Wayne SW/MO

Unfortunately this theory doesn't fly on the Niangua. I don't know about the eggs survival in relation to the temperature, at least in regards to a larger window. Smallies do seem to be more particular when it comes to spawning locations. Smallies do better overall, or so it seems in Canadian lakes, Maine, and northern New York lakes, to name a few, which are cold. If you want a reason for Taney being more Largemouth friendly, I suspect its simply a lack of good spawning areas for the Smallies.

You can't think in human terms when it comes to fish. If a Bass lives in Taney, he's going to live in Taney, he has no place else to go. I suspect the numbers aren't great because of the lack of spawning areas. They also have one more predator to guard the nest against, the trout.

There area few, but they have been there since before Table Rock and there aren't a lot. There's a reason they don't do well, I just don't know what it is. I suppose it could be spawning gravel, but there is some, maybe not enough.

I agree your description is accurate, but someone mention watching the fly line and I think the point the leader enters the water is the indicator. As far as an indicator goes I do believe it can be detrimental, especially where its heavily used. A couple more points, the tippet for nymphing should be soft, even when high sticking, but short. I also think 9-10' rods are best.

I guess what I was saying Phil was that during much of the year the changes in flow affect the west more than the east, or so it seems. There are exceptions that I can't give any accurate information on, but a heavy rain can turn the east muddy and that has to be warmer I would think. I agree with what you say, but to me the problem with the lower lake is two fold, less trout stocked, and they are hard to find. I've seen the trucks dump and I don't belive they drop near as many downstream. I don't know that that is necessarily a bad thing, there is more pressure in the Branson area. I do think they dump the fish by guessing, that would be the reason they won't give out figures, they don't know. Trout prefer current and that's hard to find the farther downstream you go. As the lake gets wider and the current more subtle I think it makes the fish that much harder to locate.

I haven't fished all, but the Eleven Point would get my vote among those I have fished.

No, it was BS and then TR, Beaver was last. BS is almost 10 years older. Chief there isn't a lot of difference normally in the temperature, but I believe its more stable the farther east you go. There's also more cover and creek inputs to offer some warmer areas. The east end doesn't get the fish the west end gets either.

Incredible!

If I'm not mistaken the Commision hss said the program must be self sustaining. I would also imagine there has to be some wiggle room in that. The wiggle room might evolve into a fee hike.

I agree, but evidence indicates that stocking doesn't work, and they certainly don't need more attention in the form of access and failed stockings. Stream habitat would help, but in light of environmental changes protection is probably going be the most bang for the buck. If we continue wet years and the aquifer makes some recovery then the transfer of some fish through egg collection might pay dividends. They do it with Walleye, so they have the expertise. As ar as putting more money into Smallies, I'm against it at this time. More money means more exposure and the population can't handle that in my opinion. I'm happy that many bank bound fishermen have trout to pursue, keeps them off of the Smallie waters

There is a big difference in species survival and specimen survival. They do survive in Taney. Thank the Heavens for that!

Any discussion of trout expenses should include the economic impact to those areas affected. One figure, that is several years old, gives the Branson area 13.3 million. I know the impact on laclede county, and to some degree Dallas county, is certainly significant. The revenue doesn't stop there, it extends to fly shops across the state and even the state government coffers.

Trout are very adept at finding seams and any thing that breaks the current can create one. The water is always slightly slower on the bottom due to friction, and if you add a small rock trout will use that area. Trout, at least Bows, don't seem to be attracted to structure that hides them, but to structure that breaks or slows the current they prefer. There are two kinds of habitat for trout, one that creates holding areas, and another that creates food producing areas. The tailwater area is the most is probably in need of both. There are a lot forces working on the food environment, from generation flows to shuffling and wading. There's also a lack of current breaks. Any current breaks have to withstand the effects of generation, while not depositing gravel from holes produced immediately downstream creating more shallow water.

My point is that Taney, at least in the Branson area gets a lot of out of state visitors, more so than Bennett for instance. The trout at Bennett are produced on the state dime, while all or some of the Taney fish are on the federal dime. My point is I doubt that the state is losing any money on Taney, and may well be making some. I could also point out that a lot more fish are kept at Bennett than I've seen kept in the upper region of Taney.

Not the same, you have to by a yearly trout tag at Taney. My point was, and is, that Taney has a lot of one trip fishermen from many places inand out of Missouri. I was also under the impression that MDC doesn't pay for Taney trout, the Corps does for mitigation. Now if that's true, then the MDC receives license fees for a resource that cost nothing. I know that the Federal hatchery provides a part of the fish. I have also been under the assumption that a part of the support for Shepherd of The Hills comes from the feds?

I don't want to get too far beyond my knowledge, but I would bett that the MDC makes good money off of Taney. The bulk of the money put in is from the Corps, but the tag money goes to MDC. Don't forget there is no daily tag on Taney, so visitors have to buy some kind of license and a trout tag. What do you think Phil, about the profit/loss for the MDC? You see a lot of license sales I'm sure.

I would think that the only thing that would increase bank, or wade fishing during generation would be wing dams, and that won't fly. Wing dams would raise the level and put back pressure on the turbines. I think working towards holding more fish in the upper end by creating more places they feel secure would be the answer. It seems that anytime there is water say 18" deep or more, you'll find trout. If you ban boats then the fishing all but ends in the winter.

Eric I'm only familiar with the Niangua, so I have to speak only of it. The trout do move differently, as you said, in winter than in summer. I think many would be surprised that they will move several miles above Bennett in the winter, and at least to Prosperine to the north. In the summer however they will still be just above Prosperine, and there is some good fishing below Barclay. I have no idea what the river can sustain in trout, smallies and Goggle eye, but I imagine it has its limitations.

Just for fun Eric, how far down, or upstream do you think they travel? Wrench I know that there are a reasonable number of Browns between the highway access and Barclay. The old fella that has taken my son and grandson out loads up on them, comparatively speaking. When we speak of habitat improvement in Taney, what part are we reffering too? Given the fact the trout don't reproduce, what would be gained from any changes? I can see creating holes and chutes in the upper end being benificial in attracting trout for the fishermen, but I don't see it really benefiting the trout.

Loose, bloody?

That's true, but they compete with the smallies in the Niangua and the bottom line is they are kept from the Niangua also. The only saving grace in the Niangua is that many don't fish it except at the put in and only the week or so following a stocking. Not all the stocking is done at the 64 access, but most don't know where the other sites are.

No one has told us what happens if they don't stock the urban lakes? Does this practice keep the hatcheries operational, would they would be closed early? Does it keep skilled personnel working? There are a lot of comments about doing more for native species, but what waters can support more? Do we encourage keep and kill so that more fish can be stocked? Lets not forget that the winter programs at the parks is the same program, let the fish graze in a pasture rather than feed them. The monkey comparison isn't without merit, but Browns aren't native to the Niangua, or North America.

I would think that the concrete stops used for vehicles could create holes that would attract a lot of fish, If they were laid 90 degrees to the flow direction. They could be anchored with rebar, just as they are on land. They should create some nice shallow holes without creating bars behind the holes. They wouldn't create anymore of a hazard to boats then rocks would, and probably not as much. As far as boats go, no operator should expect a nice clean bottom in a flow, if they can't negotiate anything else they should stay out of the area.

Don't forget that Branson, Forsyth, Hollister Rockaway and some other small towns had world class smallmouth fishing, before it was determined that the river and the area wasn't worth what the crops from the Arkansas delta were worth. Its not as if the area is getting a gift of trout fishing.

I can see a hazard in the gas dock area where there is a lot of traffic. If it also involves the leased docks, then I have a real problem with that. The next question is, if all docks are included, are they going to ticket dock lessor's who fish off the dock or from their moored boats?