Chief Grey Bear

You are right. How could I have an opinion that differs from the OPINION of Al's current stance? An opinion that agreed with Al in 2007. An opinion that is the same as that of the MDC's that has been studying that river for more than 45 years. And that is just what it is an opinion. That is just what Al is sharing, his opinion. You keep claiming that I am on some high horse looking down upon you. Get over yourself. Talk about being a know it all. If I was you I sure wouldn't be pointing that finger. I don't know how anybody that has lived in this state only as long as you have knows and posts on every waterway forum on this board. I liked your advice on Crane Creek. Have you fished it yet?

That is funny coming from you.

Al, Chief Graybear...you will note that the article you quoted basically says degraded habitat is a guess as to why spotted bass invaded the Meramec. Well I didn't read it as a guess but, questioning, you the reader, if you had also noticed the changes that have occurred. There was no doubt in my mind as to what they were pointing to as the reasons. You will also note that it wasn't very specific about when the degradation of habitat started, while it was very specific about when the spotted bass invasion began. Yes I did. And it struck me that you both quoted "the last 30 years" Now of course some of what the MDC spoke of was, as you said, started in the 20th century. But they also spoke of developments that have been increasing in occurrence in the last 30 years. Record keeping has changed quite drastically since the 20th century. There just wasn't much record keeping of destruction. I think that we will both agree that by the time 1985 rolled around, the MDC pretty well knew the whereabouts of species in their charge through countless hours of research. So I'll say it again...the habitat back in the 1960s (on Big River) and early 1970s was certainly no better than it was in the 1980s or 1990s. Most of the really bad land use practices that resulted in habitat degredation on these streams happened in the early 20th century. By the 1930s and 1940s these rivers were in REALLY bad shape. Better land use practices after that made habitat improve steadily into the mid-1980s when spotted bass first appeared. This is from a 2007 post of yours: I grew up on Big River is southeast MO. I've been fishing the upper river for more than 45 years, and have spent a lot of time studying its environmental problems. It is by far the most impaired Ozark stream in MO, due to lead mining, over development, tiff mining, and poor land use practices in the watershed. Even with all those problems, it was once a terrific smallmouth stream, but now spotted bass are providing the latest and worst assault on smallmouth populations. I just think that land use practices in all forms are the deadliest form of destruction that can happen to a waterway. I also think there is validity in what the MDC article states. Just my take. While on the subject of Kentuckies migrating into the mentioned waterways, didn't brownies also migrate into these waters? If I recall correctly I think it has been reported that they migrated from the upper Mississippi and Ohio rivers systems? And if that it correct I wonder, and I know we don't have any means of positively knowing, how quickly they migrating up these waterways? As fast as the Kentuckies? I would think it would be a possibility anyway. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I was trying to make a point. I just don't want to make another post that, though is not following along the trend, is informative. I just offered up some info from the MDC that is in contradiction of an earlier post. You make your own assumption as to the validity of the information contained within.

Instead of a post that some would consider being a smart azz, I will just offer this. And say there must be some data. Since the mid-1980s, Meramec River watershed fisheries biologists have noticed something interesting. It began almost imperceptibly, but has since gained plenty of strength. In some locations, it has completely changed things; in others, things remain normal. Some anglers have noticed it, too. What is this phenomenon? Jet boats? Success of plastic lures? No, it seems many Meramec River watershed streams have become The Spot for spots. Spotted (Kentucky) bass, that is! Spotted bass are not native to the Meramec River basin. Fisheries biologists hadn't documented their presence until 1985 captures in the Meramec River, around Pacific, and in Big River at House Springs in 1986. Populations in the lower Meramec and Big rivers became established by 1990 and began to move upstream, into other streams, most notably-- the Bourbeuse. Today, spotted bass occur in portions of many major Meramec River watershed streams. Some streams, like Meramec, Bourbeuse, and Big rivers have spotted bass in the lower third of their lengths. Ok, but is this a problem? In streams where they are native, like in southeastern and southwestern Missouri, spotted bass do well, coexist with other black bass, and provide good fishing. However, in much of the Meramec River basin, spotted bass rarely seem to reach 12", grow slowly, and may compete with native smallmouth and largemouth bass. They also hybridize with smallmouth bass and now outnumber smallmouth and largemouth in lower Big and Meramec rivers. All these things add up to trouble, if you like smallmouth and largemouth fishing in Meramec watershed streams. Under normal statewide regulations, few Meramec watershed spotted bass grow to legal harvest size. Their growth rates are slower than smallmouth and largemouth. Also, for unknown reasons, few seem to survive past eleven inches. In addition, since they grow slower than smallmouth or largemouth, they are free to reproduce longer, prior to being available for legal harvest. In other words, anglers must throw back most spotted bass they currently catch (due to the 12" length limit), which allows those fish to increase their numbers. At the same time, smallmouth and largemouth (due to faster growth) may be harvested, outside of existing special management areas, sooner than spots. Do spots compete with native smallmouth and largemouth bass? In these locations historically, smallmouth bass were the dominate black bass and spotted bass did not exist. Now, spots are king and overall numbers of smallmouth are shrinking. Some similar trends may be appearing for largemouth in the middle Meramec River. Spotted bass diet is similar to that of smallmouth bass. So, competition for food and space could be happening. Spotted bass hybridize with Big and Meramec River smallmouth bass and have been genetically analyzed. In some cases, the hybrids are fertile, which would allow them to breed with other fertile hybrids, smallmouth, and/or spotted bass to create who knows what. Will this continue? What brought on this invasion of spots? Why did it change now? How far will it go? What can be done to correct the change? Good questions, unfortunately, there are not many definitive answers. Non-native critters expand their ranges for a variety of reasons (like, accidental or purposeful stocking), but the ultimate culprit might be overall reduction in the quality and amount of smallmouth habitat. Think about Meramec River watershed streams over the last 30 years. Have you noticed any changes? More gravel, fewer deep pools and chutes? More erosion? Floodplain filling? Add impacts of urban sprawl (stormwater management, erosion, non-point pollution, etc.) and you begin to see a pattern. Habitat loss, on a watershed basis, began when the land was settled, and timber harvested. Lack of soil erosion practices allowed the Ozarks' thin, rocky soils to flow into small streams. This gravel is now making its way through larger streams, filling deep holes along the way. Stream side trees were the next to go, destabilizing streambanks. Some farming practices and poorly treated septic systems helped to compromise water quality. Gravel dredging destabilizes channels and ruins habitat. Most recently, dumping of stormwater and other development practices increase erosion. Has the Meramec basin incurred enough of this abuse to encourage spotted bass to invade its streams? It's possible. Some say - probable. Spotted bass movement could involve other habitat variables or be a simple function of building large populations in nearby watersheds that then spilled over into the Meramec. In any event, it seems clear that spotted bass populations began to grow in the lower Meramec and moved upstream from there. In general, spotted bass seem to favor habitats that look like run down smallmouth habitat. Cut banks, slower currents, and downed trees all hold some smallmouth in the absence of spots. But, these seem to be prime spotted bass locations in Meramec streams, now. Since we are not sure why this spotted bass invasion is taking place, predicting how far it will go is impossible. But, most biologists think that stream reaches with good smallmouth habitat will continue to be dominated by smallmouth, while degraded habitats are ripe for spots. What can be done? The most immediate and easier fix involves relaxing protections on spotted bass. Beginning March 1, 2002, all streams that flow into the Meramec River (including Big, Bourbeuse, Huzzah, Mineral Fork, and Courtois and their tributaries) will have a new spotted bass fishing regulation - no length limit and daily limit of twelve. In other words, MDC is saying, "Hey anglers, take some Meramec watershed spotted bass, PLEASE!" Perhaps, increased harvest will slow this spotted bass juggernaut and help ensure native smallmouth and largemouth remain the dominant black bass in the watershed. When was the last time MDC asked anglers to harvest MORE fish?!? Well, here is your chance to help bass fishing and enjoy a meal of fish at the same time. For this regulation to succeed, anglers must be able to identify spotted bass and be willing to harvest small ones. Spotted bass do not look like smallmouth bass, but do resemble largemouth bass. Both are green fish and have a dark horizontal stripe on their sides. However, there are several differences largemouth and spotted bass which can be easily learned including: jaw length, rows of spots, cheek scales, and tongue patch. A largemouth's jaw extends well past the back of their eye, unlike the spotted bass' jaw which only extends to the back of the eye. Spotted bass have rows of disconnected spots along their sides, under the dark horizontal stripe. Largemouth, do not. Scales behind the eyes of largemouth bass are nearly as large as those behind the gill openings. On spots, the scales are much smaller than the ones behind the gills. Finally, all spotted bass have a small, rough tongue patch (like sandpaper). If no tongue patch exists, it is a largemouth bass. Using all these characters will ensure good identification. But, if you are unsure, you can just release the fish. The larger, more permanent fix involves improving the habitat. That can be most appropriately handled by putting together a watershed plan to address the concerns listed previously. Throwing in a few boulders or other habitat improvement structures won't get it done. This planning process would need to involve everyone: anglers, floaters, developers, farmers, municipalities, agencies, etc.. The plan would identify the watershedÕs problems and devise solutions. Obviously, that's a much larger effort. Spotted bass have made their move into the Meramec watershed. And they seem to have a pretty good foothold; making the Meramec and its tributaries the Spot for spots. However, anglers will be given the opportunity to help slow or reverse this trend. All anglers need to do is: learn how to identify spotted bass and warm the grease in the fry pan.

Eureka! I have discovered our communitcation problem. Well more than one of them. 1. You don't read what I write. I never said that there were "NO" native species at trout stocking points. What I said, for about the 3rd time now, is you will not catch them in the same numbers that you used too or can in a stream of the same similarity in the same area. 2. I did state what I felt the issue was with stream habitate and it was dismissed, even though the MDC is stating the same. 3. I am not a Al Agnew so I have no knowleage. 4. After reviewing the first 3, it stands to reason that obviously my information is of no significance, therefore I shall bow out of this discussion and let it continue with only those that have a biology degree. 5. Sorry just one more. I chanllange you or anyone to fish any of the streams that I mentioned and then fish a like stream in the area. I will gladly chauffeur you around just for the low price of conversation only. Excluding Crane. It is not stocked anymore and does a little better than others. But heck I am game and you want to hit it too, I will be more than happy to take a side trip there.

According to what I have read from Kevin Meneau MDC, Fisheries Mgmt. Biologist, that is just about the opposite from his findings. Is he the same person you went with on the electroshocking? Ain't you boys up there about ready to have a big ol' fish fry? Lets see, if we got about 20 people to go on this....thats 20 X 12....well its a small dent but a dent none the less.

What I meant, and admittedly did not properly convey, was stay on one side of the issue. From what I have read of your posts, you are concerned that trout may be having a negative effect on the native populations of game fish. But then you state that you have no problem catching native species where trout are in high concentrations. I stated that in the streams that have trout stocked that I fish, native species have all but disappeared. You appeared to dismiss that claim because there was no scientific findings from a qualified biologist. I may not be a qualified biologist but, I believe after 40 years of fishing the creeks and rivers of SW Missouri, I am qualified enough to ascertain if native species have had a negative impact from streams that are stocked with trout. Did trout cause this? In my opinion, yes. So, no pissing match from me. I just want to know where you stand since you want to call this a debate and not a conversation.

Well I guess you have something special going on up there. Or you are one hell of a better fisherman than I am. Or anybody else down this way. But then I think I am gettin lost in this thread. I thought you stated that you thought trout were displacing native species. Then you state you have no trouble catching native speices where there are high concentrations of trout. You are all over the spectrum on this. Make a stand and stay there.

You are mixing two different...debates, if you will. The first one was that trout don't migrate. Well in the big sense of the word, no they don't such as, say waterfowl. But you will have a few, more than you would think, that do seem to like explore. Like Buzz said, we only occasionally catch one, mainly because we are not fishing for them. I know of a few other people that have caught them many miles from the nearest stocking point. The other "debate", I really don't consider this a debate and I do just a couple of people carring on a converstaion, was about effects of stocking trout and how native species have declined. Well of course when you get a certain distance from the stocking points, the native bass and goggle eye can sustain. But what we are talking about is with in say a couple of miles of the stocking point.

"Congressman Roy Blunt's office is now involved, The Globe has brought it to the public's attention, only one question yet remains: Rhetoric or reality, which shall it be Mr. President?" Naaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww, he wasn't pointing his finger at the President. Of course the same question could be asked of Phil. Though it need not be, seeing how he as answered it many times.

I think it was you that stated that 100,000 trout per year were stocked in the Meramec. At that rate you would have to harvest 273.9 trout per day for a year so as to be ready for the next. Now of course they don't stock them all at once but , you get my point. You will have more than just an occasional wandering trout. It is no speculation as to what trout have done to native speices in my neck of the woods. It is fact. I invite you to study it for yourself. I would gladly join you. As for the Kentuckies, man has made that river more inhabitable for them while reducing the prime brownie habitat. Kentuckies have not pushed the brownies out of there as much as man has.

You two are aware that the regs for Kentuckies in the Meramec and its tributaries was changed in 2002?

Trout don't migrate? How then did my father catch trout in Spring River at Carthage? Many miles from the old trout farm near Verona? How did both my father and I catch trout in Table Rock? Many miles from the stocking at Roaring River. How did I catch trout in Shoal Creek many miles below where Capp's Creek runs in? And also many miles down from Hickory Creek? A rare oddity? Possibly. But I think they do a lot more "migrating" than one might think. And why is it that Spots and Brownies seem to live in perfect harmony in SW Missouri but nowhere else?

I have been reading in all of these post and I don't think I agree. I can only speak of a handful of streams in my corner of heaven but, in those streams you will find it very difficult to catch a native fish. Go to a similar size stream in the vicinity and you won't have any trouble catching them. I would find it very difficult to believe that Hickory, Capp's, and Crane were the only streams that all through time had very few bass, goggle eye and perch. Is it due to trout? I can't say for sure but that is what I am putting my money on. There is no difference in these streams except for the stocking of trout. Now I also know of a few "other streams" that have some wild populations of trout in the head waters and very few native species. But you get as much as a half mile or so down stream and it is the complete opposite. Coincidence? Do I like catching trout? Sure, its a blast. It gives me something else to due during the winter months. I am jsut not sure I would like to see it expanded to other streams. At this point in my life I think I have enough options for trout.

I would hardly claim that it is to just "maximize their profits". At the time it was built, it was one of the main sources of power generation. As the area has gown so has Empire and the significance of Powersite has deminished. The following is a look at some of their history: Construction of the Ozark Beach Dam began in 1911 in Taney County, Missouri. Two years later, the 1,300 foot long dam was complete. The dam forms Lake Taneycomo, a crystal clear lake stretching 22 miles throughout the picturesque Ozarks. Today, Ozark Beach Hydroelectric Plant supplies Empire with 16 megawatts of power and the Taney County area with a beautiful recreational area. Empire Park, located just above the dam, is a park maintained by Empire District. In 1999, the park was honored with the annual Advisory Council on Disabilities Community Award for the refurbishment and addition of handicap accessible facilities. After the war, customer growth was high throughout the Empire District service territory. Empire began work to increase capacity at the Riverton Generating Station. The additions over the next several years at Riverton generated additional capacity to meet the future growth of the region. Construction began in 1947 to install a 30-megawatt steam turbine named Riverton 7. It officially began producing power in March 1950. Four years later, an additional 44-megawatt steam turbine, Riverton 8, came online. The construction of Riverton 7 & 8 grew capacity of the power plant to 150-megawatts. By the mid-60’s, the energy needs of this growing and diverse economic region would once gain exceed the capacity of existing generation facilities. On September 10, 1967, just north of Asbury, Missouri, ground was broken for a 200-megawatt, coal-fired power plant. The $26 million Asbury Generating Station was put into operation in June 1970. Asbury was designed as a “mine-mouth” plant to burn coal from the Empire Mine located just north of the plant. Total plant capacity is approximately 210 megawatts. Unit One is rated at 193 megawatts. Unit Two, completed in 1986, generates 17 megawatts of energy from the excess boiler capacity of Unit One. In 1990, the plant was converted to use a blend of low-sulfur Wyoming coal and native coal to comply with new clean air standards. Further environmental upgrades were instituted in 2007 with the investment in a $37 million selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system to the plant to further reduce nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions. As the demand for energy has grown, Empire has met the need with additional building projects and purchase power agreements. In 1978, Empire added the first of two 90-megawatt combustion turbine peaking units at the Empire Energy Center near LaRussell, Missouri, approximately 20 miles east of Joplin. An opportunity to purchase 12 percent, or 80 megawatts, of the 650-megawatt Iatan Power Plant, near Kansas City, allowed Empire to delay the addition of a second 90-megawatt unit at the Empire Energy Center until 1981. Originally these peaking units utilized only fuel oil for combustion, but were converted to natural gas use in 1994. In 1993, Empire announced the addition of the State Line Power Plant located west of Joplin. A 98-megawatt combustion turbine began providing energy to Empire’s customers in May 1995. Two years later, a second 150-megawatt turbine was added to State Line. Plans were announced in 1998 for construction of an additional 350 megawatts of power generation at the plant. A new 150-megawatt combustion turbine, combined with the existing 150-megawatt unit, generate enough waste heat to produce an additional 200 megawatts of steam-powered, combined-cycle energy. The combined cycle unit began providing energy to Empire customers in June 2001. Westar Generating, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Western Resources, is a partner in the State Line combined cycle. Empire owns 60 percent and serves as the plant operator. Total plant capacity is approximately 596 megawatts, making it Empire’s highest megawatt output plant. All three combustion turbines at State Line Power Plant use natural gas. Growth continued in Empire’s service territory, and by 2002 it was necessary to add two additional natural gas-fired peaking units at Empire Energy Center. Ground was broken on this additional capacity in July 2002, and the units became operational in April 2003. Both units added 50-megawatts of low cost, efficient power to Empire’s system. By 2004 Empire was searching for ways to invest in renewable energy for customers. In December 2004, Empire announced a 20-year contract with PPM Energy (now Iberdrola) to receive all energy generated at the 150-megawatt Elk River Windfarm, located in Butler County, Kansas. The first energy was received from Elk River on October 17, 2005. The success of the agreement with PPM Energy led Empire to sign a second purchase power agreement with Horizon Wind Energy. Ground was broken on the Meridian Way Wind Farm in April 2008. Meridian Way is a 201-megawatt wind farm located eight miles south of Concordia, Kansas. Empire anticipates 105 megawatts of energy will be put on the grid from the contract. Westar Energy will purchase the additional 96 megawatts of energy from this project. This project became operational in December 2008. Although the purchase power agreements with both Elk River Windfarm and Meridian Way Wind Farm provide Empire with additional energy, it was necessary to build more baseload generation as customer demand rose. In 2006, Empire announced two new construction projects for coal-fired plants. Empire will own 12 percent, or approximately 100 megawatts, of Iatan II. The plant will be located with Iatan I, near Kansas City. Plum Point Energy Station will be located near Osceola, Arkansas. Empire has signed a contract to be a part owner of the plant and also entered into a purchased power agreement for additional energy produced by the plant. Both plants will be highly-efficient and utilize the latest in environmental technology. They are currently under construction, with an estimated date of completion in 2010. In addition to construction projects for brand-new plants, Empire also increased capacity at existing facilities. In April 2007, a new natural gas-fired turbine began producing energy at the Riverton Power Plant. The new turbine added 148 megawatts of capacity to Riverton. Construction on the new turbine began in 2005 with the majority of construction completed during 2006. Today, the Riverton Plant is still in operation, generating 286 megawatts of electricity and is one of the oldest operational power plants in the United States. Empire also provides both water and natural gas service to customers in Missouri. Empire Water Company was created in 1926 when Empire purchased the Lawrence County Water, Light, and Cold Storage Company. The company served the electric and water needs of Aurora, Missouri. Currently the water company meets the water needs of approximately 4,500 customers in Aurora, Marionville, and Verona, Missouri. In 2006, Empire acquired natural gas distribution rights from Aquila, Inc. This acquisition created The Empire District Gas Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of The Empire District Electric Company. Empire District Gas serves the natural gas needs of approximately 48,000 customers in 44 communities in northwest, north central, and west central Missouri.

Do you have a link to the report? I would like to take a gander at it. Like you say, when it comes down to crunch time...its to hell with mother earth and all of her inhabitants. With one exception though...humans. Two things in my mind will drastically reduce the need for water: 1. Outlaw watering your lawn. Unless you have your own well. The more you water the more you mow. I don't water my lawn and I have a well. It stays green. Not a brilliant green but not brown either. So what! It's grass folks. It's not going away. 2. More efficient water conservation during processing. Companies, food companies mostly, use huge amounts of water. And we have a large concentration of food processers in SW Mo.

WOW! Sorry to hear that bud. And I was just fixing to take you flyfishing fro some browines .

A lake can be as little as say 10-20 acres or as large as....who knows. If anyone saw the actual report, did it state anything about the surface acre size that was in the study? Sweet! I was hoping you would say yes!

Allow me to also add a few reminders as quoted from the article: But construction is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Members of the coalition, including relatively young ones, joke that they will not live long enough to see a reservoir built because of all of the permits and approvals that must be obtained first. Pete Rauch, chairman of the coalition's technical committee and general manager of Monett's utilities, said the coalition does not want reservoirs built. "It's not a high priority of our members," he said. "It would be much better to pursue water that is already caught." Rauch said the study should not be misconstrued to mean the coalition has made a commitment to a reservoir. The study was designed to identify the order of magnitude in terms of costs, environmental permitting and relocation of property owners. Also to be taken into consideration are the costs associated with constructing a dam, acquiring land and cost of transmission. John Rutledge, spokesman for Freese and Nichols, said the study determined that the construction of one reservoir to serve all of Southwest Missouri was impractical and far more costly than building two reservoirs. "The difference is about $200 million," he said. "One large reservoir (known as Site 10 on the James River) would cost $600 million. The other reservoirs would cost about $200 million each." The way I see it, a reservoir of any type anywhere would be a last resort. BTW, did Webster's give any size requirements before is could be labled as a reservoir? By definition, what you pour your windshield wiper fluid in is a reservoir. Are we still going fishing this weekend????

Ahhh, thanks Al, that was another point I mean to make. Crane Creek will never, in my opinion, provide a stable, reliable source for water. Flysmallie - here ya go: State’s trout program has storied history By SPENCER E. TURNER Special to the Tribune Published Monday, June 16, 2008 A fisheries biologist friend asked if I had any information about the origins of Missouri’s brown trout and rainbow trout. After being away from the fisheries field for more than 10 years, my first thought was I didn’t have any current information. After giving his request some thought, I provided what information I had, with the caveat that I was working from memory. Let me paraphrase what I told him and provide a short history of Missouri’s trout program. In modern history, Missouri’s streams never supported native trout species. Historically, however, ichthyologists - people who study fish - found char bones in a road cut near Missouri’s southern boarder. They dated the bones to about 13,000 years past, during the last ice age, when Missouri’s climate was much cooler and streams supported char - a salmonid related to modern brook trout and lake trout. The ice receded, Missouri streams warmed and the Ozarks Mountains gradually rose. Char gradually disappeared. The last refuges were major springs such as Mammoth Spring in Arkansas near where scientists discovered the bones. Skip forward 13,000 years. The only cold waters that could support trout are branches associated with major springs. Missouri’s modern trout program began with a shipment of rainbow trout eggs in 1880 from the McCloud River federal egg-taking station on the McCloud River in northern California. The eggs arrived at Missouri’s first fish hatchery in St. Joseph, where they hatched. The fry and fingerling trout were stocked in streams and spring branches along the railroad between St. Louis, Springfield and Joplin. Some streams we know about: Meramec River, Spring River near Vernon and Crane Creek near Crane. Others, like Spring Creek, Little Piney River and Mill Creek, also might have been stocked. In 1882, the Missouri Fish Commission reported Missouri rainbows spawning for the first time in Crane Creek and Spring River. Between 1880 and 1890, Missouri received several rainbow egg shipments before the St. Joseph hatchery shut down because of a declining water supply as the city grew. This first hatchery was replaced by a carp hatchery in Forest Park in St. Louis. Emphasis shifted from stocking a few trout every couple of years to producing carp and stocking them throughout the state. The Missouri Fish Commission hired a German fish culturist and brought him to Missouri to raise carp. Trout stocking and fishing took another large jump in 1890 when the Neosho Federal Fish Hatchery opened and began producing and stocking rainbows in Missouri, Oklahoma and Arkansas streams from broodstock provided from the St. Joseph hatchery. For the next few years, until the 1920s, most Missouri trout came from Neosho. They stocked primarily rainbows but also brown trout, lake trout, cutthroat trout and even Atlantic and Pacific salmon. Stocking was indiscriminate, with little consideration given to where or what streams or ponds were stocked. In looking through the archives of the Neosho hatchery, I realized if you knew someone at the hatchery, you could probably have trout stocked in your stream or lake. Maybe the most interesting story from the archives was of the "German Girl" and problems the hatchery manager faced. She was never named in the memoranda and letters but caused enough problems that the Kansas City Catholic bishop became involved, and the manager ultimately lost his job. However, that’s a story for another time. Missouri’s trout program took off in the 1920s and ’30s when the state acquired Bennett Springs, Roaring River and Montauk for state parks and hatcheries and Sequeota Hatchery in Springfield. They all were private hatcheries before the state purchased them. Most rainbow trout they produced were stocked in spring branches and streams near the hatcheries. The original broodstock for the three hatcheries came from Neosho and were what became the "Missouri Strain" rainbow trout, a hatchery trout strain now recognized nationally by fish culturists. Trout stocking in Missouri changed little between 1900 through 1937 when Missouri citizens passed a constitutional amendment establishing the Missouri Conservation Commission and Missouri Department of Conservation. MDC restricted rainbow stocking to the three state parks and a few cold-water spring branches open to public fishing. MDC added Maramec Springs, a private trout park, in the 1960s. Brown trout had a checkered history in Missouri’s trout program. The Neosho federal hatchery stocked brown trout first in 1892 in streams near Neosho. These fish came from Northville Federal Hatchery in Michigan, one of three hatcheries in the country to receive brown trout eggs from the Rhine River in Germany and Loch Leven in Scotland. As near as I could determine from the hatchery logs and Missouri Fish Commission reports, those early stockings were unsuccessful. The stocked browns didn’t live long or reproduce like the early rainbow stockings. Brown trout stocking was discontinued in the 1930s until the 1960s. Brown trout came back into Missouri’s trout program in 1967, when MDC received brown trout eggs from the federal hatchery in Decorah, Iowa. Those browns were the same strain as first stocked from Neosho. MDC hatched the eggs at Montauk Hatchery and stocked the small browns in the Current, North Fork of the White and Meramec rivers. Anglers caught a few large browns in both the Current River and North Fork of White River. Success was limited. Anglers caught only a few large browns. The eggs proved difficult to hatch. Fry and fingerlings experienced high hatchery mortality. Brood stock experienced a chronic disease. Once stocked, the small browns quickly disappeared - likely food for smallmouth bass and other predators. Those few survivors grew large. That’s when your humble reporter, at the time a young biologist, fresh out of graduate school, supporting a wife and three young hatchlings, received his first assignment: to evaluate the brown trout releases and what happened to them. Along with evaluating those first brown trout stockings, hatchery managers destroyed the Montauk brood stock. MDC began looking for a disease-free brown trout replacement. Finding disease-free browns proved difficult. Our search ended at a Utah hatchery on a tributary stream to Flaming Gorge Reservoir, Sheep Creek. The hatchery used wild browns, migrating each year from Flaming Gorge Reservoir to the hatchery as brood stock. We hatched the Flaming Gorge brown trout eggs at Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery in Branson and established a brood stock for future stockings. However, along the way something neat happened. Mature browns stocked in Lake Taneycomo from the wild Flaming Gorge strain, began migrating each fall upstream, back to the hatchery, not only creating one of the best brown trout fisheries in the nation, but also providing a source of brown trout eggs for the hatchery. It was a win-win for the angling public and Missouri’s hatchery system. These brown trout were wilder than the original browns from Michigan and Iowa hatcheries and were heavier for a given body length. They lived longer after stocking and grew larger than the first browns. We still had a problem with high egg mortality in the hatchery and understanding why Missouri browns didn’t spawn successfully in our spring branches. We learned that if they were protected from early harvest by anglers, they grew large and spawned, but unsuccessfully, in our spring branches. I discovered our spring branches flowing from the ground at 58 degrees were too warm during October and November when browns spawned. A blinding flash of the obvious: Shepherd of the Hills Hatchery had the capability to regulate water temperatures during brown trout egg incubation. Hatchery managers reduced water temperatures to less than 53 degrees. Egg survival increased to almost 100 percent. This allowed hatchery and fisheries managers to stock brown trout in many more trout streams in Missouri, establishing a trophy trout fishery. Although small, Missouri’s trout program is one of the oldest in the nation and one of the most respected. And you, the trout angler, has benefited from this program. Take time this year to visit and fish Missouri’s trout parks or special trout management streams. Enjoy one of the best-managed trout fisheries in the country. And, if you should encounter an old, rotund, fly-rod wielding, ex-fisheries biologist, tip your hat and fish on.

Now trust me when I say I don't want Crane Creek changed in any respect. I also want it left just as it is at this moment. But I want to express a couple of points. First, I really doubt that anything will happen to Crane Creek. It looks to me that there are more viable and financially doable options. Not to mention the local lakes very close to Springfield, you also have Stockton Lake. Since pipelines will have to be layed, why go to the cost of building a reservoir and laying pipe? But even at that, I do think it is something we do need to keep our eyes and ears wide open for any new developments. Also I am not sure how "pure' those McClouds are in Crane. I have read a lot the writings of Spencer Turner. He is now retired from the MDC and is in my opinion one of the leading if not the leading authority on trout in Missouri. It seems that the MDC stocked Crane periodically throughout the years up into the 1960's. One place where I may differ with him, is how or when Crane was first stocked. History as written says that it was stocked in the 1880's from railcars that dumped them out of barrels from bridges. Only problem is the railroad through Crane was not built until 1905. But that doesn't mean they weren't stocked in the 1880's. It just means it wasn't by train. Somewhere on here I post a great article by him that I think he wrote for his local newspaper. If anyone is interested, I will try to find it and repost it. One final note. Other streams were targeted as possibilities of being dammed for reservoirs for water. I also understand that there is concern for these to streams to backed up for miles, destroying the fishing. Did you know that Shoal Creek has two "dams" making reservoirs for municipal water? Yeah, Joplin has one that is owned my Missouri American Water. And the other is just north of Neosho and is owned by the city of Neosho. Now when I first saw this posted I was just as alarmed as all of you. But the more I thought about it the more I don't think we are looking at the possibility of huge lake just for water usage. I may be wrong, but I hope not. Remember, I have the same level of concern as you guy's, I just may be looking at it a little differently. I am more than happy to disscuss this with you but, lets not turn it into a TR forum type urinating match.

It hasn't stopped and I don't think it ever will. Depending on what side you are on of course. I hate to say it but, the TR forum has, in my opinion, turned into a bitch and moan forum.

I will have to respectfully disagree with you guy's. In my little corner of heaven, autumn is a great time to beat the water. I have caught most of my bigger stringers and my bigger fish in October and November. I don't put the crankbaits away either. It goes without saying that, yes, it will be more difficult to use them, but oh the rewards for doing so!!!

Wow! Thanks for all of the info guy's! Denjac - I will get with you on those spinners.