Trout Hunter to Propose Maramec Spring/Meramec River Regulations Changes
Brrrr...
First, my apologies for not responding to emails recently. We've been without power for about a week -- it finally came back on for real Friday 1/19 about mid-day. We had a little burp of electricity earlier in the week, and I managed to check email at that time as well, but the power was fairly short-lived. With the storm coming through tonight (3-6 inches of snow + 30mph winds + broken tree limbs hanging by a thread), I expect we'll be in the dark again come Sunday morning. I'll get emails responded to and fishing reports posted as quickly as possible, and I appreciate your patience.
Now, on to the business at hand. If you're a regular visitor to Missouri Trout Hunter, you've probably noticed that St. Louis area trout fishermen tend to be much more active contributors of fishing reports than our visitors from the other urban centers of Kansas City, Springfield and Columbia. For this reason, sometimes 75% of our fishing reports come from the St. Louis lakes, Meramec River and Maramec Spring Park. Of course, along with the reports come emails with comments, questions and complaints, and I've noticed something over the last few years. The Meramec River gets its fair share of complaints, and Maramec Spring Park gets a LOT of complaints -- at least I hear a lot of complaints.
The primary complaints about the park and the Red Ribbon area can be summed up in this manner:
(a) There are only 5 or 6 decent fishing spots along the entire length of the park's spring branch, because the river's been channelized. What this means is that the normal transition of riffle-pool-run-riffle-pool-run has been eliminated. This causes the 5 or 6 decent spots to be over-crowded with fish and fishermen, and this causes increased frustration and appears to be deterring fishermen from wanting to return the park. I base this judgment on fishermen simply telling me they won't return to the park. In all fairness, MDC is trying to address this issue by planting a large number of 1/2-ton bouders throughout the park as structure designed to develop new fishing holes. We're all anxious to see how well this works. The next complaint is related but slightly different.
(b) The dams discourage fish movement between different areas of the river. Now while this can be good if you get "the spot" where the trout are crowded together, the main complaint is that crowds of fish cause crowds of fishermen. There's a second complaint about the dam at the bottom of the park, which some believe is meant to keep fish from escaping to the Meramec River downstream. The original intent of the dam may have been to slow the water flow, however. This effects the Red Ribbon area downstream from the park by decreasing the numbers of rainbow trout in the Meramec River, and it effects the park by decreasing the numbers of brown trout in the park's spring branch (rainbows are only stocked in the park, and browns are only stocked in the Red Ribbon section). The other three Missouri trout parks are wide open at their lower boundary, allowing free migration of trout into and out of the park, giving both park and river fishermen greater access to both species of trout.
(c) Not having bait vs. lure vs. fly zones can be a problem, because the different styles of fishing are not always compatible with one another. For example, if a bait fisherman casts out dough bait and lets it sit on the bottom, it cuts off a wide lane of fishing for those that cast to allow their baits to drift, whether it be someone fishing dough under a bobber or fly fisherman drifting a nymph. It also causes problems when other fishermen want to cast and retrieve spinners or streamers, as crossed and tangled lines become troublesome. We're not blaming bait fishermen for these problems. Afterall, its spin and fly fishermen that are cutting off fishing lanes for bait fishermen as well. Having seperate zones like the other parks would seem to be a possible solution. HOWEVER, with only a handful of decent fishing spots, how would you divide up the river into zones without banishing a group of fishermen to a less productive area?
(d) The fish sanctuary makes fishermen wimper and whine with desire. It's understood that the fish sanctuary is part of the deal struck with the James Foundation. They own the property, so they get to call the shots. Of course, it's completely understandable that they don't want people fishing from the sidewalk that meanders around the hatcheries and the spring pool. But, the water downstream from the spring pool dam is absolutely the best looking fly fishing water in the entire park. Also, when the water temperature makes the fish feel good, they swim upstream. Therefore, it's only a matter of time before the rainbows stocked in the fishable areas move up into the sanctuary. Those that move back down generally only do so in the hottest times of the year. This loss of catchable trout is also frustrating to the MDC -- they are raising trout to be caught, after all.
I think that pretty much sums up the gripes that have been passed on to me. I've spoken to the MDC about these issues, really just to pass on your concerns. At that time, I was encouraged to submit a proposal of regulation changes for consideration by MDC officials. Before I make the move to do this, though, I want to hear from you. What are your opinions of the complaints I've summarized above? Do you have another complaint that you'd like to share? What regulation changes would you like to see? I only ask that you be realistic. Remember, the MDC's goal for the trout parks is to get as many people fishing as possible. Any suggestions that will decrease the number of fishermen will not be taken seriously.
So, to clarify, here's what I need your help with. My plan is to submit a paper that outlines (1) what trout fishermen DO NOT like about the Meramec River and Maramec Spring fishing experiences, and (2) specific recommendations for solving those problems. If I can submit this paper with a few hundred signatures attached, it would certainly add some weight to it.
Lastly, if you would like to see any other changes made at any other Missouri trout areas, feel free to share your opinion.
Thanks folks. Stay warm out there.
First, my apologies for not responding to emails recently. We've been without power for about a week -- it finally came back on for real Friday 1/19 about mid-day. We had a little burp of electricity earlier in the week, and I managed to check email at that time as well, but the power was fairly short-lived. With the storm coming through tonight (3-6 inches of snow + 30mph winds + broken tree limbs hanging by a thread), I expect we'll be in the dark again come Sunday morning. I'll get emails responded to and fishing reports posted as quickly as possible, and I appreciate your patience.
Now, on to the business at hand. If you're a regular visitor to Missouri Trout Hunter, you've probably noticed that St. Louis area trout fishermen tend to be much more active contributors of fishing reports than our visitors from the other urban centers of Kansas City, Springfield and Columbia. For this reason, sometimes 75% of our fishing reports come from the St. Louis lakes, Meramec River and Maramec Spring Park. Of course, along with the reports come emails with comments, questions and complaints, and I've noticed something over the last few years. The Meramec River gets its fair share of complaints, and Maramec Spring Park gets a LOT of complaints -- at least I hear a lot of complaints.
The primary complaints about the park and the Red Ribbon area can be summed up in this manner:
(a) There are only 5 or 6 decent fishing spots along the entire length of the park's spring branch, because the river's been channelized. What this means is that the normal transition of riffle-pool-run-riffle-pool-run has been eliminated. This causes the 5 or 6 decent spots to be over-crowded with fish and fishermen, and this causes increased frustration and appears to be deterring fishermen from wanting to return the park. I base this judgment on fishermen simply telling me they won't return to the park. In all fairness, MDC is trying to address this issue by planting a large number of 1/2-ton bouders throughout the park as structure designed to develop new fishing holes. We're all anxious to see how well this works. The next complaint is related but slightly different.
(b) The dams discourage fish movement between different areas of the river. Now while this can be good if you get "the spot" where the trout are crowded together, the main complaint is that crowds of fish cause crowds of fishermen. There's a second complaint about the dam at the bottom of the park, which some believe is meant to keep fish from escaping to the Meramec River downstream. The original intent of the dam may have been to slow the water flow, however. This effects the Red Ribbon area downstream from the park by decreasing the numbers of rainbow trout in the Meramec River, and it effects the park by decreasing the numbers of brown trout in the park's spring branch (rainbows are only stocked in the park, and browns are only stocked in the Red Ribbon section). The other three Missouri trout parks are wide open at their lower boundary, allowing free migration of trout into and out of the park, giving both park and river fishermen greater access to both species of trout.
(c) Not having bait vs. lure vs. fly zones can be a problem, because the different styles of fishing are not always compatible with one another. For example, if a bait fisherman casts out dough bait and lets it sit on the bottom, it cuts off a wide lane of fishing for those that cast to allow their baits to drift, whether it be someone fishing dough under a bobber or fly fisherman drifting a nymph. It also causes problems when other fishermen want to cast and retrieve spinners or streamers, as crossed and tangled lines become troublesome. We're not blaming bait fishermen for these problems. Afterall, its spin and fly fishermen that are cutting off fishing lanes for bait fishermen as well. Having seperate zones like the other parks would seem to be a possible solution. HOWEVER, with only a handful of decent fishing spots, how would you divide up the river into zones without banishing a group of fishermen to a less productive area?
(d) The fish sanctuary makes fishermen wimper and whine with desire. It's understood that the fish sanctuary is part of the deal struck with the James Foundation. They own the property, so they get to call the shots. Of course, it's completely understandable that they don't want people fishing from the sidewalk that meanders around the hatcheries and the spring pool. But, the water downstream from the spring pool dam is absolutely the best looking fly fishing water in the entire park. Also, when the water temperature makes the fish feel good, they swim upstream. Therefore, it's only a matter of time before the rainbows stocked in the fishable areas move up into the sanctuary. Those that move back down generally only do so in the hottest times of the year. This loss of catchable trout is also frustrating to the MDC -- they are raising trout to be caught, after all.
I think that pretty much sums up the gripes that have been passed on to me. I've spoken to the MDC about these issues, really just to pass on your concerns. At that time, I was encouraged to submit a proposal of regulation changes for consideration by MDC officials. Before I make the move to do this, though, I want to hear from you. What are your opinions of the complaints I've summarized above? Do you have another complaint that you'd like to share? What regulation changes would you like to see? I only ask that you be realistic. Remember, the MDC's goal for the trout parks is to get as many people fishing as possible. Any suggestions that will decrease the number of fishermen will not be taken seriously.
So, to clarify, here's what I need your help with. My plan is to submit a paper that outlines (1) what trout fishermen DO NOT like about the Meramec River and Maramec Spring fishing experiences, and (2) specific recommendations for solving those problems. If I can submit this paper with a few hundred signatures attached, it would certainly add some weight to it.
Lastly, if you would like to see any other changes made at any other Missouri trout areas, feel free to share your opinion.
Thanks folks. Stay warm out there.
posted by Anonymous | 9:18 AM
|
7 Comments
