MoCarp

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the articles I posted them to show to promote discussion Al is probably correct in that the floridas will not up the size of the bass there..at least long term..the question is gentic pollution Gavin posted "MoCarp, thanks for your opinion, however, the point you bring up is moot. Its a given fact that people have spread non-native game fish and non-native nuisance species " one mans preferred species is another mans nuisance species Largemouth bass are not native to any California waters, yet some of the finest trophy bass fishing in the world--the next world record will most likely come from there. yet LMB are documented with the extinction / threatening of some california amphibians and small fishes...yet the fish is seen as an economic plus....if that had been Common carp it would have been a economic fall (at least now) but in the EU common carp are the most sought after game-fish with a tackle infrastructure that rivals the LMB here. The whole native fish panacea is moot as the horse is already out of the barn Mo

in Oklahoma and parts of NW Arkansas and SW Missouri a "Neosho Strain" of smallmouth bass lives I have caught many of them out of the elk river drainage as they are the dominate strain longer and leaner they weight less than a compairable northern strain at the same length the maxila(sp?) runs well past the eye more like a largemouth and the fish seem splotcher in color , less tiger striped that other smallie strains--world record is under 3 pounds--yet before I knew what they where I have caught and released fish that size in Big Sugar and shoal Creek Any one else fish for these? www.fisheries.org/html/publications/catbooks/bb.shtml - 112k Molecular and Morphological Analyses of the Black Basses: Implications for Taxonomy and Conservation (Pages 291–322) Todd W. Kassler, Jeffrey B. Koppelman, Thomas J. Near, Casey B. Dillman, Jeffrey M. Levengood, David Swofford, Jeffrey L. VanOrman, Julie E. Claussen, and David P. Philipp Taxonomists currently recognize seven species and three subspecies in the genus Micropterus. Based on variation in meristic characters, allozymes, and mtDNA, two subspecies are clearly distinct from one another and warrant elevation to species status. Micropterus salmoides floridanus should now be recognized as the Florida bass M. floridanus, and M. salmoides salmoides as the largemouth bass M. salmoides. Although the Alabama spotted bass M. punctulatus henshalli is morphologically and genetically quite distinct from the northern spotted bass, a thorough taxonomic assessment is still required prior to any revision. The status of a third subspecies, Neosho smallmouth bass M. dolomieu velox, was not investigated. Phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA sequence variation indicate that the genus is represented by four lineages: (1) smallmouth bass M. dolomieu and spotted bass M. punctulatus; (2) largemouth bass M. salmoides, Florida bass M. floridanus, Suwannee bass M. notius, and Guadalupe bass M. treculi; (3) shoal bass M. cataractae; and (4) redeye bass M. coosae and Alabama spotted bass. It is likely that through either natural or human-induced changes, hybridization has occurred between the Alabama spotted bass and M. coosae and between M. punctulatus and M. treculi, which may have obscured the true phylogenetic affinities of these taxa. In response to this new information, management agencies need to alter their policy toward stocking non-native species and promoting stock transfers. Specifically, they should terminate Florida bass stocking programs outside of Florida.

Boy are you in the bushes--LMB are listed as one of if not THE most damaging invasive species world wide--I am not agreeing but just read between the lines The invasive bass Believe it or not, the largemouth bass — darling of the North American freshwater sport-fishing community — is considered a pest fish elsewhere By Ken Schultz ESPNOutdoors.com Fishing editor Editor's note: ESPNOutdoors.com Fishing editor Ken Schultz also is a commentator for "BassCenter," which air Saturdays on ESPN2; look for his "Reel Speak" segment. The March 2005 issue of National Geographic magazine contains an interesting article about invasive species and the effect that they've had on native flora and fauna throughout the world. A sidebar to the article lists the 100 least-wanted invasive species worldwide, according to a global invasive species database maintained by the World Conservation Union. These invasive species, or non-native/exotic species, are not listed in order of the degree of threat they impose. But, lo and behold, among the seven species listed in the fish group is Micropterus salmoides. Yep, that is none other than the darling of the North American freshwater sport-fishing community and the single-most popular predatory fish species in the United States: the largemouth bass. The largemouth bass, by the way, was endemic to parts of the North American continent, yet is now found in every state except Alaska (having been introduced to many of them). It has also been exported to Central and South America, Europe (including Spain and Italy), a handful of countries in Africa, and to China and Japan in Asia. Japan is undertaking an effort to eradicate bass, which have evidently caused harm to native fish. This often happens when species that have evolved to fill a specific biological niche are transplanted to other environments where the local species are unable, or poorly able, to cope with the invaders. Think kudzu, milfoil, hydrilla, spartina grass, zebra mussels, lamprey eels and carp for close-to-home examples. How often have you heard American anglers speak disparagingly of carp, which are not native to North America but which are pervasive throughout the continent? Carp came to North America from Europe, by way of Asia, where they are native. According to a report on exotic fish by the Sport Fishing Institute, carp "were apparently brought to the United States from Europe in 1831 and 1832 by a private citizen." The New York Department of Environmental Conservation reported that carp were first introduced into New York in 1831. As the Sport Fishing Institute and many others have written, the introduction of the common carp (also on the 100 least-wanted-species list) to North American waters was a monumental mistake. Ironically, at the same time that carp were being distributed across the United States, so were brown trout, which were imported from Germany and also make the least-wanted list. While some exotic introductions are ecologically harmless, many are very harmful and have caused the extinction of native species. Freed from the predators, pathogens and competitors that have kept their numbers in check in their native environs, species introduced into new habitats often overrun their new home and crowd out native species. In the presence of enough food and a favorable environment, their numbers explode. Once established, exotics rarely can be eliminated. So, alas, the largemouth is no longer wanted in Japan by those who wish to see the native species of that country prosper, even though there's a sizable interest in fishing for bass among Japanese freshwater anglers. Perhaps Japanese environmentalists are thinking about what happened in Africa, which not only has largemouth bass, but also Nile perch (also on the least-wanted list), a species native to that continent but not to some of its biggest waters. Lake Victoria, which is the second largest freshwater lake in the world, borders three African countries, many of whose people depend on that body of water for subsistence and fish it commercially to sell species to the aquarium trade and food markets. The deliberate introduction of Nile perch into Lake Victoria is believed to have caused the apparent extinction of hundreds of small native tropical species in that enormous lake, and is now viewed as one of the most destructive exotic introductions of all time. Perhaps at this point you're thinking about the fuss that has been stirred up in the past few years by the discovery in Maryland (and now other states) of the snakehead, a high adaptive and fiercely predatory invasive fish that can tolerate low levels of oxygen and is unlikely to be eradicated. Some folks in America are very worried about snakeheads, which, incidentally, are native to India and China. a few links espn.go.com/outdoors/general/ columns/schultz_ken/2009713.html - 47k espn.go.com/outdoors/general/ columns/sutton_keith/1987002.html - 48k www.issg.org/database/species/ search.asp?st=100ss&fr=1&sts - 97k - heres another bit makes you think-- if we "go full native" kiss every dam goodby--and fish for lots of snaildaters http://ccpr.freedom.org/invasive/beers-2.html Invasive Species... What are they? (Part 2) (February 23, 2003) By Jim Beers Invasive Species is the name currently applied to non-native plants and animals that cause problems of one sort or another. Non-native is the relevant phrase, and it refers to those plants and animals that are relatively new to an area, be that a state, nation, or continent. While most of us take for granted thousands of species of plants and animals that were here when our grandparents and great grandparents were alive, such as: Hungarian partridge, brown trout, English ivy, and day lilies, as acceptable members of our environment; environmental groups, many academics, bureaucrats, and socialists bent on clearing large swaths of the United States for something called the Wildlands Project, know that "non-native" really means not present when European explorers stepped ashore. There have even been legal arguments made that an Eastern U.S. native fish (largemouth bass) introduced into Western U.S. reservoirs are "non-native" and should be eliminated. Have no doubt that non-native means all of these things, and that this will be a readily accepted definition in a court of law by government or environmental litigants when seeking jurisdiction, land control, or control of human activities. While advocates for Federalizing Invasive Species matters never mention non-natives such as pheasants or day lilies, as eventual targets for elimination, there is a list of often-mentioned, non-native species that can, and do cause extensive and serious problems. Zebra mussels that came from Europe on ships now clog water intake pipes and displace native mussels. Hydrilla, a thick, mat-like plant infests many streams and reservoirs. Salt cedar, a small shrubby tree, displaces native shrubs along waterways in the West and uses significant amounts of scarce water. The Brown tree snakes, brought to Guam from New Guinea as stowaways on WWII planes, have decimated Guam's bird life, caused power outages and bitten hundreds of children and adults. They could stowaway to Hawaii or California, where they could wreak havoc also. Cheatgrass is a plant that displaces native plants, creates a fire hazard, and infests winter wheat over large parts of the U.S. Leafy spurge is poisonous to cattle and horses, while yellow starthistle is poisonous to horses; both crowd out native plants and the animals that depend on them in densely infested areas. Kudzu, the infamous vine from a science fiction movie smothers southern trees and buildings. Sea lampreys invaded the Great Lakes, and began killing lake trout and introduced salmon long ago, when canals and sea-going ships opened the way. Nutria, a large muskrat-like marsh dweller, causes extensive marsh plant damage in Louisiana and Maryland. Fire ants are also a species that has come north and threatens human safety as well as pets and domestic animals. When advocates of Federalizing the management and control of such species speak or write, many facts are ignored and avoided. For instance, zebra mussels have cleaned up (clarified) many waterways, such as Lake Erie, where deeper sunlight penetration has caused an explosion of submerged plants that shelter fish and accordingly created a very productive commercial and sport fishery. Hydrilla, which elicited newspaper forecasts of environmental Armageddon when first spotted 20 years ago, near Washington, DC, established large beds in the Potomac River creating extensive cover for endangered fish, a now-famous bass fishery, and large flocks of wintering scaup, mallards, and geese viewed from Washington office windows. Another point not mentioned, is the extreme dependence on pesticides that is necessary for control of many of the plants and insects such as fire ants. Indeed, those who live with many of these pests testify to the fact that chemical tools for control have long been available but environmental prohibitions and use permission requirements are set impossibly high. Also, the current efforts of states like Louisiana to decimate nutria populations with a bounty, and create markets for the meat and fur are never mentioned. Another missing portion is the status of genetically modified grains and fruits (many of which are also non-native) under the proposed programs. Problematic native species such as poison ivy, poisonous spiders and scorpions are also never mentioned when discussing harmful species. Similarly, thousands of non-native landscaping species like tulips, day lilies, and lilacs and non-native hunting and fishing species like chukars, pheasants, brown trout, and Great Lakes salmon go unmentioned. Certain states like Florida and California are very strong backers of Federalizing Invasive Species efforts. The reason for their support is their semi-tropical to Mediterranean climate, which when combined with the large influx of international contacts means a high incidence of new species constantly cropping up. Their climate makes them ideal habitats for exotic fish dumped in ditches, fruit flies hitch-hiking on airplanes or steamers carrying fruit, pets or wild animals escaping from owners, and even birds miraculously blown across oceans from similar climates. Indeed, at one Invasive Species U.S. House of Representatives Hearing that I attended, a Florida state employee was the most outspoken advocate in the room for more Federal dollars, more Federal employees, and more Federal authority (and that is saying something.) I will remind the reader that early in the proposal stage for the Endangered Species Act (1970-72) similar "facts" were publicized, and others were dismissed. -Bald eagle preservation (while I used to see 30 at a time when I was in the Aleutians) was stressed, while isopods and flies as a means to stop public works projects was never mentioned. -Saving sturgeon, a relatively innocuous and little-seen fish, was touted, while using the slight variations found in minnow-like darters from insular Tennessee watersheds to prevent construction of a needed major dam was never mentioned. -Romantic stories about saving evening wolf howls in Minnesota gained lots of media attention, but no one mentioned the effects on stock, big game animal populations, pets, and humans that expanding wolf population would have. Intentions to force wolves back into the West where they had been purposely exterminated, were vehemently denied for years. -The listing of subspecies much less races, populations, subpopulations, population segments, and distinct population segments was never imagined by anyone but the sponsors. -Concerns that professors, researchers, and other specialty experts would skew their findings and eventually their scientific classifications and habitat declarations in order to get grants and other benefits resulting from publicity of their specialties went unmentioned. The fact that 30 years later advocates and politicians would offer "better science" as a solution, can only be termed comical. -Worries that Federal bureaucrats would List species and never delist unless forced, seemed far-fetched. Promotions, budgets, bonuses, and wide-ranging power were to become directly proportional to the size of the program. -Suspicions that environmental groups and politicians would lard the Federal agencies with employees with activist intentions for regulation writing and lawsuit cooperation were never mentioned. -Taking property without compensation, closure of Federal land access, elimination of businesses and recreational activities in the name of Endangered Species were also scoffed at and denied. -Claims of environmental "needs" and ecosystem "viability" were merely justification rhetoric, and not true. -Worries about loss of sovereignty to U.N. bureaucracies dedicated to worldwide control of International Endangered Lists that expand biennially, were dismissed, but were eventually proven to be true. The relevance of the history of Endangered Species program, to the development of the Invasive Species' effort must be understood. Hopefully the upcoming articles will allow you to develop the perspective to judge for yourself. The next article will treat the history of management and control programs and the Constitutional responsibilities applicable to these matters. This series is not meant to disparage control activities or to discourage more cooperation between government and landowners, businessmen, and others. It is meant to avoid the inescapable quagmires that the Endangered Species Act has created. As subsequent articles treat The Biology, The Pushers, the Politics, The Real Goals, The Unintended Consequences, and Current Happenings they will, hopefully, prepare you to consider What Must Be Done, that will conclude the series.

my sources tell me water has only been running once a week and not much then a few smallish cats but not many shad up yet as the rule nothing is more of a pain than a 2 + hour plus drive with no water running and no fish to be caught because the corp just not running much.... Mo-- my sources tell me water has only been running once a week and not much then a few smallish cats but not many shad up yet as the rule nothing is more of a pain than a 2 + hour plus drive with no water running and no fish to be caught because the corp just not running much.... Mo--

I think its great that this is a fishing only forum My 2cents Mo

I agree

a gigging stamp!--with education! it could be a win win---but as said before no Enforcement means no effective rules reguardless of what they might be... Mo

probablly unenforcable but illegal Or the very least a 4 x 4 sign thats says it not nice and should be avoided Mo

Forsythian, egad man "fight tooth and Nail?" I do not know of many if any HARDCORE giggers, Do you guide folks on such trips? why so defencive?--most folks I know who gig only go once or twice a year and would give it up to catch 4 or 5--5 pound smallies in a season--who wouldn't???? Mo

Guys, there is no need for for miffyness, Kickin--I have gigged/grabbed suckers--and plan on doing it some this spring--infact don't we have a limit on hogmollys now??? most of us hunt-fish--eggad even trap--yet IF you are on the rivers--you know that the problem is real, Yes fishin INHO is getting better on the rivers, mainly due to 2 things--better water quality--and a lot more catch and release one thing HAS changed--a lot more folks use the rivers I too wish there where controlls on just how many canoes can be on the river--we may see that one day I usally do not fish elk river till its low enough to limit canoes do they litter--sure but I know some non fishing canoers that pick up a lot of trash the issue is are people who want to see limits placed on gigging to protect trophy smallies in bed with PETA..I think most on this board says no! Its just a disagreement between user groups--once one gets big enough over the other--then regs get changed But then if tradition is your thing--then gig by coleman lantern and scull a wooden jon boat--the suckers will taste the same Mo

to call more restrictive harvest methods to fall into plans of any "green" org is like saying supporting a "flys only" area of a stream to be in league with peta-- in this day and age streams are under pressure like never before--a few rouge giggers would not have any long term effect in the old days--but today combined with greater and greater demands on our Ozark streams--gigging may belong in the past with buffalo hunts and clear cutting the hills by tie hackers, The old days a wood torch or later a colman lantern, is replaced today with modern haolgen spotlite powerd by 21st century batteries that can go for 10 hours on a charge.. allowing one to be effective longer on the river, many giggers now use archeryfishing gear that allows greater ranger and the ability to quickly harvest many more fish than was possable even just 20 years ago----- sometimes those fish are 5 pound smallmouth bass--whether its a woops or a intoxicated misjudgment--that bass is GONE, most rod and reel folks might mount the fish... but rare would they eat it, in some waters its a problem as witness by the newspaper artical, in the past orgs like trout unlimited came to the help of anglers to better trout fishing beyond what state govs did...may be its time for a smallmouth unlimited to do the same JMHO Mo

unless MDC enforcement agents work 2 or 3 nights a week setting sting operations like is done with deer & turkey decoys to catch road hunters--I do not see it working as it only takes ONE night and ONE bad apple to ruin a stretch of river--that cannot be said of even a rod and reel violater who could not even on the best of days decimate the big smallie population on a given day--over time yes -- but not to the extent of what a rouge gigger could do, anyone that knows giggers have all heard the storys of misconduct, not all giggers violate the law, but the ones that do, rob ALL OF US of rare trophy smallies that takes years to replace if ever. the question is does the love of gigging out weigh the need to protect big smallies???

I agree on the 1st quote--ONE bad apple can ruin a stretch of river for years just ONE on number two, I have heard that argument before that the fringe groups "support" others right to hunt and fish--does that mean if gigging was banned you would not rod and reel fish? or support hunting and fishing rights?--hardly--that mindset is used to illisit support from those who otherwise would not.... if you do a little history checking you will see a great deal of resistance to change back at the turn of the century, when game laws where 1st enacted--heck back then they used dynomite and gillnets to harvest fish I am sure if the state put a season on those methods-- we would have a few use nets and TNT Gigging gives THE POTENTAL of overharvesting the top 5% of smallmouths in a river--flatheads are very dormant as well and get harvested even though it illegal to snag them in winter--there are those that target them do I have an answer?- nope..but the way to get change is to organize and speak up for reg changes My 2 cents Mo

the Lindners of In-Fisherman fame are full bore carpers now since they sold their interests in the Magazine www.walleyesinc.com/walleyeinc/event20.html - 23k ``I've been putting a lot of time into carp, trying to figure out how to catch them,'' he continued. '`And I've been doing extremely well. It's a fascinating fish, and most people don't realize you can catch them on purpose.'' Al Lindner

Some of the Brits would have been horrified at that site :ph34r: ---In England they do the same thing to carp lakes, except its the trout and pike that get stacked up like cord wood ---wierd thing is in their lakes carp seem to not cause problems, like is claimed that carp do here --sometimes I wonder if its just to keep extra state employees on the payrole . There was a time here when brown trout where wacked on the head and tossed into the bushes--as they where blaimed for the decline of native brookies back east... Here its something done as carp are still considerd a pest (though in a few places that is changing) in fact a $250,000 carp tourney is in Texas at the infamous Town Lake in Austin, Texas the end of March 1st week of April. --odd sounding--but I know of two places now that guides make a living guiding carp, Imagin geting paid to fish carp :ph34r: if 3 years ago you would have asked me " if I would be a addicted carp fisherman"--I would have said you where a tweeker on meth. but after the 1st year having more sizzling runs than most guys ever have in a lifetime--its hard not to get hooked--considering a small carp is 6 pounds--when a small trout is 9-10 inches and a smallish bass is about 12 inches--I caught several fish in the 20 pound class last summer--how often does a guy get that size trout or bass? even a ten??? I look forward to catching my first big carp on a fly rod ---should be a "smoking" expereance! Mo

here are some typical catches that you should expect to catch carp from 6 -10 pounds and cats from 3-8 pounds some of the others that came in to fish with Steve "sod' Lightfoot when we get together we call it a fish-in and is a blast we had guys come from as far away as Illinois to fish on this trip all in all we caught about 60-75 fish between us and the biggest was about 15 pounds this kind of fishing is as much about visiting friends as its about the fishing Mo

Steve--"Sod" with a Stockton carp he names "Mick" for the unusual trait of Stockton carp haveing bigger lips than avg--in England carp get recaptured often and get well know by name! on the way to the lake we past a big flathead's head drying on a fence post--something unknown to the English- He asked if Stockton had any "Wels" catfish :ph34r:

Carp are common in Stockton and are over looked as an angling opportunity fish are common from 6 to 12 pounds with much bigger fish available---night time is best and it seems to be easiest from June on from the onset of Hot weather--as a bonus we usally catch several nice channel cats some to 10 pounds Mo

I was born and raised in the Mobile Delta area where these where common--when I was a kid (long ago) fish 7-8 feet where the norm with the odd fish as long as the wood green and white 14' Jon boat, that we sculled through the canals, sloughs, and bayous of my youth--we fished for "Green Trout" ( Largemouth bass) "Bull Bream" (bluegills) and "Goggle Eye" (warmouth) we used a red glass 9 foot flyrod and and old automatic fly reel the set flat to the butt and you wound it like a watch. when you squeezed a lever--the green floating line would just fly in!-- we used Betts brand of "popping bugs" and caught lots of fish--every once in a while a big 'Gator Gar would rise up and gulp air and scare the BeJesus out of us, I need to go back and do that again, I can still remember the smell of the air and water when I close my eyes and drift back to those fond formative experances--I guess it one of the reasons my passion became fishing Mo

Can you say CAMCORDER!!! it been " we have done it for years' atttude by meat fisherman until some "examples are set" it will continue Mo

Cat are easy when most folks figure out the do not always feed on bottom--in fact --rigging bait dropshot style will catch more fish than about any way I know--bigger cats like live bait-- a 3-4 inch green sunfish (black perch) is my flathead bait of choice --I like to add a spinner blade to the hook for a little extra flash For numbers cut bait--fresh shad or even store bought shiners cut in 3rds--good blood bait has its moments Tablerock is a great cat lake--but Stockton has bigger Flatheads, and Truman and Lake of the Ozarks have the infamous Blues--some of the best big cat water in the USA Mo

Shuffling is an issue because it is so effective--I have seen it done--I have also seen the same reaction when boats go screaming up and drifting back as the wakes (sometimes lower units) stir up the substrate critters---the point of a lure only section or trophy area is to limit overly effective methods to encourage larger fish. What are the ramifications? does the MDC have a take on it? is it something that needs to be regulated? Mo

any sluggo-fluke--or senko but heres a tip---rig it like a hair rig--then no hook is in the plastic to impair action and you can fish it with a much smaller hook on much lighter tackle--think sorta like a banjo minnow with out the spring Mo

The little plastic things are called boilie stops--I think a card of them is 65 cents--or in a pinch the plastic price tags they use at walmart the tool is a baiting needle--I think they cost a $1.85--in a pinch straighten out a 3/0 plastic worm hook slide the bait on the needle---hook the barb on loop and pull through--put a stop in the loop and tighten it back the best spacing is 1/2 the size of the bait from the bend in the hook Mo