.

Jack, I've had the Cabelas Traditional II in a 8'6 5 wt for years and it is a great rod for the money. They're on sale now and I would recommend them to a friend. The TFO pro series is great too. IMO you cannot go wrong with either. I would highly recommend staying away from the Hobbs Creek reel by bass pro. It's only 40 dollars, and the second best day of your life might be pitching that thing in the garbage IMO. As far as reels that are affordable, Lamson Konic or G. Loomis Venture are my favorites. I'vr never tried a Ross, although I am curious about the Ross Fly Start.

Parachite, I understand your concern for your friends land, but you have to understand that not everyone owns a GPS, nor has anyone(including the MDC) set out identifiable markers where the public access ends. I personally do not have a GPS system. This whole bringing a firearm out to enforce land rights is a joke, and a very good way to end up starting a real confrontation. I garauntee you that if anyone points a gun at me I will leave, and then call the police for assault. IT IS JUST A STUPID THING TO DO AND IT IS UNNECESSARY. No one has the right to defend property by the use of deadly force, and I just cannot see what a person is thinking in that situation. If they're worried about starting a confrontation, then be nice about it. A simple "Hey guys, I know you want to fish but this is private property and I would appreciate it if you would be kind enough to leave" would be enough to deter a person from fishing on their land and would not be enough to get a fight going. If that doesn't work then you call the sheriff. Anyways, what happens if you bring a gun down there, and the other guy has a gun as well? Stupid breeds stupid. I'm standing by my point I've made earlier, I will continue to wade until I know I am on private property. If a land owner is really concerned with tresspassing, he should post up a sign or spend ten bucks at wal-mart buying purple paint. Not saying that he has a duty, but it sure as hell is common sense.

You know with that stream I wouldn't think the fly selection is too big of a difference. I personally like a little flash on my flies, but I think either is fine. DD is the guy to talk about on this. I like a dry fly with a dropper as far as set up, but again its just about presentation and being

that thing is awesome!! I need one, and I have a weed eater. The problem is the kayak part, no bueno.

Link: http://www.slideinn.com/store/index.php?cPath=26&osCsid=521c797230b311d6cc629fd8c1b59bfb Don't know how effective these would be on BSC, they might be bigger than most of the trout in those streams But Galloup has a very unique take on streamers, and you might be interested in them. I like the Peanut Envy

If that is so, then I have no problem with the GM salmon. Only concern that I have with GM salmon is if they escape and compete with wild Salmon that can/do reproduce. A set up in Panama, wouldn't that be an expensive set up? I would hope that these companies are required to put a tag on these salmon in order to identify whether they escape. If this set up is in Panama, then we might actually be doing Salmon a favor by decreasing harvest pressure on wild salmon. And if the set up is in Panama, then TU is out of bounds in this one IMO, how would salmon survive the hot water in Panama and then be able to make it up to wild salmon and compete? This actually could be a good thing, but I would want to see where this set up is and what are the possibilities of the GM to escape/compete with wild salmon. I like the TU, and I think generally they do a good job for their interests. But they are a special interest group, and sometimes I wonder if I only like them because they represent what I am interested in.