fishgypsy

Great photos, especially of that spawning rainbow. Congratulations. If I remember correctly, MDC was looking into redbands because they have a higher temperature tolerance than the hatchery strain they typically stock. However, the fish were also much more difficult to raise in hatchery conditions, and had very low survival rates in streams. Still a neat idea, though. I can't speak for you, Jig, but there's not a whole lot of trout water in Lawrence Co, and it probably wouldn't be all that hard to whittle down the potential streams from your pictures and stocking records to a half dozen or less. Even if he doesn't allow public access, there's a lot of inscrutable folks out there who could be reading this, and have no qualms with trespassing. And it doesn't take all that much pressure on a small wild trout stream like that to really damage the resource. I'd be more than a little nervous about outing someone's private honey hole online, especially a friend's of 30 years. Just sayin'

Andy- Why wouldn't a 15 MLL benefit the neosho strain? I understand they're genetically distinct, but in their biology or life history indicates that they would suffer from the 15" MLL? If they're very old fish at 15 inches, what makes you think they're going to make it to 18"? If MDC is 100% against adopting the 18" rule, what's the point in continuing in advocating for it? I guess if it were up to me, and I had the option to protect 50% of the population with a 12" MLL, 90% of the population with a 15" MLL, or 100% of the population with a 18"MLL with no chance of getting adopted...I'd have to get behind the 15"MLL. And if a 15" neosho is a trophy, wouldn't a 15" MLL on them be analogous to the 18" trophy regulations on the nominal smallie strain? Are you opposed to the 15" MLL rule because it won't work for the fishery, or because you don't like the idea of blanket regs?

Andy- Where is all this bashing going on? I see interest. I see curiosity. I see a willingness to promote and conserve the Neosho genetics. I see founding members of the SWMO Smallmouth Alliance Chapter saying they'd like to do more, and that they would like to work with others to conserve the neosho strain. What I don't see is bashing of efforts to conserve the strain. Where are you seeing it? Are you just attacking a straw man?

Cool pics, thanks for sharing. I guess I'll never understand why, after all the stealth and hard work you put into catching the things, you'd just throw 'em up in the grass and weeds and leaves to take a picture.

In this thread you've repeatedly referred to them as a separate species, which they are not. What "National Wildlife agencies," still regard them as a subspecies, can you provide further information? As far as the comparisons you offered, you're sort of making my point for me. Montana grayling have some genetic differences from Arctic populations, but not enough to be warranted subspecific status. Rainbow trout and steelhead appear different, but are so genetically similar as not to warrant subspecific status. Same with the sockey and atlantic salmon species you mentioned. They're different, and their may be a genetic component to their difference, but it's not enough to warrant subspecific status. Same with the Neosho- it's different, but not different enough to be considered a subspecies. The scientific evidence which would corroborate their subspecific status just isn't there. "Looking different," really has nothing to do with it. Lebron James and I look a whole lot different- he's leaner, I have more girth. His preferred habitat is a basketball court, mine is a stream. Some of that may have a genetic component, but it's not enough to classify us as subspecies. I read your entire post, I just picked a stream I knew within the range of the Neosho strain. I'm aware they exist outside the Spring River drainage. What I don't understand is why focusing on conservation of the Neosho strange is any "truer," a goal than focusing on conservation of smallmouth bass in general, regardless of what waters they inhabit. Can you elaborate? And I think in Pflieger's book it says that the nominal strain of smallmouth had been stocked in the Neosho's range in the past, though I don't have the book handy.

And I don't think it's fair of you to chide others for not doing their research while the information you provide is incorrect. If education is what you want: MDC recognizes one species of smallmouth bass in the state because there's only one species of smallmouth bass in the state. It's that simple. Micropterus dolomeiu velox is as much a species as an albino catfish. It was formerly described as a subspecies of smallmouth bass, but that naming has been revoked after further review of the fishes' morphology and genetics. It's a genetically distinct race of smallmouth bass, a smallie with some aberrant spine counts and coloration. The Neosho smallmouth IS unique, it IS important to educate the public about them, and it IS important to conserve those genetics, but the Neosho smallmouth IS NOT a species. They are still smallmouth bass though, so I would assume an organization such as the MSA would be interested in them. But it's up to the members to decide what they do and how they spend their time. EDIT: And I simply don't buy the argument that working to conserve native Neosho-strain smallmouth is any "truer," that working on drainages other than the Spring River is somehow less noble than focusing on Neosho strain smallmouth. Conservation is conservation, regardless of where it is taking place.

I was under the impression MSA advocates conservation of smallmouth bass, regardless of their genetic makeup. Unfortunately, bigots like Andy want to see preferential treatmentment of one smallmouth bass race over another. I'll be the first to stand up against this centrarchid apartheid, who else is with me? Seriously though, MSA is for conservation of smallmouth bass. Since Neosho smallmouth are smallmouth bass, wouldn't they fall under the umbrella? If the members want to champion the cause of Neosho smallmouth, so be it. If they want to make fishing better on the Niangua or James River, so be it. Make your chapter of MSA whatever your members want it to be, I think you're doing a fine thing, and I'm not going to throw stones from the outside.

And the etymology, please.

For all your concern over internet etiquette Trav, you play the bit of forum troll awfully well. Look it up. So you agree with Gary's cause, you don't condemn his method of advertising the MSA meetings, it doesn't offend you, and you'd do the same thing if you were in his position? What are you arguing about? What is it you're so upset about? What is your point?

Caddis should be thick, and dead-drifting big nymphs like Pat's rubberlegs through the runs can be productive. Swinging softhackles is productive, too. As for night fishing, swinging dark-colored streamers would likely be the most productive. Feel free to go as big as you want.

There's several FFF and TU chapters in the state, as well as the Coldwater Foundation and perhaps a few others.

Still a scary thought...

My guess is that the waterways involved fall under the interstate commerce clause. Just as I pay for roads I don't use for California, my tax dollars are also spent maintaining commercial waterways in Illinois. And there are plenty of native sportfish which will be negatively affected by the introduction of asian carp, from walleye and smallmouth bass to pike, lake trout, muskellunge, and others.

Not sure why you're not catching them, but crappie tend to prefer cooler water than many other species, water in the upper 60's to low 70's. In summer they tend to migrate farther down the water column, often just above the thermocline, where water is cooler. The amount of available habitat in the pond- all those standing and downed trees, means they may spread out quite a bit after spawning, too. Good luck!

I actually wound up voting no on all the questions, which surprised me. 1.) I'm sort of ambivalent towards no-kill, I've never kept fish from the blue-ribbon waters, but if someone wants to keep legal fish, I'm not opposed. I don't think the resource is suffering. And in smaller wild trout streams like Mill and Blue Springs Creek, I'm not sure the few larger fish are a result of overharvest or simply due to habitat constrictions. 2.) I wasn't sure whether there would be a distinction made between treble hooks and multi-point articulated flies, which are a blast to fish. 3.) I think asking anglers and agents to discriminate between wild versus hatchery raised fish in waters where they co-mingle would be a lot to ask. Besides, wild trout are free. It's the hatchery fish that cost money to produce. 4.) I've never been a fan of barbless regulations. Contrary to popular opinion, there's very little scientific evidence they have any positive effect on