New Mdc E Permits. Yellow Ones Go Bye Bye!

[troutfiend1985]

You're still picking and choosing your points to debate while you ignore the big picture. three world record browns yes, but it's not an imaginary line that separates the two in that regard. We all know that there are two huge chunks of concrete and two free flowing rivers below them. Do you know of anything similar in Missouri?

Don't lecture me about Arkansas's fishery skills unless you can tell me why people can drive up the King's river bed or why Missouri MDC can produce stripers that challenge Arkansas, without even stocking them!:lol:

How about Muskies and rainbows? Arkansas seems to be dragging their feet on Muskie and rainbows, at least by your standards.

What is the big picture there Wayne? I think that I've been stating all along that the regulations are progressive.

Just to humor you:

Rainbow trout: Arkansas-19.1, MO- 18.1

Stripped Bass: Ark. 64.1, MO-56.5

Muskie: Ark N/A, MO 41.2

What's your point, Muskie I guess. I guess if two out of three ain't bad, one out of three ain't good.

[Greasy B]

The notion that “Arkansas has more progressive regulations” threw me for a loop. The difference between the way Missouri manages its limited but diverse trout streams and Arkansas manages its mega tail waters is like the difference between the way a small farmer would manage a varied landscape with a variety of crops in order to maximize yield and sustainability and way an industrial corporation would miss manage the best crop land in the world by planting its crop without regard for its welfare then harvesting it when it has just sprouted.

[Tim Smith]

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.

TF I'm sorry I phrased that comment sloppily. I should have been more careful to say that was a general observation that seems to apply to some other posts I have seen here, but I wasn't talking about you. I apologize for not making that clear.

I'll get back to the other stuff later.

[troutfiend1985]

TF I'm sorry I phrased that comment sloppily. I should have been more careful to say that was a general observation that seems to apply to some other posts I have seen here, but I wasn't talking about you. I apologize for not making that clear.

I'll get back to the other stuff later.

Hey, that's no problem. Part of the fun about forums is seeing different views, how they interact etc. And I can't say that I'm innocent, I like stirring the pot a little

[ozark trout fisher]

I do see what you are saying. But a lot of us (including me) love those "ditches". I certainly love the Current, 11 point, and NFOW too. And I have to say that the rim shoals area of the white river sure is beautiful for a ditch. LOL.

Greg

Greg, I'm afraid the somewhat joking nature of that post didn't quite come through. I am not a big tailwater fisherman, but mainly I was just stirring the pot for fun.

I will admit to having had some good times on those "ditches" too. And the White is rather pretty in some areas.

[bigredbirdfan]

The Buffalo is an awesome fishery.

The White River is not a ditch and usually flows as it would without dams in place anyway and when combined with Norfork trophy area is better than Tanycomo any day of the week. period

[Phil Lilley]

The Buffalo is an awesome fishery.

The White River is not a ditch and usually flows as it would without dams in place anyway and when combined with Norfork trophy area is better than Tanycomo any day of the week. period

I agree.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The Buffalo is an awesome fishery.

The White River is not a ditch and usually flows as it would without dams in place anyway and when combined with Norfork trophy area is better than Tanycomo any day of the week. period

Apples and oranges grown in Missouri, an altered river against a man made lake stocked with non-native fish. Not a lot to grasp for comparison purposes.

Beyond the selfish ranting, Missouri's trout programs serve a much more diverse population than Arkansas's ever will. While Missouri has taken advantage of it's many springs, Arkansas has only exploited Mammoth, at least to my knowledge. Again it's different environments, Missouri's cold water resource is naturally scattered and more compact. Arkansas's is man made, or made in Missouri , and individually larger.

Different populations and resources, different tactics.

[Outside Bend]

Let me see if I can explain it another way...

Trout die. It's not romantic or poetic or pleasant, but it happens. A lot. Especially in wild trout streams. Due to competition, predation, disease and other factors, many fish don't make it. As long there are enough to spawn, though, the system keeps chuggin' along.

"Progressive" fishing regulations like barbless-only produce a mortality rate of around 1-3%, which is easily absorbed by the population, given that as many as 50% of the fish are going to die anyway. I'm not saying barbless is a bad idea- I use them because they reduce mangled mandibles and are easier to get out of my own skin. I'm saying implementing barbless regs under the guise of "it helps trout survival" is a pious load of BS.

MDC isn't jumping on C&R for wild trout streams because the 1 fish over 18" rule accomplishes practically the same goal without the headache of changing regs. Even with C&R regs the chances of a wild Missouri trout making it to 18" are extremely low, the chances an 18" fish is going to make it to another spawning season are lower still. Whether the fish dies in a creel, from natural causes, or by a self-righteous C&R guy with 7x tippet, the end result is still the same. You're killing a fish which was probably going to die anyway, and not having any significant on the population as a whole in the process. It's compensatory mortality, not additive- chances are good you're killing a fish which was going to regardless.

The stream closure thing I could go along with. Then again, angling pressure & traffic on wild trout streams during the spawning season isn't that high to begin with, and I'd bet a lot of the folks out on those streams at that time are aware what's going on biologically. Not to mention wild trout populations on Missouri streams appear to be pretty stable, and natural effects like flood and drought probably have more impact on population fluctuations than folks tromping through redds. But ignoring all that, I think simply educating anglers to watch out for redds & spawning fish would be as effective, and again with less headaches, than mandatory stream closures.

The Arkansas regs no doubt make sense for Arkansas- you're managing world-renowned trophy trout fisheries for hundreds of thousands of visiting anglers. You have to have restrictive regulations like C&R and barbless hooks, just to maintain the caliber of fishing that made the area famous in the first place. In truth, Missouri and Arkansas are doing the exact same thing- attempting to maximize a finite resource for the greatest number of anglers. But there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[troutfiend1985]

Beyond the selfish ranting, Missouri's trout programs serve a much more diverse population than Arkansas's ever will.

How so? It's very easy to throw a statement out there like this, but how does MO's trout program serve a more diverse population?

While Missouri has taken advantage of it's many springs, Arkansas has only exploited Mammoth, at least to my knowledge.

Does this mean better management though?