1/22 Report

[Gavin]

There are still a few nice browns down there...but the population of big fish in the blue ribbon seems to be a bit lower than it was last year..A 1 brown trout statewide limit would really help out. I wrote MDC's regulation committee about it earlier this year and got a "Thanks for your letter" response.

I cant see a good reason not to do it. There is already a 15" statewide minimum length limit on brown trout, so anglers at Montauk, Bennett, Roaring River, and Meramec are already required to know the difference between a brown and a rainbow trout and carry a measuring device if they choose to harvest a brown trout inside the parks. Decreasing the park brown limit from 4 over 15" to a statewide limiit of 1 over 18" or 20" is a no brainer IMO. There is no significant new education or enforcement burden.

[laker67]

Decreasing the park brown limit from 4 over 15" to a statewide limiit of 1 over 18" or 20" is a no brainer IMO. There is no significant new education or enforcement burden.

You would think it would be as simple as you described it. Look at the difference it made at taney. Most anglers look at brown trout as a trophy anyway, let them have their one trophy fish and leave the other 3, 15 inchers, to grow into trophy's as well. The rainbows far outnumber the browns statewide.

[stlfisher]

Absolutely, It seems silly to let someone harvest 4 brown at 15 inches in the park when the potential for growth is so much more and the blue ribbon stretch is 1 over 18...it is almost mind boogling.

Another option would be to switch the zones and move the fly only area to the current bait area and move the bait area to the old fly area. If the bait area didn't run right into the blue ribbon stretch more brown's would survive as I am sure some anglers would release and the regulations wouldn't need to change. Plus I like the water actually moving. The slow water by the dam drives me nuts and get's quite boring IMO...would be good bait water as oppossed to the faster water downstream.

[mic]

I'm in the minority, but I think Browns should be catch and release only.

[ozark trout fisher]

I'm in the minority, but I think Browns should be catch and release only.

I certainly agree, but it probably wouldn't be feasible. I think something like a statewide, 18" minimum, one fish state-wide limit would be possible to implement, and would do the job well enough.

I had thought (I guess mistakenly?) that there was a statewide limit of two browns, and a 15" minimum, and that this also applied to the parks. Though certainly not the kind of protection I'd like to see, even that would have gone some part of the way towards stemming the damage that occurred last summer on the Current. But I guess even those rules don't apply in the park, or the MDC isn't sure whether they apply, or some variable of the two. Honestly I'm a bit confused as to the matter. If these rules did apply it sure wasn't being enforced very well, there were plenty of folks in the park stringing up 3 and 4 browns in one day.

STL, I really like your idea about switching the zones, so that the browns are running up into the fly area instead of the bait section. That might just be worth an email to the MDC. I do like the water in the fly area a lot (once you get to the riffles and holes about the mill-pond) but I'd be willing to give that up to give the browns a better chance. I think that might be workable too. Bait fisherman would get the mill pool, and a whole bunch of other really good bait water, while fly fishers would have the riffles and pocket water further down.

[mic]

I certainly agree, but it probably wouldn't be feasible. I think something like a statewide, 18" minimum, one fish state-wide limit would be possible to implement, and would do the job well enough.

I think you bring in more tourism money if the browns are allowed to get BIG as possible. No limit for me.

[laker67]

I think you bring in more tourism money if the browns are allowed to get BIG as possible. No limit for me.

Letting the browns grow has certainly worked at taney. When you talk with fishermen in the fall, they say that they make the trip to taney for the possibility of catching a large brown. Check out the parking lot in oct and nov, and you will see several states in attendance. Unlike taney, park and river browns are much easier to fool, so a reduction in creel limits would go a long way. Add a new "20 inch" length limit and the numbers of trophy fish will multiply in a 2 to 3 year period. Now, don't look for any 30lb fish at the parks, but it would certainly increase the number of 12 to 18 lb fish that are already there.

[stlfisher]

I'm in the minority, but I think Browns should be catch and release only.

I would be good with that too, but doubtful we can get that changed.

STL, I really like your idea about switching the zones, so that the browns are running up into the fly area instead of the bait section. That might just be worth an email to the MDC. I do like the water in the fly area a lot (once you get to the riffles and holes about the mill-pond) but I'd be willing to give that up to give the browns a better chance. I think that might be workable too. Bait fisherman would get the mill pool, and a whole bunch of other really good bait water, while fly fishers would have the riffles and pocket water further down.

I agree OTF the area upstream from the darn is nice really and the area I usually fish when in the park. During low water the area by the darn moves so sloooow. I think I fell alseep once waiting for my fly to finish it's 25 minute drift. I would think the bait fisherman would prefer the slower water, but maybe I am wrong. Either way it won't happen, but it is nice to think about.

[stlfisher]

Letting the browns grow has certainly worked at taney. When you talk with fishermen in the fall, they say that they make the trip to taney for the possibility of catching a large brown. Check out the parking lot in oct and nov, and you will see several states in attendance. Unlike taney, park and river browns are much easier to fool, so a reduction in creel limits would go a long way. Add a new "20 inch" length limit and the numbers of trophy fish will multiply in a 2 to 3 year period. Now, don't look for any 30lb fish at the parks, but it would certainly increase the number of 12 to 18 lb fish that are already there.

Are there still 12-18lb fish in the parks being reported the last several years? I might need to get me some better sunglasses. It just seems like such a no brainer to have a higher limit at the Current.

[laker67]

Indeed there are. The only park exception would be Meramec.