fishgypsy

Special Christmas brownies?

I'm not arguing that some fisheries workers weren't recording spotted bass as a species for much of the 19th and early 20th century. Some fisheries workers can't identify spotted bass as a unique species even now. But to say the species was not "officially recognized" by the scientific community until 1927 is untrue, plain and simple. I found some info which may shed light on this. Way more than I wanted to know about the taxonomy and systematics of spotted bass. In taxonomy, the first published description of a species takes precedence. The same is true for the scientific name- the. I haven't found access to Hubbs' 1927 paper, but he apparently posed a new scientific name for spotted bass, Micropterus pseudaplites, based on specimens he collected in Kentucky. In a 1940 paper, he lists that name as nomen nudum, a failed scientific name. Here's why: Hubbs collected specimens which were sufficiently different from smallmouth and largemouth bass to warrant describing them as a new species. He did so, and it was called into question whether the animal described by Hubbs had already been described by Rafinesque, in 1819. Hubbs compared Rafinesque's description with the specimens he (Hubbs) had found, and determined they were the same species. Hubb's proposed scientific name for spotted bass was thus invalid, because the species had already been described and affixed a scientific name by Rafinesque. Here: "It seems sufficiently clear that the name Micropterus punctulatus (Rafinesque) belongs with the spotted bass, replacing M. pseudaplites Hubbs." Because Hubbs was not the first person in the literature to describe the spotted bass, you can't use the year 1927 as the "official" year the spotted bass was recognized. Because Rafinesque was the first person in the literature to describe the spotted bsas, you can use 1819 as the "official" year spotted bass were recognized, by the scientific community, as a species.

Chief, I'm not trying to twist your words. I think our argument is more about language than anything. Spotted bass were "officially recognized" by Rafinesque, in 1819. He collected specimens, compared them to existing specimens of smallmouth and largemouth bass, noted morphological differences which were different between the species, noted diagnostic morphology which could be used to identify spotted bass and separate them between smallies and largemouth, and published his findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A scientific name was affixed to spotted bass, (Calliurus punctulatus). Once that name was in print, it became the valid species name for spotted bass, and the species was officially recognized by the scientific community. The spotted bass was formally described as a subspecies by Rafinesque, not by Hubbs. Hubbs simply corroborated Rafinesque's earlier findings, that spotted bass were a species separate from smallmouth and largemouth. It's true biologists were misidentifying spotted bass in many collections. That doesn't mean, though, that spotted bass were first identified by scientists in 1927.

It's just a thought. In most instances, it doesn't seem as though smallies are threatened with extirpation, I just think the existing fisheries could be better managed for more quality-sized fish. - I just think a group including landowners and businesses who would stand to benefit from better management of smallmouth resources would potentially be a more powerful lobby than one made up only of anglers.

I went out Monday and tooled around for the afternoon. There was enough ice off the water you could cast, but I only had one take in the three hours I fished. Kind of a bummer. Lake 24 looked esepceially festive- red, green, blue, pink, and yellow Power-Bait floating all in the water like a constellation of Christmas lights

I didn't want you guys to get the impression I'm advocating the position of the agents- far from it. I believe ignorance is no excuse to break regulations, and I've never had a problem figuring out regs for various stream sections. If I did, I wouldn't fish those stream sections, or pick an MDC official's brain about those regs. I'm just saying the mindset of "we don't want to over-complicate fishing regs for enforcement reasons," is likely a position which would need to be tackled if you're interested in changing smallmouth bass regulations. I like the idea of public meetings to help form some ideas regarding smallmouth bass regulation, but I think there could be a lot of tension (as there always seems to be), between locals and outsiders regarding stream management. To me it's a moot point- waters of the state belong to everyone, so I think everyone should have a say, even if I personally disagree with them. But in much of the Ozarks you get the sentiment that stream management should be left up to locals. I wonder if you could do a study to determine what the economic impact of more restrictive smallmouth regs would be on the Ozarks. Personally, I tend to fish the SMAs over non-regulated waters, simply because it seems more likely I'll catch quality fish in the managed reaches. This means I spend more of my dollars around the Meramec, Big Piney, and Jacks Fork watersheds. Much of the Ozarks is fairly economically depressed, and I think if there were numbers to show how canoe liveries, campgrounds, hotels/motels/cabins, restaurants, guide services, tackle stores, etc benefitted by quality smallmouth bass management, I think it'd be an excellent tool in the arsenal. I couldn't tell you how to go about doing it though, I'm terrible at math.

Personally, I think NFoW is hands-down the best trout fishery in the state. I've had better numbers days on the Current, and better sizes days on the Current, but I've never had my reel sing on the current like it does on NFoW. It's surprising how much fight a wild rainbow has compared to stockers, especially in a deep run with some strong current. The scenery is great, and there's relative solitude during the spring and fall, after the aluminum hatch. So in my mind, it's NFoW (wild fish, pretty water, pretty scenery, relatively depauperate of anglers) Current (more pressure, but pretty scenery, good dry fly action at times, big fish and numbers of fish) Eleven Point (I've never done spectacular there, but the fish I have caught were quality size, plus pretty scenery and solitude) Niangua- haven't fished it much, but it looks like good water, and I've caught decent smallmouth in the trout section. Meramec- Except searching for the white fly hatch, I never really like fishing Meramec. Too much pressure, too many caneoists, and too many assholes.

I'm not sure. I've read there's been some genetic pollution of the Neosho strain in some streams where it's native. Non-Neosho strain smallies have been stocked in some of those streams in the past, leading to dilution of the Neosho's unique genetic identity in places.

I dunno what to tell you, Chief. Here's the link to the MDC data. It shows black bullhead, yellow bullhead, ozark sculpin, rainbow darter, striped fantail darter, Johnny darter, orangethroat darter, slender madtom, central stoneroller, northern studfish, blackstripe topminnow, striped shiner, bleeding shiner, hornyhead chub, golden shiner, bigeye shiner, bigeye chub, Ozark minnow, sand shiner, and bluntnose minnow were collected as early as 1930. Perhaps it wasn't MDC biologists doing the collections that early, but regardless- MDC has data on fish collections from 1930 until 1937, and the MDC report I cited above indicates MDC collected that data. As for the quote you provided by AJ McClane, I wasn't sure what book you were referencing. But in his book Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes of North America, he writes: "A popular freswater gamefish, sometimes called Kentucky bass or Kentucky spotted bass, the spotted bass was not properly identified by fishery taxonomists until 1927, although a naturalist, Rafinesque, and fishermen on the Ohio River, recognized it as a separate species long before then." I did find this explanation for the confusion: "Another native Frenchman, Constantine Rafinesque, an eccentric professor living and teaching in Kentucky is credited with recognizing the spotted bass in 1819. But this rightful recognition would not come but a century later. Like Rafinesque, the spotted bass suffered a recognition crisis. Because of its dark lateral band it resembles the largemouth bass. And to confound the problem, they live in waters similar to what smallmouths prefer. For these reasons, scientists--excepting Rafinesque, of course--and anglers long thought the spotted bass to be a hybrid of its two cousins. Part of the reason scientists failed to accept the spotted bass as a distinct species is that Dr. James A. Henshall, a Cincinnati physician insisted his 1881 Book of the Black Bass, there were only two black basses. Yet Dr. Henshall struggled with fish identification himself. Of the preserved spotted bass specimens that we know he collected from the Ohio River, some he labeled largemouth, others smallmouth. His notebooks show he dithered back and forth on the proper identification of many spotted bass specimens. Scientists, Dr. Henshall included, mistakenly believed the specimen Rafinesque used to describe the species was actually a smallmouth bass. Spotted bass remained obscure until 1927, when Michigan ichthyologist, Dr. Carl Hubbs proved to his peers that the spotted bass was indeed a distinct species. Originally, Dr. Hubbs named it the Kentucky bass, believing that the new species was limited to waters of that state. Our chart shows the two known subspecies of spotted bass, the northern and Alabama forms. " The systematics were resolved in 1927. But spotted bass were identified as a species in 1819.

I agree with the Lamson Konic- it has an excellent drag system which will really help with the bigger species, like redfish and stripers. And it's pretty affordable too, compared to many of your other options for saltwater reels.

I've heard complaints from MDC agents in the past about the number and variety of different fisheries regulations on many Missouri streams. Some want to slim down the Wildlife Code in hopes of reducing angler confusion about regs on various streams. So I suppose I'm still thinking it over. I personally believe the color-coded (or otherwise specially designated) system would be the greatest benefit to stream fisheries, and be able to best optimize fisheries over the range of different stream settings. But I think, practically, it may be more efficient to try to change smallmouth bass regs statewide, over all Ozark streams, so as not to add a ton more regs to the Code.

Chief, I'd be interested in seeing where you got your information. From the MDC's Meramec River Biotic Assessment(http://www.mdc.mo.gov/fish/watershed/meramec/biotic/). "Since 1930, MDC fish biologists have collected a diverse assemblage of 125 fish species from the Meramec River basin" And again: "Research personnel of the Missouri Department of Conservation made the following collections: 5 collections in 1930's" If this is an error, I suggest you contact MDC and make them aware they didn't do anything in the 1930's. I'm not sure where the year 1927 came for the first description of spotted bass. I've seen regarding spotted bass taxonomy indicates it was first described by Rafinesque in 1819. Here's the citation I found, but I can't speak (or read) French: Rafinesque, CS. 1819 Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d' animaux découverts dans 1'intérieur des Etas-Unis d' Amérique durant 1'année 1818. J. Physique, Paris, 88:419-429.

Coldwaterfisher brings up some interesting points, and I figured this was easier than hijacking the thread on winning people over to MSA. There are a ton of miles of streams for agents to watch, especially when saddled with other duties (enforcement of other game and police laws). More "boots on the ground," as well as higher visibility of agents, would help enforcement of current regs as well as benefit smallmouth fisheries. You'll get no argument from me on those points. I'll have to look it up, but I believe smallmouth were rated pretty high by Missouri anglers in the Statewide Angler Survey several years back, if I remember correctly only trout and catfish were more sought after. And it's true, there's lots of issues you can't manage, like weather patterns and water levels. As for the difficulty and expense of maintaining smallmouth fisheries, I simply don't think it's a valid reason to give up on them. The walleye fisheries in the Current, Black, and St. Francis watersheds is heavily stocked, regulated, and maintained in hopes of returning them to their former abundance. Aside from the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, the state's paddlefish fisheries in Table Rock, Lake of the Ozarks, and Truman reservoirs are almost entirely artificial- hundreds of thousands of fish reared in hatcheries every year to satisfy anglers. You meantioned trout, and I don't want to open a whole huge can of worms on that topic- but their presence in the state is completely artificial, browns are maintained almost solely through artificial propogation, and the fish per mile counts in the few wild rainbow fisheries we have in the Missouri Ozarks pales in comparison to the natural productivity of many black bass streams. The nice thing about smallmouth, about many fish and game species, is that they don't need optimal conditions to live, even to thrive. If they did require those conditions, they'd have died out millenia ago. Smallmouth have experienced floods and droughts before, they've experienced otters and ospreys and herons and all sorts of other critters. And they've survived. In places, they've thrived. They're resilient little bastards. Smallmouth don't need protection from floods. They can cope with floods. In my opinion, what they need is protection from overharvest and from threats to the places they swim. Lucky for us, those are things we can manage.

MDC made 87 fish collections on the Meramec between 1930 and 1977. Untold thousands of anglers fished the Meramec in that same time period. No one reported spotted bass in the system until the early 1980's. If these was a small darter or minnow species, I think you could make a fair argument the species was overlooked. But we're talking about a common, popular, relatively easy-to-catch sportfish species. I simply don't believe spotted bass were able to hide out undetected in these river systems for fifty years, then all of a sudden in the last 20 their population exploded to the point where they're the dominant black bass species. It's late, and I feel like telling a story: Two piranhas were found in Lake of the Ozarks this summer, along with a four or five foot long alligator. Now I'm pretty positive piranhas and alligators aren't native to Lake of the Ozarks, but I couldn't tell you with 100% certainty that alligators and piranhas have NEVER swam in Ozark streams. I can show you evidence which indicates pirahnas and alligators historically weren't present in Lake of the Ozarks as long as records have been kept. I can show you that the piranhas and alligators didn't show up in fish and reptile collections at Lake of the Ozarks until XXXX date, but even that doesn't prove that alligators and piranhas weren't a natural part of the ecosystem. They may have just been overlooked for decades. It's even possible that piranhas and alligators have always been present there, but biologists and anglers haven't encountered them till recently. Similarly, I can't prove that the presence of piranhas and alligators in Lake of the Ozarks is the result of people mucking with ecosystems. ALthough it seems awfully likely to me someone dumped them in the lake, or thought they'd be fun to catch with a tube jig. But the water in Lake of the Ozarks eventually makes it to the ocean. So does the Amazon. And it's possible that a few piranhas got bored with the Amazon, moved down to the coast, worked their way from estuary to estuary till they go to the Mississippi, ascended that river, then the Missouri, then the Osage, then made it through the turbines and wound up in Lake of the Ozarks. Alligators would've had it easier- there's alligators in Louisiana, so all they would've had to do is climb up the Mississippi, the Missouri, and the Osage, then portage around the dam and hop into the lake (though I'm not sure alligators hop, ever). And although it seems like an unlikely scenario to me, I can't rule it out with 100% certainty, so we can't take that possibility off the table. All of this misses the point though- evidence seems to indicate piranhas and alligators are on the rise in the Ozarks, and we'd better get used to it. No point in trying to postpone the inevitable- for better or for worse, piranhas and alligators are here, and they may be here to stay. I personally can't wait to get my !@%! bit off by one of either species as I wet-wade an Ozark stream. I'd suggest investing in heavier tackle, steel leaders, and chicken carcasses. Wayne, I'm sure you're a stand-up guy, and I'm not trying to cut you down. I just don't see the evidence that spotted bass are native to the north-flowing Ozark streams, that they were ever native to north-flowing Ozark streams, that their range expansion into north-flowing Ozark streams is a natural process which hasn't been affected by environmetal/habitat alteration, or that their presence in north-flowing Ozark streams is beneficial to other fish species or the ecosystem as a whole. I don't think we're going to see eye to eye on those questions, no matter how long we chew on it. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Tom

I think it'd have to involve a 20 year study with 35 stream segments Seriously, though. Let me think up some ideas, and I'll send you a PM

It's an interesting theory, and it may hold water. I've also read that deforestation and destruction of the riparian corridor of many north-flowing Ozark streams has contributed to higher water temperatures than in the past, and subsequently poorer smallmouth bass habitat. Either scenario, though, you're still looking at an artificial situation brought about by people tinkering with the ecosystem. I'm not a hydrologist, and I can't speak to whether the springs have reduced flow. I have read that the aquifer is dropping in some areas as much as 7 feet a year, and I'm sure that has impacts on spring flow. But if spotted bass invaded because of warmed stream temperatures, then why didn't the population of largemouth bass take off too? They prefer higher water temperatures too, but their population hasn't exploded. True, largemouth do prefer slower water than spots or smallies, but wouldn't a reduced discharge from the springs result in lower current velocities in those streams, thus providing slower water and more habitat for largemouth? And why didn't spotted bass colonize streams during other historic warm-water events, such as the 1930's and 1940's, when tree cover was likely even less in these watersheds, and when we were facing severe drought, so much so the water table dropped (exposing new parts of Meramec Caverns, for example).

I thought of another while fishing today. Again, if money and politics were no issue, I'd really like to see some sort of assessment of septic and wastewater treatment systems. In some parts of the Ozarks there's a lot of development in the past 20 or 30 years, and often the sewage treatment and septic systems haven't kept up with the population increase. Last year I was fishing on the middle Gasconade with a friend, when we noticed an area with a ton of filamentous algae blooming all along the stream bottom. We scanned the bank trying to figure out what the deal was, and on a small bluff, overlooking the river, was an old abandoned outhouse. A visual representation, in green and brown, of karst topography in action But seriously, I think wastewater management is getting to be a bigger problem in some Ozark streams than many people realize, especially when you look at some of the places that are growing most rapidly- Springfield/Branson, Joplin, and others.

I should start off saying I'm not a member of MSA, but I think Drew's post really answers the question of why join. If smallmouth streams in the western part of the state are getting the shaft/ ignored by MDC, then perhaps you should organize a chapter and bring it to the agency's attention. Make them aware that there are people in the area (and outside the area) who are interested in protecting and enhancing those smallmouth fisheries. If you feel the Neosho smallmouth needs greater protection, tell them so. If you feel lead mining, CAFOs, and other potential vectors of environmental degradation need to be addressed, organize an MSA chapters and bring them to the attention of MDC and MODNR. Organize a group and make MDC aware you'd like to see more smallmouth fishing opportunities, and more SMAs, in that part of the state. I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but it seems like a few of you guys want it both ways. You want protection of smallmouth bass fisheries, but take issue to protection of smallmouth bass fisheries in one part of the state instead of another. To me, that's not a productive mindset. I haven't spent much time fishing the drainages around and west of Springfield- a couple tribs to Table Rock, James River, Finley and Flat Creeks, and Shoal Creek and some Spring River tribs over near Joplin. I've seen some pretty good fishing on those rivers, and I've seen a couple Neosho smallmouth, they're neat fish. I wouldn't feel at all bad about MDC working to enhance those fisheries, just like I don't feel bad when MDC works to enhance other fisheries which don't personally interest me- reservoir fisheries, for example, or paddlefish. It's all for a good cause, whether or not I'll personally see the results or derive specific, concrete benefits on my personal home waters. So please, I implore you: start an MSA chapter in the western and southwestern part of the state. Work for conservation of those streams and those fisheries. Bring your issues to the attention of MDC biologists in the southwestern region. Hell, invite them to meetings gather their opinions of the local fisheries and their potential. In my mind, anything that's done to maintain, protect, and preserve the state's sport fisheries is time well spent, regardless of what part of the state it's spent in.

I prefer my grubs sauteed with a little olive oil and garlic Seriously though, I wonder if you could just grind the fillets up and make fish-cakes. I suppose I'll have to try it sometime...

My wish list, if money and politics were no object? Simply what do I think would be the best way to manage the fisheries? 1.) All streams south of the Missouri River would have restrictive smallmouth regulations- limit one fish over 18". A 12-15" slot for other black bass species, daily limit four. EXCEPT: no length or bag limit for spotted bass from north-flowing Ozark streams. 2.) A study of the impacts of gigging on game and non-game fish populations. It honestly would make a good Master's project, I may write it up But examine the impact of gigging on redhorse, suckers, buffalo, and sportfish populations. Do some surveys to determine the best way to juggle gigging with other fishing methods. 3.) Gigging license. Five bucks, and the proceeds go to the sportfish restoration fund. When you get your license you also receive a pamphlet detailing seasons and limits, as well as fish ID, info about not gigging hellbenders, stream health, etc. As for other, not-directly-related-to-fish-management issues (again, if money and politics were no object): 1.) Ban in-stream gravel mining from Ozark streams, or at least the smaller ones. Perhaps allow limited in-stream gravel mining on streams higher than fifth order (about the size of James River where it enters Table Rock). 2.) Altogether ban livestock from having access to stream. I see nothing logical about bannint ATVs from streambeds, but allowing cows to spend April through October pooping in the water. 3.) Moratorium on building CAFOs throughout the Ozarks until the technology has developed to the point where their existence does not compromise the health of Ozark streams. Each one of those things is equivalent to a city of a few thousand people, and their waste treatment and disposal sytems make me awfully nervous. 4.) Mo' better streamside covenants- perhaps some sort of NGO which works with landowners to help provide public access to streams. Simple stuff- installing fences to keep livestock out of streams, installing livestock water-ers, replanting streambanks and adding revetments, and in return the landowner agrees to allow access to the streams on their property. Not necessarily overland access, but won't harrass anglers who are legally fishing those streams.

I have an Olympus 1050 that I like, and which was less than 200 bucks (I think around 150). It's waterproof, shock-resistant, and fits in a shirt pocket.

Welcome! I grew up reading the Traveler, my dad worked at their printshop in Cape in college and was a dedicated subscriber. Keep up the good work!

The regulation is twelve spotted bass of any size. No length limit.

I'm trying not to be disparaging, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how you can hold both the position that invasive species are bad, but that we should roll over and accept whatever alterations occur in the ecosystem as a result of invasive species. As Eric said- if there's the possibility of at least maintaining high quality smallmouth fisheries in streams being invaded by spotted bass, what's the harm in trying? What's the harm in trying to keep spotted bass populations low through harvest and regulations in order to maintain viable smallmouth fishery? Particularly if anglers and the public generally prefer the native smallmouth fishery over the smaller, slower-growing spotted bass? Whether the fish is native to the state is immaterial- it's not native to the north-flowing watersheds of the Ozarks, smallmouth bass in those streams haven't evolved to a scenario where spotted bass are present, and there's no evolutionary mechanism in those smallmouth bass populations to coexist with the spots. That spots have all but replaced smallmouth in some reaches of these rivers attests to that- there's no mechanism for the two species to exist. One or the other will win out. As for the argument, I think we've hit a brick wall. You seem to believe it's a natural process, that the invasion of spotted bass isn't an issue, and you're content to sit back and watch the shift. I think there's been a lot of human influence in the expansion and invasion of spotted bass, that it is a serious issue affecting smallmouth fisheries, and I'll do what I can, and what is asked, to insure a good smallmouth bass fishery. I don't think those disagreements will be resolved on an internet

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. Here's my thoughts It's definitely possible spotted bass are expanding their range due to shifts in climate. But the Ozarks have been exposed for hundreds of millions of years, right? And in those hundreds of millions of years, the climate has shifted- sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler- right? That means it's likely that the temperature regimes of Ozark streams likely shifted as well, right? Sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler? And yet for hundreds of millions of years, spotted bass never colonized the Meramec or Missouri River watersheds or at least, if they did, they never established themselves. If it's as easy for them to move around and colonize new rivers as easily as you assert, how come they waited till the 1980's to do so? I think I've shown pretty good evidence this situation isn't no way "natural"- spotted bass clearly were not native to north-flowing Ozark streams, spotted bass were stocked into the Missouri River system, sometimes by public agencies. Those fish replaced native smallmouth populations, hybridizing and outcompeting the natives. The problem with spotted bass in these streams isn't that their an inferior sportfish. They have poorer growth rates compared to smallmouth in the same streams, and don't reach a large size. If you have evidence that it is a natural process, I'd love to hear it, as opposed to re-hashing the same talking points over and over.