Violations

[fishinwrench]

ok wrench... consider it squashed !

by the way, what do you see could be an improvement to the upper protected end of LT ?

Brian

*More mid-stream boulders (complex current areas).

*Anchored wood cover, so that fish have a sanctuary, and shade, during low water periods.

*Scheduled and more moderate generation (the hit or miss phenomenon is what keeps Me from driving down more often).

Basically anything that would make it less of a "fish in a barrel" type of fishery would be an improvement.

To me the upper end of Taney is more like a trout park....than a Trout Park is. But worse, because you never know when that horn is gonna blow and put an end to your day.

So, do you know what the plans are, or even what they are planning to address at all ?

[Thom]

I'm not a trout fisherman, but I'm glad you guys have a good place at Taneycomo to fish for 'em as you obviously enjoy it a lot. Different strokes, different folks - and that's a good thing.

You've got me curious, trying to figure why barbless hooks would be banned on the White in Arkansas. With a barbless hook, I'd think you could C/R trout or any other fish until the cows come home and Conservation would be happy about it because you're not damaging the fish.

Why in the world wouldn't barbless hooks be allowed? Explain, please.

Explaination.

I TYPED WITH AND MEANT TO TYPE WITHOUT. If you are caught fishing without barbvless hooks in the restricted areas not with barbless. 'Sorry for the typo

I am told that agents will check hooks by hooking into thier cloth and if the barbed hook that was closed with pliers hooks even a thread you will get a citation.

[vanven]

*More mid-stream boulders (complex current areas).

*Anchored wood cover, so that fish have a sanctuary, and shade, during low water periods.

*Scheduled and more moderate generation (the hit or miss phenomenon is what keeps Me from driving down more often).

Basically anything that would make it less of a "fish in a barrel" type of fishery would be an improvement.

To me the upper end of Taney is more like a trout park....than a Trout Park is. But worse, because you never know when that horn is gonna blow and put an end to your day.

So, do you know what the plans are, or even what they are planning to address at all ?

I know it has been discussed in the past and there have been some feasibility tests on Taney also, but I would love to see a minimum flow on Taneycomo. Just enough water to keep the rocks between outlet 3 and rebar under about a foot of water. Make that one big riffle and spread some of the fisherman out. I would also like to see some longer deeper holes with structure (boulders) in them.

-Jerod

[Phil Lilley]

C&R - After 12 years of this regulation, I think it might be good to look at again, seeing what the White and others have done with slots and c&r.

It might be good to make it c&r.

Barbless - there's a school of thought that making a fishery barbless doesn't help keep fish from being killed. Mortality rates are basically the same. Disfigured - that's another thing.

MDC has that position, or at least they did 15 years ago when I discussed it with them.

[Sam]

I TYPED WITH AND MEANT TO TYPE WITHOUT.

That explains it, thanks.

I've got some big bluegills in a small pond at home, and they're pretty much tame - I don't want to kill them.

I let our grandkids fish there, but only with barbless hooks. I don't use pliers, I file the barbs off completely. Very, very seldom do we lose a fish that way, and the 'gills are probably sick of the whole deal, they've been caught so often.

[ColdWaterFshr]

As usual, PD has a solution . . . make from Fall Creek and above a C & R area only, barbless and single hook only, and don't stock that area at all. I would also like to see the outlets closed to fishing during the spawn. Lets face it - the slot is too confusing for most folks, they just don't get it.

Then Fall creek and below . . . no restrictions other than a 4 or 5 fish limit, but only 1 brown over 18 may be allowed, bait okay, barbs okay, etc, etc. Stocking should only be from Cooper Creek down, and cut back on the #'s stocked by a half million or so per yr.

But this all makes too much sense, MDC will never go for it.

[Trevor K]

I don't think the area below the dam should be catch and release, but thats just my opinion. I don't really see the harm if somebody wants to keep a couple of fish. If somebody were to break the state record or world record how would they get it certified or whatever if it had to be immediately returned to the water. People just to understand the regulations better, which is a lot to ask sometimes. I think increased enforcement of the regs would also be good. Most people probably just want to catch a few fish and don't even think of the regs. That is not an excuse though.

[eric1978]

How about keeping the 12"-20" slot limit, but you can only keep, say, 3 fish over 20" per year, and you have to have a tag for it, like a deer. It would be harder to enforce than deer tags, but it might help.

[Brian K. Shaffer]

" make from Fall Creek and above a C & R area only, barbless and single hook only, and don't stock that area at all "

Just so you know - they do not stock the upper end as it is.

Brian

[Phil Lilley]

Like Brian said - they don't stock much above Cooper. Hardly any above Fall Creek.

Barbless - I doubt it ever happens although it would help the fish's face/jaws. I think it should be promoted more but not made a rule.

I wouldn't mind catch and release above Lookout Island. Slot below to Fall Creek.

Make the slot 13-22 inches on rainbows.

24 inches on browns. That'd be cool.

Add an agent just for Taneycomo and you've got my Christmas wish list.

Oh - and add the habitat improvement plan we'll be working on; do that and everything will be peachy keen.