I have received photos from two fishing buddies who have just caught huge fish on the Missouri. Not sure just what section they are fishing, but the fish are huge.
Printable View
I have received photos from two fishing buddies who have just caught huge fish on the Missouri. Not sure just what section they are fishing, but the fish are huge.
Byron, I am heading that way the last week of June. The flow still looks good, especially when looking at how some of the other rivers are doing. Just got off the phone with a fly fisher who fished it earlier in the year. He said he caught the biggest Brown and the biggest Rainbow he has ever caught and also had one of the worst days on a river with winds blowing him back up the river. Yep, sounds like the Missouri. Larry ---sagefisher---
Larry,
I think my buddies are around Bozeman.
I'm going to Last Chance for 3 weeks in mid-June. Do you need to float where you fish the Mo.?
Never managed to get there in the 4 years I lived around Bozeman, but I fished it once on the way through ten years or so back. Wasn't impressed, never returned.
This big one was caught out of there a few years back....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zAxjBCb1YA
Byron. That area is totally different from where I fish the Missouri. They must have been near the headwaters of the Missouri. I fish it from Holter Dam (Craig or Wolf Creek, MT) down to Cascade, MT. That is a 28 mile tailwater caused by the Holter Dam. That area does allow some wading but you are rather restricted to just a few areas. However, many people just wade fish then drive to the next area. The best way to fish it is to float the river and it is an easy river to float. Many people use pontoon boatsm mainly as taxis to get to the next gravel bar. I once saw one guy in a float tube but for safety reasons that was really wrong. Where ever you fish it the Missouri can produce some great fish. Larry ---sagefisher---
I agree that it is best fished with a boat, however, there are lots of places below Holter that are readily accessed without one. For a number of years before I had a boat, I fished one particular 1/2 mile section of the Missouri for a solid week or more, staying in the back of my truck right along the river, and wade fishing. The fishing was so good that I rarely went elsewhere on the river to fish. It is that good.Quote:
Originally Posted by sagefisher
Speaking of big fish, I also used to fish there after dark. One night, a guy I often fished there with caught a 36" brown on a dry fly, that was measured by the Fish and Game Warden, who happened to come by at the time. Early in the summer, when the caddis are hatching in epic numbers, we often had a dozen or more big fish feeding within a few feet from us right near the shore, and we routinely caught fish of 20" or longer (tape measured).
John, He didn't say but he fishes the Methow; the Columbia River and the Yakima River in eastern WA a lot and they have some big fish. I personally have caught some really large bows and browns on the Missouri and had one on that was the biggest I have ever seen, salmon sized. He decided to stop playing around and broke me off. But, 22 inch fish are fairly common on the Missouri and bigger. Heading that way John? Larry ---sagefisher---
John,
Here is one of them. Perhaps "large" is a better description? Sure looked huge at first glance.
The report is that they are fishing the Cascade Mother's Day Caddis.........
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...ps4e4317fd.jpg
and the other guy
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...psd2823ab0.jpg
Those do not meet my definition of 'huge', sorry. Nice fish, but those live in a lot of rivers.
Yes, they do (live in a lot of rivers). I will take them anytime!!
DG: what is your definition of huge? I think I said perhaps "large" is a better definition on second look. How does "nice" compare to "large"?
Both of those are beautiful Browns in my book, no matter where they were caught. Just look at all of those vivid black spots the entire length of that Brown in the top picture.
It is interesting - the words we use to describe the size of fish.
Yes, it is all subjective and based on our experiences and the water(s) we fish. Those who fish small streams which are primarily inhabited by "smaller" fish might feel that an 18" trout is "huge" - and it may be "huge" for that particular stream.
In my fishing (for trout), I have come to use the following terms:
"nice fish" or "good" fish - range of 14" to 18"
"big fish" - 18" to 21"
"large fish" - 21" to 24"
"huge fish" - above 24"
This one is a hen, so doesn't look as large as a male, but I call this one "huge". Everyone with me said it was "huge" even though it was in Patagonia.
http://i1101.photobucket.com/albums/...ps326613fb.jpg