Blue Ribbon Trout Poll

[ozark trout fisher]

These are just some ideas I have to improve Blue Ribbon trout areas in Missouri. I'd like to hear what you all have to say about them. I voted yes on every question.

[zsmith62]

Neat thread idea, maybe someone will take notice. I voted the same as you on every one, except the first one, just because I don't really know that the occasional taking of a fish is really all that detrimental to the population. Besides, from what I've noticed, the only people fishing in blue ribbon areas are not the type to really keep the fish caught. I actually think that if a few fish are taken, the remaining population will have a better chance to strive and grow bigger in that particular stretch of water. I imagine if the one fish over 18 inches rule even posed a potential threat to the blue ribbon areas, the MDC would change their regulations on the areas. At least I hope so...

[brownieman]

More and more rules...there's so many already they can't enforce or don't what they have,

Quite frankly, Ive had enouph of my choices taken away.

later on

[Brian Sloss]

If they didn't have any of those rules, the blue ribbon areas would fish as erratically as the white ribbon areas where anything goes. If you get there close to a stocking time, great. If you are a couple weeks out from a stocking time, it sucks. There is no excuse for not knowing the regs and I don't think they are too complicated at all. As for the size limit, given the choice of no kill or the current 18 inch rule, I chose no kill, though I am open to just increasing the size limit to say 21 inches. Barbless hooks I think is important.

[laker67]

If they didn't have any of those rules, the blue ribbon areas would fish as erratically as the white ribbon areas where anything goes. If you get there close to a stocking time, great. If you are a couple weeks out from a stocking time, it sucks. There is no excuse for not knowing the regs and I don't think they are too complicated at all. As for the size limit, given the choice of no kill or the current 18 inch rule, I chose no kill, though I am open to just increasing the size limit to say 21 inches. Barbless hooks I think is important.

I agree that you need the rules and especially enforcement. The enforcement starts with you and I. As far as a length limit, I would like to see that increased to at least 20 inches, and 24 inches if I could make the rules. At 18 inches, you are killing a fish in his prime. The majority of fishermen do not fish the blue area in hopes of killing a limit of 18 inch trout, but that certainly is their option, and I stand by their right to do so. They fish it in hopes of catching some quality fish and maybe a fish that would top their personal best. By increasing the length limit, you are putting the odds in the fisherman's favor. I don't like the idea of mandatory barbless hooks. If you chose to do so, okay. I do not think you should shove it down my throat like arkansas has done. If you would up the length limit in the blue area, you could afford to give the other areas a few more fish at stocking time. If it is a river with no supplementary stockings, you would be protecting more brood stock.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Like many on here I have my own ideas on the subject.

When it comes to no kill I would only support this on streams with a sustaining population. On those stream that are stocked it would be 2 under 14". That's enough, or should be to satisfy the "keeper" fishermen.

I don't like too see trebles in fish with small mouths period.

Why not for all fish that have precarious natural populations?

I think this should be left for education, its to hard to enforce fairly, unless you require a true barbless hook and that would limit choice.

[ozark trout fisher]

More and more rules...there's so many already they can't enforce or don't what they have,

Quite frankly, Ive had enouph of my choices taken away.

later on

Brownieman, I know the kind of fisherman you are, in regards to the fact that you like to catch large fish predominately. I would think that if that was indeed the case, you would be all for some regulations that would help the fish grow larger. Let's face it. Not everyone is responsible. If we allowed everyone to "make their own choice" about how they wanted to fish, we'd have folks bait fishing in blue ribbon areas snagging game fish, etc. We can't have that.

I support no kill regulations for one reason I think is really overlooked and pretty important. If there is an 18" minimum length limit, there will always be cheaters who will say, well, "Hell 15" is close enough, let's take this one home today." Last weekend I saw evidence of that in the form of a dead, cleaned wild rainbow wasting in the sun. I am past the point of tolerating those who steal wild trout from those who really make it their passion to target them.

I don't see any need whatsoever to satisfy the catch and keep guys on high quality trout waters. If they don't want to respect the resource by releasing trout in a wild trout stream, we shouldn't try to accomodate them. My advice to those to those people is to head to a trout park or a white ribbon area.

[Gavin]

I oppose no kill, single hook, and barbless.......cuz its just silly.

[ozark trout fisher]

I oppose no kill, single hook, and barbless.......cuz its just silly.

Why? It certainly seems like single hooks reduce hooking mortality. When I have used treble hooked spinning lures, especially when catching small trout, it is hard to remove the hook without tearing the fish's mouth up pretty bad. Like I said, I support no kill regs because I personally think it would reduce cheating the length limit. Maybe the barbless hook restriction might be too far, and too complicated by some, I don't know. All I'm saying is that I think it should be further emphasized that we need to protect wild trout. Not take a knife to them. I see far too many signs of abuse on the wild trout streams lately. I am concerned about it.

[laker67]

I just don't see that there are any bigtime trout poachers out there. When MDC sets limits, I am sure they take into consideration hook mortality, creeled limits, poaching, and even natural predators. I would venture to say that blue herons, green herons, mink, eagles, and river otters consume more trout on a daily basis than any poacher could match. Like Zach said, MDC is evidently not concerned at this point. No kill, would be equivalent to taking away a person's right to harvest a legal fish. Plus I think "no kill" would eventually harm the overall heathy population. A creek or river can only support so many fish. As in natural predators, MDC has allowed seasons for otters and minks. In the future they may see the need to allow water fowl hunters to kill herons. Just like they allow deer hunters to kill a coyote. As far as it reducing poaching, a certain element of the population will always cheat no matter what the regs, whether it be hunting or fishing or everyday life. Our presence on the creek would hopefully deter most. I would say that MDC does a good job of protecting our resource of trout, because they know that 99 percent of us will abide by the regs they have set. Those regs being what they consider benefical to our trout population. Sure I would like to see longer length limits because I want to see larger trout. But if it is detrimental, causing overpopulation, then you have to let that idea go. I will trust my future fishing to MDC's decision making.