laker67 Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 What if any details were available on these state records from Taneycomo? Bait or Lure type? Gear used particulary the line type and size used? bigredbirdfan The July 2005 record was caught by Brian Chapman from St. Louis. From the picture the fish appeared to be a big female brown trout. Weight was 27 pounds 8.5 ounces. He caught it on spinning gear and a little cleo lure. Not sure of the line size. The October 2005 record was caught by Rick Osborn of Camdenton. This fish was a male brown trout. Weight was 27 pounds 10 ounces. He caught it on a five weight fly rod using a grey sowbug. The line/ tippet was officially tested by IGFA at 4.5 pound test and was awarded a fly rod world record for the 6 pound category. As far as people in the upper water targeting "big fish", it happens every day.
Trav Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 Heritage? Does 50 years constitute as a heritage? Cause thats how long trout have been in Taney. Not long if your talking about history. Its always about the money. Everything is. Maybe we should revisit this thread... http://ozarkanglers.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10119 "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
drew03cmc Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 Thank you Trav, I got tired of trying to figure up ways to convince someone it is about money! Andy
Trav Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
bigredbirdfan Posted June 20, 2008 Posted June 20, 2008 We all know fishing generates more money than all spectator sports combined. Although I am sure fishing right now is taking a big cut to groceries and diapers. So who influences the MDC on how to stock rainbow trout in Tanyecomo? Bass Pro Shops? The guides on Taneycomo? HCW? Branson Chamber of Commerce? You guys need to connect the dots a little better to further your case.
Trav Posted June 20, 2008 Author Posted June 20, 2008 There isnt any dots to connect. Its a pet project to generate the local economy. Trust me, the mighty tourist buck is the key factor behind the whole issue. Im sure there are some bragging rights being lofted as well. Especially on the MDC/Corps perspective. And like every other industry, even trout have lobbys. My Gramps bought this place back in the 70s for one reason only. To catch trout. "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
Greg Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 My Gramps bought this place back in the 70s for one reason only. To catch trout. Very smart man. Regarding the MDC's decisions ALWAYS being about money I just don't think anything is that absolute. I have no doubt that figures into it. But the MDC does have some altruistic intentions as well. Greg "My biggest worry is that my wife (when I'm dead) will sell my fishing gear for what I said I paid for it" - Koos Brandt Greg Mitchell
Trav Posted June 21, 2008 Author Posted June 21, 2008 MDC knew they needed to utilize the cold water fishery and thier decision to put in trout was a no brainer. I have yet scene anyone in the span of this thread that has come up with a more viable solution. Even if there wasnt an existing trout population, I cant see where there is any other way to have large population of fish that wont abandon the lake in search of spawning ground. At least when the trout go through thier instictive life cycle they head upstream. Whether that attempt is successful or not they for the most part will stay in the lake. Any population of species that will match the current trout population would have to be maintained by stock management. Taney is a fish tank, but I would rather have an aquarium full of fish than not. Sure it would be nice to have some more smallies and walleye, but to do so will be to add more "Put and Grow" fish. Thats where the issue of money falls in. It costs MDC money to maintain addition populations and its money they are not willing to spend. So yes, from my perspective, it is all about money! "May success follow your every cast." - Trav P. Johnson
drew03cmc Posted June 21, 2008 Posted June 21, 2008 What dots are you referring to? The ones that precede the two zeros in the cents blank on a check? I am with Trav here, the dots are a straight line right to the state's wallet. They make millions off of trout fishing each year, and why would they do anything else? Name another coldwater species that will provide the financial push that trout do. Lake trout? Grayling? Salmon, HAHA? There is another species we forgot to mention here that would be nice for winter...kokanee salmon! Landlocked sockeyes. Anyway, if you can offer another solution, offer it up, and if not, admit to it being about money. The reason the state will not stock another species, especially an apex predator in Taney is the loss of money. Andy
bigredbirdfan Posted June 23, 2008 Posted June 23, 2008 I'll admit that the White River was a wonderful fishing attraction way before that dam was ever mentioned and probably brought in more money relatively speaking to the area than trout ever could. All the MDC is trying to do is put some fish in there otherwise no fish at all. If you want to say it is about the money then table rock's fishing economy dwarfs Taneycomo. Which agency makes those millions of dollars? Surely their annual budgets should reflect this massive inflow of cash on thier reports? Now if you want to say they won't interject more predator species because they will eat the rainbow population that the MDC spends lots of dollars on I have no problem being in agreement. They take in so much money on the tax they can't buy enough land or hatch enough fish without having to worry about revenue from trout fishing. Oh yea more species of trout was my vote!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now