laker67

Still is Wayne, especially in zone 1. Look in water near the banks. Next time you see one laying still, ease your rod tip down close to him. More often then not they will nip at the end of your rod.

Read back through my posts. I never accussed anyone of being wrong. I merely stated my views as did the rest of the posters. I jumped in on this topic to stir up some controvesy because here lately this "fishing" forum has been overwhelmed with boring topics. This dissussion has been entertaining to say the least. If any of you out there would wish to start a topic about trout, feel free to do so. I will eagerly await some entertaining subjects.

I would prefer "stream bred" over "wild". How many miles in the blue ribbon section, and how many rainbows over 8 inches?

I don't know concerning the Madison, OTF. But my opinion about the mcclouds and the missouri strain of trout here would be that they never lose their hatchery genes. I can't compare them to trout in other areas, because I have never fished in other areas. I'm not sure what a "wild" trout looks like compared to hatchery fish. Your 500 fish per mile is a believable number, unlike the c of c article stating thousands of fish per mile. Kind of a "come on down" gimmick.

I don't think the population is quite as dense as everyone would like for you to believe. Don't forget that alot of browns are stocked annually that add to the totals. One thing that nfow has going for it, is the high percentage of c and r fishermen. So with the one percent reproduction and the no kill line of thought, the numbers would maintain, maybe increase. I am glad there are reproducing hatchery trout in some areas. The wild part is mostly someone's vivid imagination.

I didn't say that I didn't believe him. What I said was they do it at the wrong time of the year just like hatchery fish. Which leads me to believe that they never leave behind their hatchery upbringing and never truly revert to being a wild trout. If they did, then the 1880 fish from Crane would spawn in the spring. All diploid trout go through the motions of spawn regardless of the outcome. With one percent success ratio out of millions, you have a population. But not thousands of trout per mile like someone said. More like 20 or 30 fish held up in a good run and then nothing until you come to the next good run or holding area. A wild trout in missouri, "is" a pipe dream. I'm not an expert like some, just a fisherman that observes.

There must be something in missouri waters that make the "wild trout" spawn in the fall and early winter, when everywhere else in the continental US wild trout spawn in the spring just prior to water temps warming enough to incubate the eggs. Are missouri's "wild trout" so retarded that they sabotage their own spawning success?

Well congrats to LIttle Chief and Dad as well!

It was cold and clear where I was at also, but I didn't see any fish like that. Way to go netboy.

My uncle caught a 8.75 LM out of Roark a few years back.

Well there you go! Hope mom and baby are doing well.

Hey Drew, the feds listed it as imperiled due to the disruption of the original warm water enviroment. They contribute monies to SOH towards it"s continued operation. Now I have a question for you guys that live in that area. In what order were the 3 dams built that turned the white into a cold water fishery? It is my understanding that BS and Beaver are cold water discharge as well.

Reminds me of a "doll fly" from years gone by.

Well add two more to your list, big and little niangua.

I gotta go with eric here. If I recall the story correctly, in the 80's a former world record non typical whitetail was found dead in st. louis county. That buck made the books and listed the name of the person who found it.

It was a joke OTF. But concerning your comment, MDC operates 5 warm water hatcheries for native fish restocking. It stocks 864 waterways statewide. It also raises and stocks non native warm water fish such as muskie, stripers, and hybrids. It also operates one hatchery totally aimed at replenishing the endangered sturgeon from the missouri and mississippi water ways. I would say that this is a considerable amount of "maintainence". Not trying to start an arguement, just pointing out some facts.

We got to have some secrets. Pick any of the four trout parks this year and you will find some lunker fish. Not "big" fish, but lunker fish. Yes even bennett. Good luck Jerod!

I don't know what the corp does or does not do with taney and SOH. And I have always been told that Neosho does provide fish for taney. I was comparing costs. If you fish taney for 2 days, you pay an extra 7 bucks. If you fish the trout park for 2 days, you pay an extra 6 bucks. Each time that you would return to a trout park you will pay again. At taney that 7 dollars lasts all year.

I would say the only money they get from trout are license sales, and people who come to taney "only" to trout fish. People would still spend money in branson just the same. I think table rock is alot bigger draw than taney.

For those of you still calling taney the "cash cow" the math is not working here. Let's say you spend your 19 bucks to fish for only one day. Your are allowed to keep 4 fish. That works out to $4.75 per fish for you to harvest, and $7 to hatch, raise, and release. MDC doesn't appear to be getting rich from taney.

It's the same with the trout parks, you still are required to have a fishing license to purchase a daily tag.

Wow! What a buck and a neat story. What bothers me are the people who jumped out and criticized his good fortune. Who are these people? It's the same with fishing. They surely can't be sportsmen themselves. Put in the same situation, these people would most likely lie about the outcome.

I read somewhere that 15 percent of missouri's total fishing program, is funded by trout fishing. Those native fishes are on welfare.

I like Wayne's idea of wing dams. Years ago bssp had wing dams that angled downstream, unlike the ones they have now that jut straight out. Using the angle, you can redirect the water flow in addition to adding an area that could be fish during generation. By staggering them downstream, you could pretty much make the water flow in more desired locations when the water is off. You could create another chute on the back side of the upper island much like it was in the old days. Another chute from #3 over to the guantlet would be nice also. I would think that redirected water flow would eventually create another channel in these areas. Add some in the water structure, and you have a trout stream again.

You are exactly right Wayne. The benefits gained would be for the fisherman. Creating holding areas would attract more fish and hopefully larger fish. Right now the upper lake is in desperate need of some improvements. The wading fisherman, like myself, would gain the most from this project. I am all for any type of change on the upper lake. If it doesn't work, then we are no worse off than we are now.