Regulations For Browns Need To Change!

[laker67]

Laker67 the fine angler I speak of I heard tell another fine angler one day the way to catch a big fish is to "harass it to a point to where it lays down in a whole exhausted and gasping for oxygen and then pull a visible jig in it's mouth and yank!" That's not my words it's the fine anglers.

No matter what skill level and angler is or wither or not he is an honest angler. One Brown trout of a legal size should be held as a standard State wide.

Yeah, got no problem with restricted limits.

[Addicted to Creeks]

I don't think that a size or numbers limit will help these fish within the park. It will maybe give them a day or 2 reprieve, but the word will get out as to where they are and they are as good as caught. I mean, what is the differance between one guy catching 4 big fish a day or a group of 4-6 guys each catching 1 a day? I believe that regulations like these, even though I agree with them, will not be helpful within the park boundries until these type of "fishermen" cease their actions.

and what about the difference between 4-6 guys a day keeping (I flat out refuse to acknowledge trout snagger as fisherman so I will not put catching, it is keeping) 4 fish a day and the same group keeping one. Thats 12 to 18 fish a day not going in someones newsletter. No a change in regulations won't stop people from being selfish but it will limit the amount of fish they can taje. And isn't that the whole point of the change being proposed?

[northernranger]

Great comments guys. Thank you for keeping this post alive.

[POKAT]

and what about the difference between 4-6 guys a day keeping (I flat out refuse to acknowledge trout snagger as fisherman so I will not put catching, it is keeping) 4 fish a day and the same group keeping one. Thats 12 to 18 fish a day not going in someones newsletter. No a change in regulations won't stop people from being selfish but it will limit the amount of fish they can taje. And isn't that the whole point of the change being proposed?

I hope you didn't misinterpret my comment. I was not saying that the limits shouldn't be put into place. I actually think they need to be stricter, maybe a limit of 1 or 2 a month tops. This would hopefully allow someone that is a recreational fisherman to catch that once in a lifetime trout. It would also limit the number of times these guys would put their names up on the all-important lunker board. Those names on there are a big ego boost to those hunters. The point I was trying to make was that even with limits/restrictions, ethics plays a key role in management and certain park hunters have no ethics.

As a side note, I also don't call these guys fishermen, I call them hookers because they just hook the fish.

[10pointer]

With all these fish being snagged all it takes is taking a picture of the culprit and contacting the agents. I dont want to hear that nothing can be done because witnesses have landed a few guys in trouble. Id love to see the park cleaned up and the snagging put to an end. It gives guys who do it right a bad name. Laker67 i know a few of those good guys you talk about. They could care less about some lunker board and they have caught more big fish than most of the park anglers combined.

[10pointer]

Id love to see something done about the browns in the park but talking with the biologists from the mdc there is a science to what they do but also economic pressures. There was proposed regulation changes on the niangua (length limits) brought up and the mdc shut it down. They said that the browns "couldnt" survive but the main reason was that heads would roll from the outcry from the locals who depend on the fish. Its sad but the mdc works for the public in general not just trophy hunters

[ColdWaterFshr]

One thing that doesn't make sense to me -- how come Taney has a 4-fish limit, and only 1 can be a brown of 20" or greater, and yet the trout parks have no such restriction on browns? Seems pretty inconsistent.

And aren't all of the states brown trout are raised at Sheperd of the Hills hatchery right, or at least the majority are, right?

If anything, since they have to transport the brown trout to Niangua, Current, and NFOW, and not so much so with the browns raised at Taney at Sheperd, you would think they would place a higher value due to the cost involved on the fish they have to go to a lot more trouble to plant in the streams. And Taney has far more sanctuary and better chance, better habitat to produce a lot more and far bigger browns anyway -- so why are they more precious with the browns there than the stream browns?

[laker67]

One thing that doesn't make sense to me -- how come Taney has a 4-fish limit, and only 1 can be a brown of 20" or greater, and yet the trout parks have no such restriction on browns? Seems pretty inconsistent.

And aren't all of the states brown trout are raised at Sheperd of the Hills hatchery right, or at least the majority are, right?

If anything, since they have to transport the brown trout to Niangua, Current, and NFOW, and not so much so with the browns raised at Taney at Sheperd, you would think they would place a higher value due to the cost involved on the fish they have to go to a lot more trouble to plant in the streams. And Taney has far more sanctuary and better chance, better habitat to produce a lot more and far bigger browns anyway -- so why are they more precious with the browns there than the stream browns?

Good observation, I had never considered that. It obviously works for taney so why not statewide? I would venture to say that t-como produces more 5 to 20 lb fish than all of the blue areas and parks combined.

[Idylwilde]

I have sent in my letter to MDC, but we are not going to get anything accomplished on changing anything here on the forum unless each one of us feel it would be a good thing and get our friends involved also in a letter writing campaign. we set here and get all excited and type how we feel to each other and log off and it leaves our mind until we go fishing and see how much things are changed on the stream. We could set here for two years and this tread may or may not re-jog our minds that something needs to be done. In the mean time the MDC loves for these things to die away and not be bothered with them. & if we had a 1000 letters in the mail today the system they set rules by would take the rest of this year.

Several of the post on here have excellent points to why this should be changed, so we need to get them to the people that need to know. The MDC home page had links to all the people that has the power to make this happen. So can we see just how much of a ripple we can make?

[Addicted to Creeks]

I'm in not a lot of trout fisherman up my way but ill get who i can