My Trout Management Wish List

[stlfisher]

True, but it ignores the differences in C&R rates between fly and bait anglers, differences in angling pressure, etc. EDIT: sorry FS, didn't see your post up there

I guess IMO fisheries management shouldn't be solely about producing the largest number of quality fish, but rather maximizing a finite resource for the benefit of the greatest number of people. If we're all on the same page, and everyone wants quality trout/smallmouth/whatever populations, good deal. If some folks want to use bait, I think we can make those concessions. If some folks want to keep a fish here and there, I think we can make some concessions. If some folks, for whatever sick reason, want to eat a hatchery trout, we can make some concessions. If you want to use a speargun or atlatl to kill some fish...ok, we'll try to find a way for you to do that. It's compromise. Not everyone gets everything they want, but enough people get enough of what they like to keep folks reasonably content.

I do agree with this for most part. I would however argue that C/R rates are usually tied to the method in which you fish. I think the fly fishing area is equally as crowded as the baitfishing area. To me that kind of proves my point.

Regardless, I am not ever going to go all gestapo next time I see a hunk of worms being tossed or make anyone feel inferior, but I know my fishing experience is more sastisfying when I tie on that "secret fly" and stalk a big fish. I think I would be bored just kind of sitting there.

Anyway to each his own...

[Outside Bend]

I don't understand the baitfishing thing for trout...I admit it. It is not for me... but for the life of me I just don't understand the attraction of baitfishing for trout or bass...or any sport fish that would readily take a fly or artifical.

It's not my thing either- I'd much rather spend my time with a fly or spinning rod than soaking worms. My point is, just because it's not my thing shouldn't preclude other folks, folks who enjoy it, from doing it. It'd be like your wife or girlfriend trying to ban fishing in general, because she simply doesn't understand the enjoyment their significant other gets from it.

To me, it shouldn't matter whether someone understands why another enjoys soaking worms or dropping minners, they should simply recognize it. Those folks get as much enjoyment soaking bait as I do casting flies; that ought to be enough. I know I wouldn't enjoy being told I couldn't use my gear of choice on a given stream reach, and I imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and bait guys were clamoring to get back into the upper Current or other artificials-only water, there'd be a lot of outrage.

All I'm sayin' is: diversity is good

[stlfisher]

It's not my thing either- I'd much rather spend my time with a fly or spinning rod than soaking worms. My point is, just because it's not my thing shouldn't preclude other folks, folks who enjoy it, from doing it. It'd be like your wife or girlfriend trying to ban fishing in general, because she simply doesn't understand the enjoyment their significant other gets from it.

To me, it shouldn't matter whether someone understands why another enjoys soaking worms or dropping minners, they should simply recognize it. Those folks get as much enjoyment soaking bait as I do casting flies; that ought to be enough. I know I wouldn't enjoy being told I couldn't use my gear of choice on a given stream reach, and I imagine if the shoe was on the other foot, and bait guys were clamoring to get back into the upper Current or other artificials-only water, there'd be a lot of outrage.

All I'm sayin' is: diversity is good

The only complaint I would have with that statement is bait fishing is usually associated with harvest which has a greater affect on the fishery more so than a fly fisherman who releases most of the fish. Therefore, my enjoyment at a White Ribbon area (non trout park that is) is going to be directly related to the behavior of others.

I don't fish the White Ribbon areas outside of trout parks much at all because of this, but if some of them could support a C/R portion or a Blue Ribbon section that could establish a solid resident population I think we should take a look at it.

Anyway, I feel like the horse is getting beat to death, so I will lock it up now.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Here is what it boils down to in a nutshell.

If you don't like the white Ribbon sections and the way they are managed, wait two weeks after a stocking before fishing it. Now you have your blue ribbon type fishing. Good luck and lets see how good you really are.

[troutfiend1985]

Chief, I have done that, and the fishing does not compare to Blue ribbon fishing. If it did I wouldn't be so persistent about new regulations. Further, Blue Ribbons and White Ribbons are not similarly situated in that the regulations of the two are so vastly different that comparing the two relies on broad assumptions of equality, which is simply not true. Look no further than the amount of people fishing at a white ribbon area and the amount at a white ribbon area.

However, I do recognize that bait fishing is an acceptable way of fishing, but it is expressly conditioned on whether the stream can support the practice of bait fishing.

Anyone who has fished Hickory or Capps knows that the trout population depends on the amount of stocking along with the length of time from the stocking. A C&R zone does not have the effect of banning bait, so let that opinion die out. I am not the bait Gestapo, and I don't care if you are using bait at a winter trout area or trout parks. However, and this is the last time I'm going to put this on the forum, fiscal responsibility dictates that some of the stocked fish should not be swept up by broad nets of anglers who plan to keep. Thus, a C&R zone combines the best of both theories, one that allows for quality angling and bait fishing, without sacrificing a relative minority, the bait fisherman.

Yes, this could create faction among the trout anglers in Missouri, however I find it very odd that we are using faction in the sense of fishing. I hardly doubt this would create a situation of epic proportions, one faced by our fore fathers who really had to deal with faction. i.e. Marbury v. Madison. If we're going to throw those fears of faction out there, what about the principle of the most good for the most people? That is exactly what I am proposing, and yes it does alter the status quo.

I am officially done with posting my opinions on this topic. I will post my letter, aling with any letter I recieve from the MDC on this forum.

[Outside Bend]

Anyone who has fished Hickory or Capps knows that the trout population depends on the amount of stocking along with the length of time from the stocking. A C&R zone does not have the effect of banning bait, so let that opinion die out.

I guess I haven't seen a C&R zone where bait is allowed. The thought is the higher mortality rates associated with bait discount whatever gains are made through C&R regs.

fiscal responsibility dictates that some of the stocked fish should not be swept up by broad nets of anglers who plan to keep.

How? Folks pay MDC to raise trout, MDC raises trout, MDC releases trout for the benefit of the folks who paid for them. How is that irresponsible? Would there be an issue if I buy $7 worth of rainbow trout from the grocery store? How is that any different than buying $7 worth of rainbow trout through MDC?

Thus, a C&R zone combines the best of both theories, one that allows for quality angling and bait fishing, without sacrificing a relative minority, the bait fisherman.

I'd be really surprised if bait fisherman were the minority of trout anglers in Missouri. And your scenario overlooks that segment of anglers that want to keep some of the fish they catch- that's part of the issue. Us fly and spin guys basically have access to 100% of the state's trout water, including the best stuff in terms of fish production. Bait guys, or guys who want to keep fish, are much more restricted in terms of on what waters they can use their preferred gears, and those waters are typically lower quality in terms of trout production. No one's stopping you from fishing Capps or Hickory, and it seems silly to me for the guys with access to 100% of the water to claim that the guys who can only fish the dregs should fork over their slice of the pie, too.

Yes, this could create faction among the trout anglers in Missouri, however I find it very odd that we are using faction in the sense of fishing. I hardly doubt this would create a situation of epic proportions, one faced by our fore fathers who really had to deal with faction. i.e. Marbury v. Madison. If we're going to throw those fears of faction out there, what about the principle of the most good for the most people? That is exactly what I am proposing, and yes it does alter the status quo.

My guess is that if the shoe was on the other foot, and bait anglers wanted to turn the Upper Current back into a put-and-take fishery, folks would be incensed one group of anglers was proposing regulations solely to feed their own self-interests. And I don't see how you can say C&R is maximizing the most good for the most people while simultaneously giving one angling demographic (bait/catch and keep guys) the finger. Seems to me offering a little bit of something for all crowds would be a much better way of going about it. There's no reason to ban ostracize the bait/catch and keep crowd when we accommodating their desires is a pretty easy and benign thing to do.

I'll be honest in that I don't remember the particulars of Marbury v. Madison, but I think there was another guy around that period who said something to the effect of "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

[drew03cmc]

Here is what it boils down to in a nutshell.

If you don't like the white Ribbon sections and the way they are managed, wait two weeks after a stocking before fishing it. Now you have your blue ribbon type fishing. Good luck and lets see how good you really are.

I couldn't agree more.

When I am planning a trip to a White Ribbon Area, or that area in conjunction with a smallmouth trip, I don't care when the stocking truck was there last or what not. All I care is that there are fish in the stream, and if you fish the right areas the right ways, you can and will catch fish. If I strike out (seldom happens), I will NOT blame it on missing the truck. That is simply not the case. If you are fishing the proper areas in a manner which the fish have dictated, you will catch fish. There are fish in the stream, regardless if you are catching them at heavily fished accesses. Get your waders wet and find the fish that have moved away from the accesses into less pressured water.

I will not tell you the one way I found fish on Capps the first time I fished it, but rest assured, it is the same method that will catch fish in EVERY stream in Missouri which holds trout. It is a search method and is deadly in slightly higher water than normal. Also, keep in mind that most all spring creeks in Missouri hold an inordinate number of scuds and the fish feed on scuds all year long.

Quit this stocking truck argument as it does not hold water in White Ribbon Creeks. You can find fish in Capps or Hickory all year, every year.

[ozark trout fisher]

Here is what it boils down to in a nutshell.

If you don't like the white Ribbon sections and the way they are managed, wait two weeks after a stocking before fishing it. Now you have your blue ribbon type fishing. Good luck and lets see how good you really are.

That's not what I've experienced. Fishing a stream with a well managed population of resident or wild trout is nothing like fishing for the remnants on an abused put and take creek. I've experienced plenty of both and there is just no comparison.

[troutfiend1985]

I guess I haven't seen a C&R zone where bait is allowed. The thought is the higher mortality rates associated with bait discount whatever gains are made through C&R regs.

:

How? Folks pay MDC to raise trout, MDC raises trout, MDC releases trout for the benefit of the folks who paid for them. How is that irresponsible? Would there be an issue if I buy $7 worth of rainbow trout from the grocery store? How is that any different than buying $7 worth of rainbow trout through MDC?

I'd be really surprised if bait fisherman were the minority of trout anglers in Missouri. And your scenario overlooks that segment of anglers that want to keep some of the fish they catch- that's part of the issue. Us fly and spin guys basically have access to 100% of the state's trout water, including the best stuff in terms of fish production. Bait guys, or guys who want to keep fish, are much more restricted in terms of on what waters they can use their preferred gears, and those waters are typically lower quality in terms of trout production. No one's stopping you from fishing Capps or Hickory, and it seems silly to me for the guys with access to 100% of the water to claim that the guys who can only fish the dregs should fork over their slice of the pie, too.

My guess is that if the shoe was on the other foot, and bait anglers wanted to turn the Upper Current back into a put-and-take fishery, folks would be incensed one group of anglers was proposing regulations solely to feed their own self-interests. And I don't see how you can say C&R is maximizing the most good for the most people while simultaneously giving one angling demographic (bait/catch and keep guys) the finger. Seems to me offering a little bit of something for all crowds would be a much better way of going about it. There's no reason to ban ostracize the bait/catch and keep crowd when we accommodating their desires is a pretty easy and benign thing to do.

I'll be honest in that I don't remember the particulars of Marbury v. Madison, but I think there was another guy around that period who said something to the effect of "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."

I have never proposed that bait would be allowed in the catch and release zone, that was stated earlier in one of my posts, why would we allow bait in a C&R zone :rolleyes

Yes, I pay to fish for trout as well, I pay my 7$ even though I don't keep trout(so I can fish Taney). MDC does not release trout solely for those who want to keep trout, that is illogical. Why not just drop a bucket of fish on your door then, or call it refrigerator creek? About grocery stores, that is one of the worst comparisons I have ever seen. MDC primary purpose is to serve the State, and in that comes conservation, since we're throwing around quotes of law "Protection does entail destruction of the protected." Grocery stores. .. . Well, I don't even have to justify a response to this, get a better analogy and I'll show you the difference Look for a substantially similar entity as the MDC and we'll talk.

Minority does not necessarily mean low population, minority could entail the lack of legal protection a specifically identifiable group of individuals faces (i.e. women). So my view of minority here is not that there are less bait fisherman, but there are more regulations against the group of bait fisherman as a whole.

Again, my position is that MDC serves more than a purpose of "feeding the fisherman." A policy that allows for the most quality angling opportunity is a policy that serves the best purpose, and one that continues to allow fisherman to keep fish is a "win win." How would a small C&R zone, where artificial baits and flies only are allowed, kill of the fishing of the rest of a white ribbon area? Again, I think you should read the rest of my posts before criticizing one.

I'll be honest, I think your quoting a line that was about national faction. Believe me, your issues of mole hills and mountains do not warrant the idea of national faction.

[Chief Grey Bear]

That's not what I've experienced. Fishing a stream with a well managed population of resident or wild trout is nothing like fishing for the remnants on an abused put and take creek. I've experienced plenty of both and there is just no comparison.

Then keep repeating the last sentence of my post until you do.