New Mdc E Permits. Yellow Ones Go Bye Bye!

[Justin Spencer]

But if you keep a 19' from a wild stream you are keeping a trout that is very important to next years population

In the blue ribbon streams I would argue that 19" are not very important to next years population because very few fish reach that size due to natural mortality. Most of the reproduction is going to come from the youngest reproductively mature fish for the simple fact their are many more of them. I do agree we want those few that reach 19" to reproduce and pass on their genes. I also would argue that people who want to keep fish probably don't go to the blue ribbon areas because they know their chance of catching a keeper on artificial bait is slim to none, and even if they did it would only be one fish. I have caught only 1 rainbow over 18" on the NFoW in Missouri and in no way feel it is because too many people keep big rainbows, I think it's because the ones that have gotten that big are way too smart to be caught by a hack like me.

[Outside Bend]

Troutfiend-

There are any number of streams in Yellowstone managed under barbless hook, C&R Cutthroat regs, but where the fish top out anywhere from 8-12 inches. On the flip side, there are streams in the park which provide limited harvest and regularly produce trophy-sized fish. All I'm saying is that systems vary, and what works on one stream doesn't necessarily work on another. "Progressive" regulations may work well in Arkansas, but you could put the same regs into effect on MO streams and see little or no benefit.

As for the 1 18" fish rule- what I'm saying is it's de facto C&R. Most of the folks fishing Blue Ribbon streams aren't there to keep a trophy, and most wild rainbows in the state top out around 18" anyway. We all know there's an angling demographic in the state vehemently opposed to C&R regs, so why fight that fight if you can achieve the same objective under the same name?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Many of the arguments on here are ridicules and poorly thought out. You can't compare apples and oranges or make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If you want to compare AR to MO in the consrvation department you have find equal environments, but they don't exist.

When did the size of record fish determine success in fisheries management? Aren't there a few more factors involved?

[Tim Smith]

Look, no doubt that Arkansas has great water, better than Missouri. But, would a C&R zone improve the Current, probably.

That's a much better argument than using a few big brown trout as evidence of management success. That was the main point I was making and if it were up to me I'd probably do some of the things you're suggesting.

...although maybe it has been a while, but last time I looked weren't there some C and R regulations on the Current?

Look, argue that snow isn't cold, but you cannot discount what Arkansas has done with its fisheries. And then we look at what we have in Missouri, and well. . . Outside of dumb luck(Crane) or NFOW and Taney, we have a fairly mediocre principle of management. White Ribbons, Roubidoux, Meramec.

Arkansas has had a ton of help from the Feds and tailwater enrichment but I'm not knocking them. I prefer to fish places like the Sylamore for smallmouth, but I've been to Dry Creek with my kids and I accept that they're playing the hand they're dealt reasonably well (and in fact, just because it's snowing doesn't mean its particularly cold...it gets a lot colder than freezing most places I've lived.)

Point to trout parks all you want Tim, but that's not really a "good management philosophy" stuffing a stream and call it good. And really, I don’t want to parse words or get into what the definition of “is” like a former president, but all I am saying is that Arkansas has more progressive regulations than MDC, just look at their regulations on the White River.

That's the thing. We can't even have this conversation until you define what "good" is. For some elderly or obesese or incompetent people or people who have young kids, the trout parks might be ideal management. Waddle to the railing, hook 5 in 30 minutes and out. Folks might like them even better if they squeezed some lemon on them the morning before they stocked them. I know Illinois people who make that pilgrimage every year. That's Illinois dollars in Missouri pockets and that's "good" management from a certain perspective.

And even though I agree that it makes sense to accomodate the sport angler as well as the meathead, we're still playing a losing game. You want to manage Ozark trout for sustainability, but in fact they're only marginally sustainable. None of it exists without a massive infusion of government cash (which is running out fast). All of that is pretty funny next to all the anti-government posts from people with "trout this" and "trout that" in their names since once the government is done, so are the trout.

If we want a truly sustainable fishery, we've got a whole 'nother level to reach.

[troutfiend1985]

Many of the arguments on here are ridicules and poorly thought out. You can't compare apples and oranges or make a silk purse out of a sows ear. If you want to compare AR to MO in the consrvation department you have find equal environments, but they don't exist.

When did the size of record fish determine success in fisheries management? Aren't there a few more factors involved?

Well Wayne, apples to oranges, how so? All I said is that regulations in Arkansas are progressive, that MDC could benefit from using some of them and that as evidence, Arkansas has three, count that, world record browns. Finding equal environments?? Buddy, we're talking about an arbitrary state line seperating the two. Now may one have better food sources, more applicable to grow trout? Yes, but it was also mentioned on here that we use a different species of Browns, which is a management decision.

Also, lets not limit ourselves to just the fact that I stated how many world record trout have come from Arkansas, look at the darn regulations themselves Wayne and you'll see what I'm talking about. Gosh man, I didn't just post up three world records and said "there, I'm don point made," No, I posted some other things Arkansas does that seemsto benefit their streams and rivers. Equal environments is not the definitive point, look at what they do with there streams. And Wayne, I even posted that size of fish is not a determinative factor before, so why now bring that up?

[troutfiend1985]

We can't even have this conversation until you define what "good" is.

. None of it exists without a massive infusion of government cash (which is running out fast). All of that is pretty funny next to all the anti-government posts from people with "trout this" and "trout that" in their names since once the government is done, so are the trout.

If we want a truly sustainable fishery, we've got a whole 'nother level to reach.

Tim, I don't know why you want to get into semantics, especially with a subjective word like "good" and I believe that I put that phrase in quotations with a sense of humor behind it. Good to me and good to the guy down the street varies incredibly, yet effective does not, better can but not as much as good, so lets just put that to the side for one second.

A state agency should manage its assets to benefit the most people that it can. In this case we're talking about trout. Yes, many people want to keep trout, so lets put the trout parks out there, no problem with that. The purpose is clear, it serves novice fisherman and experienced alike, keeping trout is no big deal because they are stocked daily. All right, in agreement? But then we have a winter season, C&R only. What's so bad about this, well there is no barbless hook requirement, petty differences? Well maybe, but it would seem logical to require barbless as the purpose has now switched temporarily from a catch and keep, to conservation.

Now, let’s take a logical leap into the Blue ribbon streams, which hold wild trout that are not stocked. One would even go so far as to suggest that this is sustainable or: "of, relating to, or being a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged." One has stated that this serves as a "de facto" C&R area, but are there barbless requirements? Do they close the area to fishing while spawning? No. So, what is this? We have a conundrum, one would argue "mismanage" or to not "handle or direct with a degree of skill." Why? Because it would seem logical or "a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid" to take necessary administrative measures that conform to the primary purpose of the MDC and its blue ribbon streams. What is the primary purpose of blue ribbon streams? Well, I'm not the MDC so I cannot speak with authority, but one would assume to protect the fish while balancing angler use. However, the fish directly rely on their own reproduction to sustain their population, thus an extra degree of care would be needed, such as no wading through reds, maybe closing down the stream during spawning times and barbless requirement. I could go on, but I think you get my point, or that there is a certain illogical approach the MDC takes in managing its streams.

Now, what would "good management" be, maybe to make sure that your regulations comport with the purpose of the area. It can be argued that trout parks do this, but then again is it really the best for these streams, all the stuff flowing through that branch, a sort of "trout farm" with all of the waste being dumped into the stream? What about a lack of cleaning stations in Bennett, is that a "good management" move?

More important would be the spawning areas for blue ribbon areas, what purpose do our regulations serve during these times when trout are extremely sensitive? The regulations don't change, why would MDC do this? And to that I have no clue, and to that I think it is bad management. For further reading on "good" please refer to "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche. Because I’m such a nice guy, I’ve pasted a hyperlink here for you http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Good-Evil-Prelude-Philosophy/dp/0679724656

And please Tim, I would love to know how I am anti-government, especially when I am wanting the GOVERNMENT to do something or to change CURRENT REGULATIONS. Please respond to this.

[flytyer57]

OK. Arkansas trout are strictly restrcted to the tailwaters below Beaver, Bull Shoals and Norfork.

Missouri has their own tailwaters below Table Rock, LOZ and others. Why do they not have the incredible fishing that Arkansas has? Only can be one reason. Trout management.

And why do they not (or do they I'm not sure) have catch and release only on some of the more popular but smaller streams like almost every other state that has trout fishing?

[Justin Spencer]

As far as blue ribbon regs are concerned: I live in a blue ribbon area and there is no one here in the winter to walk through redds, and harass fish on redds. If this was a problem I'd be the first to be putting up a fight. We have had no rainbow stocking (since mid 60's) and have a wonderful population of stream bred fish. It is much more variable than a stocked stream, due to water conditions during the spawn, but the management done on this stream has worked for decades, you can't just stop fishing on a river altogether(Stalin might), they've have already forbidden gigging in blue ribbon areas, which went a step too far in my opinion. I'm all for new regulations if they will help, but if things aren't broke, don't try to fix it!

Buddy, we're talking about an arbitrary state line seperating the two

If you think a state line is the only difference between the trout waters of the two states you haven't fished many waters in Missouri. I've never fished Missouri tailwaters but I guess you could compare below Tablerock (I think) dam to the Ark. waters, and there is probably a world record swimming around in Taney, but even if the world record came from Missouri that wouldn't be a reason to say they are better managers.

Both states are doing a good job attracting scores of paying trout fishermen to their states, I for one am happy with how both states are managing their trout waters, keep up the good work!

[troutfiend1985]

As far as blue ribbon regs are concerned: I live in a blue ribbon area and there is no one here in the winter to walk through redds, and harass fish on redds. If this was a problem I'd be the first to be putting up a fight. We have had no rainbow stocking (since mid 60's) and have a wonderful population of stream bred fish. It is much more variable than a stocked stream, due to water conditions during the spawn, but the management done on this stream has worked for decades, you can't just stop fishing on a river altogether(Stalin might), they've have already forbidden gigging in blue ribbon areas, which went a step too far in my opinion. I'm all for new regulations if they will help, but if things aren't broke, don't try to fix it!

If you think a state line is the only difference between the trout waters of the two states you haven't fished many waters in Missouri. I've never fished Missouri tailwaters but I guess you could compare below Tablerock (I think) dam to the Ark. waters, and there is probably a world record swimming around in Taney, but even if the world record came from Missouri that wouldn't be a reason to say they are better managers.

Both states are doing a good job attracting scores of paying trout fishermen to their states, I for one am happy with how both states are managing their trout waters, keep up the good work!

Justin, I think that I placed a condition in that food sources etc. may vary. And then you go and say compare Taney to White, which what I was refering to. Also, Stalin is not the only one who closes down a stream for part of the year to protect spawning, try Arkansas out. Yep, in your neighborhood there may not be alot people wlaking through redds, but I would be willing to bet that smaller streams may have more of that. If things aren't broke then don't fix it is a great way to stay where you are at, but status qou isn't always the best thing. And I know I'm shocking the masses by saying barbless hooks and C&R, but really a lot of other states already have this in place. Which is how I connect the circle here, Arkansas has more progressive laws, and that may be one reason why they have better fisheries.

[Al Agnew]

Guys, there is really NO comparison to the fisheries in the MO and AR Ozarks. Arkansas' trout fisheries are limited to the tailwaters and the Spring River; I don't think they manage any other streams for trout. Why? No big springs. No other water that is really conducive to growing trout. Missouri has one tailwater fishery, and it's the ONLY one that is possible. On all other dams in Missouri, the water comes off the top of the lake and gets far too warm in the summer for trout. Other than Taneycomo, MO's trout streams are all cool enough only because they are fed by big springs. And because of that, there is a tremendous diversity of trout water compared to AR. But most spring fed streams are not as fertile as a tailwater fishery. Growing rates will be slower, and top end size will be less.

So in a lot of ways, comparing MO trout management to AR really is comparing apples to oranges. Different situations, different potential. You simply won't get world record class fish out of Ozark streams. And even on Taneycomo, you have a somewhat limited area to fish compared to the lower White or Little Red. On the other hand, the area of Taney that is lake-like but still cold enough to harbor trout in abundance would seem to give Taney some kind of an edge on growing big fish...but on the other other hand, maybe MDC realized early on that in such habitat, the strain they are using grows better and survives better.

However, having said all that, I do often wonder how AR can get away with regulations that in MO would have the catch and eat folks screaming bloody murder. Whether such regs are necessary or desirable is one question, but whether the political climate in the MO Ozarks is such that they COULD be implemented is another question entirely.

Others have asked what constitutes "good" management. In the case of the red ribbon and blue ribbon streams in MO, my definition would be management that insures that there is an optimum number of fish of all sizes, with a good chance that as many would be reaching near maximum size for the habitat as you could expect in a stream with very light fishing pressure. Nobody, not even the meat anglers, like to go somewhere and only expect to catch 10-12 inch fish with bigger ones being rare exceptions. And more and more, I'm convinced that you don't quite get there with length limits unless the length limit is such that it REALLY makes it a catch and release fishery. I'm convinced that slot limits are the way to go if you want some harvest of fish but also want to protect some of the larger fish.