Chief Grey Bear

"There is a fundamental difference between birds(Native American) changing their ranges because of climate change, and fish changing their ranges. Birds(Native American) are simply much more mobile than fish. They can fly north, or delay their migration. Fish have to have those connections I've talked about. Is it possible that warming water temps have allowed..... OK, OK , no I am not going there....just a little humor. Yes Al, I consider the Smallmouth just as native you and everyone else. Just to but your but, Laker made a very good point that was completly passed over. It is one that I agree with. It is very possible. Now what, what shall the next discussion be........

That is all I have been trying to say. I won't even begin to argue as to whether they came from the upper Mississippi or the Ohio system.

Don't apologize to me. It is obvious that it appears that I don't know what I am talking about. Therefore it doesn't appear that I can add to this discussion. So on that, I'll just let you guy's carry on.

The Mother Ship is constant change and/or evolution. As was said on another thread of this subject, we appear to be experiencing a warming trend that I believe has precipitated movement by the Kentucky bass into waters that it has not been known to previously inhabit. We must also remember that the borders of the historical home range of both of these species overlap in our area, so we are going to get movement into new territories. Especially with the warmer winters we have been having late. But warmer winters are not all that is warming the waters. One of the most significant habitat changes to occur is the removing of trees along not just the bigger streams but, mostly the smaller feeder streams. No shade means more heating by the sun. Just a few degrees difference can have a huge change and I think we are seeing that. And it is not only bass on the move. Birds that have historically been, say, south of the Mason-Dixon line are increasingly being found well north. And some mammals are on the move also. The Armadillo for instance. It's origins are from South/Central American. Do we consider it native to Missouri? I guess we have to. It wasn't transplanted. So without using a large amount of bandwidth, that is it in a nutshell.

Thanks very much lunkin. I am just amazed at the size of crawdad that had to be! Not only is the pincher huge but look at the size of those antenna? Looks like steel cable! And then you think about the size of that meal, and this bass took on a big ol crankbait too! All I can say is WOW!

By all means head down to the local book store or Walmarts and get you a De Lorme Missouri map. It will be less than $20 and will be one of the best investments you ever made! It is a big red map in a book style. Personally I think it is the best investment you can make for learning your area. Get that, a tank of gas, toss in the rods, and a saturday with you and the boys and you will come home with more memories that you can shake a stick at. And just repeat next saturday! I would like to suggest getting some waders. For you and the boys. Don't limit your wading to the warm water months. Plus you will want to do some trout fishing at some point in time during the winter months.

Here is the point I am trying to make: Neither Kentucky bass nor Smallmouth bass are native to the the waters of Missouri. Per say. It is my belief that Browns entered the waters from the Ohio river system at least a couple hundred years ago. I am more inclined to say it was much earlier than that. Like say probably a few thousand years at least. You can argue with me about that but you can't argue with science. Everything I have been able to read on the subject from those that have dedicated their lives and made their living from studying early history of fish, seems to suggest just that. So, will Kentucky's destroy the smallmouth fishing of those river systems that we are talking about? No, not in my opinion. Will it be different than from what you were used to? Yes to say the least. Personally I like fishing a stream with diveristy. Al suggested that a stream with nothing but smallmouth will produce bigger numbers of bigger smallmouth. I can say with all honesty that I can take you to a few streams that are at least 90 to 95 percent brownies. I can also honestly say that to catch a 15 incher from those waters is not an easy feat. Sure you will catch the dickens out of 8 to 12 inchers but you will have a tough time one bigger. Are they in there? Sure, but in very small numbers. I can also take you to streams with a variety of black bass. You won't catch 50 brownies a day, but the ones you do catch, most of them will be in the 12 to 15 inch range. The majority of the bass of all kinds seem to be larger. Now I am not saying that everything is bigger but, as I think back on trips of yesteryear, it does seem that way. Al, your point about the MDC Master Angler Award is well taken. I am not sure though how many people know of the program or participate. I know of it but have yet to take advantage of it. That is one reason I am not sure that would be a good barometer to gauge by. I guess though maybe in the end we all should just carry a box cutter with us and we can each determine what species we want and what ones we don't.

Could someone toss eric a lifeline? He is in over his head again. All I can say is for as much time as you spend reading and posting on this board, I would think you could use some of it to research for yourself. I think you may be quite surpised at what you would discover. Anyway, I am outta here until Monday. Let the punches fly.

Right on Al. I have believed that for as long as I have been studying bass. I still don't think we are making connection on the "replace otter with Kentucky bass" When I posted that, we just happen to be talking bass. But lets say we were speaking possums and I wanted to insert armadillo. That is what I was meaning by using that analogy. But like I said in another post and you said here, since record keeping didn't start until the early 1800's, we can't really say with much positivity what was native and what wasn't. We only know that they have been here since we showed up.

Great story! At least they didn't stop drinking!!!!

All research seems to confirm that Smallmouth bass are historically native to the Ohio and Tennessee rivers and their tributaries and also to the Great Lakes the St. Lawrence and their tributaries. The eastern boundary were the Appalachian Mountains and on the west by the Mississippi river. Now if one were to take a quick look at the drainage in this area, you would see that most of the rivers will either flow into the Ohio or one of the Great Lakes or the St. Lawrence. My point in that is Missouri is on the very western fringe of that. Meaning that it is adopted by most that more than likely smallmouth migrated towards the Mississippi and into Missouri waterways than the other way around. Record keeping or even reports of fish caught in Missouri were not started until most likely in the early 1800's at best. So at that, since that is when records first started appearing, and they were in Missouri waters by that time, then we consider them native. There is no way of knowing when smallmouth entered into Missouri waters. But I firmly believe that smallmouth came from the Ohio and then into Missouri waters. You will not find any information on smallmouth that is specific by river when they showed up or even how they migrated. You will just have to consume all information that is out there and develop your own synopsis. So, no, Eric you won't get any "credible" info, but what Al said in that post mimic's all information that is out there on the web.

I guess it was this that threw me: "The original native range of smallies was the Ohio and Tennessee river systems, the upper Mississippi river system, and the rivers flowing into the Great Lakes. The Ozarks was somewhat separate from all these areas." But like I said, there are other places that you can also read like information. I would venture to guess it is in the interpretation of the reader as to volumn of correctness.

From the only source you seem to deem credible. There are other souces that state the same but you will have to research them yourself. Post #3 Shovelnose Sturgeon Group: OAF Fishing Contributor Posts: 852 Joined: 20-December 05 Member No.: 218 From what I've been able to gather, the genetics of Ozark smallmouths are pretty confused. There was so much milk can stocking in the early 1900s that there are probably no pure strains of Neoshos left. The various river systems may have all had slightly different strains originally. If you look at the connections between river systems, you can see why this might be so. The Neoshos were native to rivers flowing into the Arkansas River, and rivers like the Mulberry and Big Piney in Arkansas may have had Neosho strain fish originally. And since the White River flows into the Arkansas or thereabouts where both come into the Mississippi, chances are the White River fish (including Current, Black, and Eleven Point) may have had fish similar to the Neoshos originally. I remember reading a genetic study somewhere that said that the fish in the streams flowing directly into the Mississippi in MO (the Meramec river system and smaller streams like Saline Creek) were a little different genetically from the fish in the rest of the Ozarks. And it's just possible that smallies were not even native to the rivers in MO that flow into the Missouri River, like the Gasconade and Osage river systems (including the Niangua and Pomme De Terre). It's been pretty well known that rock bass were not native to these streams. As an artist, I've noticed that smallmouths on the Buffalo in AR look a little different than the Meramec River system smallies I'm used to catching. Maybe slightly different genetics? The original native range of smallies was the Ohio and Tennessee river systems, the upper Mississippi river system, and the rivers flowing into the Great Lakes. The Ozarks was somewhat separate from all these areas. And there are differences between Great Lakes type fish and Tennessee/Ohio river system fish in general body shape. The Great Lakes type fish and the upper Mississippi fish are blockier and deeper through the body than Tennessee/Ohio fish, which tend to be pretty slender if they are river fish, and football shaped if they are reservoir fish. The Ozark fish in general look like Tennessee river fish rather than upper Mississippi fish, but they are a different strain with less potential to get really large. That's the reason why the top size of Ozark reservoir smallmouths seems to be about 7 pounds while fish in some of the Tennessee and Kentucky reservoirs, in the same latitude and with a similar growing season, have produced lots of fish bigger than that, including the world record. Since Neosho strain fish don't get very big, could it be that smallies all over the Ozarks are "contaminated" with Neosho genes?

That is just what I am talking about. I mean the quality of the photo is good but the subject.....just like you said...being there.

Brownies aren't native to those waterways either. Or so I have read.

I think you misunderstood the meat of my question. I am wondering if the following would also be true for Kentucky bass? Whenever you introduce (or re-introduce) a creature to an ecosystem where it's niche was not being filled before, it will often thrive to the point of overpopulation until the ecosystem "adjusts" to it. In the case of otters, I think it has taken their prey species, especially game fish, a while to adjust to their presence. I suspect that eventually otters and their prey will reach equilibrium.

Personally I think that is a beautiful photo Hank! To me it speaks volumes about the Ozarks! I can't think of a better way to spend time. There is another web site that I frequent and somebody is all the time posting a "Where am I" photo. I had thought about doing it here but never did. Maybe you have started something! I hope so. I can't wait to see some of the photo's! I don't have a clue where you were but I would like to visit someday. Great photo once again!

I get the same itch too. Could we take this 2006 post of yours and just change "otter" to "kentucky bass"? There is some question as to how abundant otters originally were in the Ozarks, with some authorities asserting that they were always rather rare. This doesn't really make much sense to me, since I can't imagine the Ozarks were not good otter habitat. It's true that conditions on many streams are much different, and much less favorable to fish and other aquatic creatures, than they once were. I think it's true that the streams that suffer most are those with degraded habitat, especially lack of large, deep wintering pools. I also think, and hope, that we've seen the worst of the adverse impact of otters. Whenever you introduce (or re-introduce) a creature to an ecosystem where it's niche was not being filled before, it will often thrive to the point of overpopulation until the ecosystem "adjusts" to it. In the case of otters, I think it has taken their prey species, especially game fish, a while to adjust to their presence. I suspect that eventually otters and their prey will reach equilibrium. I think the Ozarks is a richer place with otters, even though I don't like that they have really done a number on some stream smallmouth populations. I think and hope that eventually their re-introduction will be a positive.

I see no reason anyone should have to apologize for that.

Uhhh, well, Laker, it looks like I would be swimming upstream again. And I think instead of doing that, I better follow what I said and sit this one out. But boy, don't think for a minute I don't want to.

Before I ask this question let me say that I learned my lesson. I have taken my beating and name calling and am going on. As Phil said if you are going to post here, you gotta have thick skin. Question; How long does a stocker trout have to live in the "wild" before it is considered wild? Is it once it stops eating its daily tofu pellet diet? A few days? Weeks? Never? I can see and probably agree with all opinions in some form. I am going to sit this one out though, so I would really like to hear all of your opinions.

I hope this comes out. Look closely inside the mouth of this Brownie. I caught this fish on a trip last week with Buzz and Dylan. When I looked down his throat after removing my plug, imagine my surprise when I spied this huge appendage protruding out!

Yeah sure. I told you I would take you fishing if you ever come down this way. And yes I will pass you a beverage from the cooler as I stated earlier. And those offers still stand. For anyone. I am really not the A-hole that I can make myself out to be. Well...sometimes. I know it turned from a conversation into a debate but, that was not my intention.

One thing you can always count on from me Al, we may have minor dissagreements on our journey but, I assure you, we have the same destination! I will meet you there. Rod in hand. You are absolutely correct Greg. I couldn't agree more. It just seemed kind of odd to be scolded like a redheaded step child when I was the one giving the info/opinion. Wouldn't you agree?

Great post as always Al. I thank you for the time you spend sharing with us. But I thought our difference in opinion was really whether there had been habitat change or not. And it appears that we have both steered off of that course.