Any Developments / Further Discussions Regarding Zoning?

[txoutdoorsman]

Had my first trip up to LMF since the tremendous flood, and was pleasantly surprised to find some really good, fishable water.

That said, the number of fish was certainly not what we're used to seeing.  I'm certain this is due in no small part to the fact that some fishermen are keeping just about everything with lips (I believe I read a post where someone had a walleye, albino rb, brown and bluegill on the same stringer).

For artificial bait / fly-fishermen, dedicated zones:

1. helps ensure successful fishing opportunities;

2. supports the local economy (many, if not most fly-fishermen are from out of town)

I'm not a bait hater - just hope we can find a happy medium for everybody.

Are we merely waiting for signage to be replaced or is re-zoning being discussed?

[jonbo]

My understanding is they plan to keep the zones the same as they were before the flood.

[txoutdoorsman]

Thanks Jonbo. Any idea on timeline?

[Fenwick]

During the Lower Mountain Fork River Foundation meeting last Saturday June 27 at the park's Forest Heritage Center there were discussions about this very topic. NOTHING is carved in stone just yet as far as new ODWC fishing regulations go and the TEMPORARY suspension of red zone regulations remains within the Zone 1 park boundaries. Red zone regulations still apply down in Zone 2. You will recall the wooden footbridge over the mouth of Lost Creek where Lost Creek was fed from the Cold Hole had once served as the landmark delineating the upper border of the red zone. Today neither the landmark footbridge nor Lost Creek exists so there is SPECULATION that the new landmark identifying the upper border of the red zone could POSSIBLY be the big gap in the 259A roadway at the former location of the Cold Hole roadway bridge which also no longer exists. The POSSIBLE red zone could thus run from the big gap in the road where the Cold Hole roadway bridge once was downriver to the present Evening Hole bridge. Maybe. Perhaps. Official decisions by the ODWC are unknown at this time. As for new fishing zone signage it would come from the state...eventually. If you have not already done so you might visit the Lower Mountain Fork River Foundation website to review the minutes of the most recent meeting to get the latest about your park and river: lmfrfoundation.org/june-27th-public-board-meeting/

-Fenwick

[txoutdoorsman]

Thank you Fenwick. Great information, and yes, I will check out the LMFRF site.

[paul01]

Does anyone know whether there is a safe place to cross the river in the general vicinity of the cold hole bridge?

[dainw]

I crossed below cold bridge. I think it was the last pool before the river turns the corner into the bluffs. I made it ok, but it was a little hairy. Water got about waist deep (I'm 6'5) and there's a decent amount of current in that spot as well.

[golferjeff]

OK - river crossings. Magick and I did make a dedicated effort to find a few safe for Human AND canine.

1) The same place where the hole BELOW cold hole ended and narrowed. the same rocks are still there amazingly. The water is knee to thigh deep and kind of swift, but very crossable. Magick made it pretty easily. There is no other crossable water until you get all the way up to the power line hole. For myself, the waterfall just above the 'white pipe' is crossable. You can lean on the waterfall and SLOWLY work your way across. It gets about waist deep and very churning water. You need a wading staff here.

2) There are a few crossings between the 'trail' hole and cardiac. BUT, there also quite a few 'Holy S&!t' eddies and pools in this area. The water is still quite dirty, so you take your chances. If I could not touch bottom with my 54" wading staff, I turned around. There is some slower water that I sent Magick across just to watch him swim. He was a little pissed that I did not follow . Then he turned around and swam back.

3) Lots of the slower water areas are covered by algae and VERY slick. wading and walking is a thoughtful process, there is no walk in the park like there used to be.

4) We did not attempt to wade or swim from the rockpile upstream to the bend. Too fast, deep, dirty, and unstable.

5) The former EH is crossable for its length, except for the one or two seams in the center (over 5' deep).

6) Denny nailed it in another post - the new Spillway Creek is an either/or affair for most of its length. It is difficult to cross. Most older folks travel up the east bank. Magick and I went up the west bank and it was TOUGH and HOT. After the trail hole, we did not see another person on the west bank for about a 1/2 mile.

[paul01]

dainw and golferjeff, Thanks for your comments on post-flood river crossings on Spillway Creek. Since I am 5'9", it sounds like the best bet for someone my size (with the possible exception of The Evening Hole) is to choose one side of the river to fish, and NOT attempt to cross to the other side!

[Fenwick]

The LMFRF e-mail below arrived Friday Dec. 18 and addresses some "hot topic" items often bantered about here in the boards. You can now present your opinions a bit further than just in here and submit them to the ODWC as there is a link where you can review proposed ODWC rules and regulations for the river and submit your comments. Seems what we thought about the new red zone isn't so just yet and the proposed change is really really really gonna put some lawn chair fishermen out of sorts (Aww, gee whiz) when the wardens and rangers begin active enforcement provided that the proposed items go into effect. Your comments supportive or otherwise need to arrive by January 8 2016 so USE THAT LINK or mailing address because you're only preaching to the choir in here. Ya know, in a way I'm thinking that I'm putting out fires with gasoline by posting the e-mail but here goes...
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Board, Members, and Friends,
This came to me today from one of our board members. I have been aware of this coming for a while. I am asking each of you to follow the links and respond. They really do want our input.
The big change is, since the flood and the change in the river, to make the Red Zone easier for everyone to understand. This will be done by making the Red Zone go from Cold Hole Bridge to Evening Hole Bridge. Easy to see, easy to understand, and easy to enforce. Please support the change.
The one thing that didn't change, that Don Groom (ODWC) and I both thought would help, is lowering the daily limit on trout. Since more people are fishing the river, trout is more expensive, and the State refuses to increase the contract limits, we were thinking that 4 is better than 6. But that is up for you to decide, if you even care.
The ODWC has released the proposed changes to the OK fishing rules. One of them extends the catch and release area from the old, destroyed highway bridge to the evening hole bridge. You can see all the changes proposed at the web site below. Maybe by early spring we can have some relief in the cold hole to evening hole area.

To read all of the proposed rule changes, go online to  wildlifedepartment.com/aboutodwc/public_meeting.htm

Anyone wishing to make comments on any of the proposed rule changes may do so in one of three ways:

Fill out the online public comment form at wildlifedepartment.com. Online public comment period will close at 4:30 p.m. Jan. 8, 2016.
Write your comments in a letter and mail to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Re: Public Comment, P.O. Box 53465, Oklahoma City, OK 73152. Letters must be received by 4:30 p.m. Jan. 8, 2016.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to Everyone,

Patrick Waters

[mirvc17]

It's been nearly a year since bag limits (specifically for the LMF) were discussed. Anyone know of possible rule changes? With all of the discussion of "wild" trout, restoration efforts lately and such, I thought this might be appropriate topic to talk about.

What I also find curious is that the Blue River has a catch and release area (that I've fished) for most of the trout season, and then for the last month it's open to harvest. From my perspective, I don't find the Blue River to be more special than the LMF in regards to trout. It can't sustain a trout population year round let alone support trout reproduction. The C&R area for the Blue River seems to be the geared for those seeking solitude and a little more adventure getting to their fishing location with a likelihood of finding some trout.

To go back to the bag limit discussion...

Are the politics of the tri-state region and the drawing of visitors from 3 states (probably 4 if people from Louisiana come up) so great and there's a 'demand' of 6 fish per day by anglers that want their money's worth? Would a limit of four make more sense when you're trying to restore the river? Would changing the Evening Hole to C&R help?

Excuse me if I'm ignorant on any of these issues. I'm not as familiar with the stream politics as many on here are...

[dainw]

Interesting question JP. I'm not but very up on the streamside politics myself, but I do know that for as long as I've been coming here, the blue zone regs have been the same. As long as I've been on this board, people have been complaining about the regs. I agree that 6 is too many fish but I'm starting to wonder if the regulations will really ever change? I'd loved see the bag limits reduced but that would also probably mean less fish stocked in the river every year. Maybe not as big a deal if that helps wild populations though. I think there are some things that could be done to help the fishing that don't necessarily involve cutting bag limits. Things like:

-Cleaning out the low flow pipes or whatever that's called to get colder water into zone III creating more fishable water year round. For the most part catch and keep crowd sticks to zone I. If we gave them incentive to go to zone III, this would perhaps ease some of the pressure on fish in the park.

-Bring back the rearing pen project.

-implement a minimum flow regime in zone II

-Perhaps start closing the river to fishing during the hottest part of the day when water temps reach critical levels in the summer like they do in other states.

-Close off sections of river in blue zones that are wel known spawning grounds during the spawn. Don't want anyone keeping spawners.

None of those things involve lowering bag limits or rezoning, things that probably are met with pretty stiff opposition from the state.

The other side of the coin on that though is that if we do what it takes to have a "world class fishery" however we define that, then we have a whole new set of problems. If this is the type of place that starts drawing people from not just surrounding states but from all over the country, can this river really support that? The guides would probably love it but for the average weekend warrior what does that do to the overall fishing experience?

[okieman71]

Good Ideas. Dain I think the single most important possibility noted in your post would be to clean out the low flow pipes at the ReReg Dam. That being said, not really sure how possible it is. Its something that was set up to be done in the past and then it didn't happen. Every person that I have mentioned it to seems to think it would very likely open up some more fishable water in Z2 and of course get cooler water to Z3. This would seem to be a no brainer but from what I hear, the "powers that be" either aren't overly receptive to the idea at this time or it isn't a priority. One thing is for sure. While the LMF is advertised as 12 miles of trout water, we all know that over 50% of that is unfishable. I have heard a time or two that there were discussions to possibly go deeper in the lake to get the water which would make it colder when it hits the river. Im not sure of the validity of that. If that is an option, it would make sense to do that and clean out the pipes which could create a much better year around water temp in all three zones and possibly quite a bit more fishable water. Seems like a win win to me but Im sure there are folks that are in those high places that would quickly shoot down either or or both of those possibilities. The LMF as is really can't sustain the number of anglers that are showing up. I seen those numbers increasing at least for the foreseeable future.

[tsfarling]

I discussed the low flow pipes with the Corps of Engineers. They had a hydrologist and inspection team test the CFS coming out of the Rereg dam and have found them to be flowing how they should be. So, it's their word and what you want to believe I guess. Temps in Zone 3 are bad about 300 yards away from the rereg dam during the summer but trout are only stocked there in the winter.

[okieman71]

Not really sure what I believe but there are folks that know much more than me that think otherwise. Of course to say that would certainly defend their position of not cleaning out the pipes. After seeing what happened with the first flood, Im not sure I put much stock in the COE.

[dainw]

Dec 2, 2016 16:15:45 GMT -6 tsfarling said:

I discussed the low flow pipes with the Corps of Engineers. They had a hydrologist and inspection team test the CFS coming out of the Rereg dam and have found them to be flowing how they should be. So, it's their word and what you want to believe I guess. Temps in Zone 3 are bad about 300 yards away from the rereg dam during the summer but trout are only stocked there in the winter.

This is where the idea is coming from, the foundation website. lmfrfoundation.org/reregulation-dam-cleanout/

Not really sure what the deal is with the discrepancy here or what to believe anymore, at least with regards to that project. 

[tsfarling]

Yeah, I have read that and talked with Pat at the foundation about it before at length. It is hard to say if that's the real situation or not unless someone goes down there and watches them inspect it and takes their word for it, you know?

Dec 2, 2016 16:44:45 GMT -6 dainw said:

Dec 2, 2016 16:15:45 GMT -6 tsfarling said:

I discussed the low flow pipes with the Corps of Engineers. They had a hydrologist and inspection team test the CFS coming out of the Rereg dam and have found them to be flowing how they should be. So, it's their word and what you want to believe I guess. Temps in Zone 3 are bad about 300 yards away from the rereg dam during the summer but trout are only stocked there in the winter.

This is where the idea is coming from, the foundation website. lmfrfoundation.org/reregulation-dam-cleanout/

Not really sure what the deal is with the discrepancy here or what to believe anymore, at least with regards to that project. 

SaveSave

[golferjeff]

Short of a catastrophic failure of the re-reg, nothing is going to be done down there. The foundation has moved on to other, more accessible goals.

This is still a good time to head down there.... winter in Z3 can be awesome.