fishgypsy

I'm not sure what that has to do with the growth rate of spotted bass in Big River. But to answer your question in a roundabout way, the White River is a poor example. Yes, some water went from smallmouth to trout fisheries. But thousands of acres of land was impounded, providing much more smallmouth habitat that would have otherwise been present. Sort of a wash, in my mind. If I had my way I'd be able to paddle from Springfield to Arkansas, fishing the White River for big smallies- but that's completely out of my control. But those dams were put in well before my time, and they're not going away. Spotted bass in the Meramac, however, is a fishery I feel people have more control over. I'm not opposed to non-native sportfishes. I've fished for trout in the Ozarks, for muskies in Pomme de Terre, and farm ponds for bass and bluegill. What I am opposed to is destruction of fisheries- be it by gravel mining, pollution, or invasion and replacement by other species.

"Effort, yes. Complete eradication is not an effort worthy of dumping the millions necessary into.If you want the fish eradicated, petition your MDC biologists to use rotenone." I don't think most people are advocating complete removal of spotted bass from the river system- as you mentioned, it'd be extraordinarily expensive, publicly unpopular, and likely ineffective. " They (spotted bass)are not going to leave the river without being KILLED, so you should try to deal with the spotted bass, or fish waters which have been sheltered from the influx of spotted bass. " As I've said, the population of spotted bass could be managed through harvest. "The river was a great smallmouth fishery, with numbers and size, but now, you catch more spotted bass than smallmouth, and with some management of the spots, they could attain trophy sizes along with the smallmouth. That's highly unlikely. The growth rate of spotted bass in the Meramec drainage is well below the growth rate of smallmouth from the same drainage- as said before, you typically don't catch spots in those rivers greater than twelve inches. Management of the spotted bass as a sportfish doesn't change the species' growth rate, and you'd likely just get tons more dink-sized spotted bass than any wall-hangers. Aside from that, I really can't understand the benefit of turning an excellent smallmouth fishery into a spotted bass fishery that's mediocre at best. Sort of like trading in your Jaguar for a Ford Fiesta. "I would embrace the spots cohabitating with the smallmouth as well as they can.Keep your dozen a day, however, acknowledge that it will be awhile before the Meramec reaches equilibrium with the species." One species outcompeting, hybridizing and replacing another is not cohabitation. One species being replaced from its native range by another is not "equilibrium." Smallmouth and spotted bass apparently, obviously, can't cohabit in these systems- that's sort of the whole point.

I may see you out there on Sunday or Monday, I'm contemplating going to Montauk and/or the Current.

According to Bill Pflieger in The Fishes of Missouri: "Presence of the spotted bass in the Missour River system seems to be the result of introduction into the Osage drainage at a relatively recent date. This introduction is undocumented but occurred prior to 1940. By 1940, the spotted bass was well established in the upper Osage system, but it did not invade the Moreau River, next principal tributary of the Missouri River upstream from the Osage River, until the late 1950's. In the Moreau, it hybridized extensively with a native population of smallmouth bass, and hybrids between the two species are occasionally encountered in other streams where spotted bass are not native." He goes on to say the first spotted bass was collected from the Gasconade in 1974 (though there are anecdotal reports of anglers catching them there as early as 1961), collected from the mouth of the Missouri in 1969, collected from the Meramec in the early 1980's, and from the Big River in 1986. So I suppose I was wrong, people in fact did directly introduce spotted bass into the Missouri River drainage. They were also apparently stocked in the Loutre, Grand, Chariton, Lamine, and Perche creek, all in the MO Drainage. And though I couldn't prove it without refined genetic analyses, it seems plausible the fish could move down the Missouri River mainstem from their point of origin, colonizing rivers and streams as they went, in the intervening 40 years since they were initially stocked. And from the MDC website- http://www.mdc.mo.gov/areas/stlouis/fish/fishing/bass/ "In the Meramec basin, spotted bass are slow-growing, non-natives that may compete with native largemouth and smallmouth bass for food and space. " And as far as them (spotted bass) being invasives, they've been cited as such by agencies in Colorado, Iowa, and North and South Carolina.

Invasive species don't have to be from another continent in order to be considered invasive. The rusty crayfish, for example, is native to the Ohio River basin. But its establishment in Wisconsin, outside its native range led to severe ecosystem destruction and, in some instances, collapse of sportfisheries. An example closer to home- the white river crayfish, which is native to the bootheel, has become established at Four Rivers CA in western Missouri and Swan Lake NWR in northwest Missouri likely through bait-bucket introductions. Established outside it's native range, it's become invasive and replaced the native crayfish species. The same is true for spotted bass- they're no more native to the Meramec and Gasconade river systems than asian carp or brown trout are native to the continent. They never naturally occurred there- only after man's impacts on the ecosystem were they able to establish themselves. They've caused significant ecological shifts- in sections of those rivers, they're the primary black bass biomass. They hybridize with native species. They flood the population, and have the tendency to overpopulate. They are, in fact, an invasive species in those systems. Will it be possible to eliminate spotted bass completely from those river systems? Probably not. Gavin brought up rotenone, which would work, but isn't selective (kills all fish species, and in some of those river systems there's species of conservation concern), it's expensive, and it's pretty unpopular with the general public. Folks up in Illinois just got a chewing for using it to prevent asian carp from moving into the Great Lakes. The most viable solution, as I said, is fishing the population of spotted bass down, as we've done with other commercial and sportfish species. Like the conservation orders used to manage snow geese populations, liberal spotted bass creel limits would hopefully increase predation on that species, while at the same time (hopefully) limiting harvest pressure on the smallmouth bass. Not to hijack the thread, but I'm trying to make a point- the asian carp you mention growing to trophy sizes are doing so at the expense of the native fisheries- they outcompete paddlefish, buffalo, suckers, and other native planktivores for food. They outcompete gizzard shad, leading to declines in populations of black bass, white bass, sauger, walleye, blue and flathead catfish, and other sportfish. Is that too a natural situation? Should people interested in pursuing those fish species sit back and watch their populations crash instead of doing whatever they can to minimize the ecological damage caused by the invasive species? And if you're interested in catching a black bass grand slam on Ozark streams, their are plenty of naturally occurring spotted bass populations in the south-flowing streams- the St. Francis, Current and Jacks Fork, James River, etc. Some of them even grow to a fairly decent size, my friend caught a 17 inch spot in the St. Francis some years ago. Smallies and spots co-evolved in these systems, they're ecologically separated by habitat and they don't interbreed. Since smallies and spots did not co-evolve in the north flowing streams, there's no mechanism to keep them from interbreeding.

I wasn't trying to insinuate anything, and I agree that the MDC criteria, and the way streams were picked, seems a bit arbitrary and based as much on politics and demographics as on science and concern for the resource.

The Big river has a lot of pluses, though, if you look at it in terms of MDC. It's naturally one of the Ozarks most productive rivers, especially compared to many of the other similarly sized streams (Current, Black, and St. Francis rivers come to mind). Much of it is within a major metropolitan area, and it's accessible by hundreds of thousands of anglers. And frankly, lots of folks at MDC have been catching a lot of flack about the fishery there- that it's living up to its potential. And as far as the habitat issue, I'm guessing a lot of the effects of mine tailings and other mine waste can be cleaned up using federal grants and funds. Other habitat issues could be addressed using federal sportfish funds or other grants. In other words, Big River is a fishery that could, on paper at least, be rehabilitated into a pretty substantial fishery, without a lot of cost on the part of MDC. And I think if they succeeded, a lot of biologists and higher-ups at MDC, as well as folks in the Conservation Comission and Conservation Federation of Missouri, would see the rehabilitation of the Big River into a premo smallmouth fishery as a jewel in the agency's crown, up there with reintroducing deer and turkeys and all that. I think that's why Big river gets so much attention.

The presence of spotted bass in many streams where they were historically absent is artificial. Dams in the Missouri and Mississippi rivers act as settling basins, and the water coming out of those rivers is far clearer than historically. sight-based fish, such as spotted bass, can then use the mainstem river to colonize streams where they weren't historically present. In other instances they were stocked in public and private impoundments in the watershed, and escaped during high water events. Peope may not have directly planted the fish in the stream, but people were involved in getting the spotted bass to the places where they're currently a problem. And the solution seems simple enough to me- overfish them. I mean, we can do it with tuna, billfish, cod, orange roughy, redfish, smallmouth bass, largemouth bass, walleye, sturgeons, catfishes, and most any other aquatic organism we find delicious, how come we can't try that approach with spotted bass? Now, there's mountains of evidence that indicates non-native fishes have significant negative impacts on native fisheries, from planting rainbow trout in cutthroat (and brook trout) streams to bait-bucket introductions of minnows, crayfish, and other species in Maine, Arizona, Wisconsin, and other places. You may be tired of hearing about it, but it's not an imaginary problem. And I suppose I just can't follow your logic- "the situation is screwed up, better just sit back and be happy about whatever outcome arises." Should we do this with asian carp invasions? zebra mussels? rusty crayfish, and all the rest? If the headwaters or above barriers are "the best place," for smallmouth on these streams, how come, prior to the invasion by non-native species, they were apparently doing fine throughout most of the river systems? You seem to have this all figured out though. Please, defend your position.

Perhaps fewer anglers, but I seriously doubt they were harvesting fish in fewer numbers compared to today's anglers. My grandfather and all his cousins ran gillnets across the Black River during the Depression- whatever they caught (Catfish, black bass, walleye, suckers- anything) they ate. Complete, indiscriminate killing. With protection a lot of the species recpovered, though, if I'm not mistaken, walleye still aren't as abundant as they were formerly in many streams. Even if the number of anglers was far less today, if you have a few hundred people taking EVERYTHING from the stream, multiplied by a couple decades- it can surely lead to serious depopulation of a fishery. As for the habitat degredation, I'd argue it was worse then than it is now. You had near-complete clearing of the forest cover in the ozark highlands. You had open range. You had sand, soil, and gravel washing off the landscape and into the streams. You had the effects of unregulated logging and timber floating on the Current and other rivers. You had dredging for freshwater mussels in order to make buttons. Again, when my grandfather was building his house in 1949, in order to get the aggregate for the basement you went out to the nearest stream with the county road department and got a couple truckloads of gravel out of the creek. You had point source pollution- mine effluents in the Big and Black River drainages, raw sewage in those areas and others. St. Louis used to dump ground (ground-up) garbage directly into the Missouri, Mississippi, and lower Meramec rivers. I see a lot less of those sorts of things happening now. I'm not saying things are perfect, just that things have come a long way. And I'm not suggesting we don't need to regulate fisheries. Just for different reasons, I suppose.

I just finished reading the white paper, and it sure seems to me like it was phoned in. Don't get me wrong, I like the MDC and I think they do a good job in most aspects, and I understand the workload of biologists and the difficulties of field sampling. It left me with a whole host of new questions, and in the end, with what I've seen presented...it seems to me this venture had the potential to be some truly excellent science, which would've allowed biologists (and the public) to learn quite a bit more about Ozark smallmouth streams. But it looks like that chance was all but wasted. I don't intend to sound overly sarcastic and demeaning, it's just my nature. Please don't take offense 1.) I guess my first thought, after reading the whole thing, was: "This is it?" Nine years spent studying 35 different stream segments, and the best they can do is produce a twelve-page paper with two citations? These guys have Master's degrees, right? 2.) CPUE and species composition- seems simple enough, but I would've liked to see them compare their data with previous work on these streams, even creel reports. If it looks as though smallmouth are dropping out of the population, I think those streams and stream segments should get some priority. Also, they mention the substantial increase in smallmouth populations in SMA's, but disqualify potential SMA's because the CPUE and species percentage of smallmouth is too low. To me that doesn't make sense- if the regs were in place, isn't it possible to turn some of these reaches into decent smallmouth water? 3.) If growth is the same between SMAs and non-SMA stream segments, it seems like you could rule out water quality/nutrients and prey base as variables restricting the growth of smallmouth bass in Ozark streams; either that or they're all on the same page compared to one another, but not compared to smallmouth streams of other regions. So play scientist and implement the regulations, then determine whether they've had the desired impact. Try to remove another variable. 4.) Big Creek is a pain to access, but no more so than Mineral Fork. Access to me is a non-issue- MDC should be in the business of protecting the resource, I'll decide whether it's worth my time to figure out a way to get there. I can understand their fear of upsetting streamside landowners, and I think that's more where this criterion came from than any interest in the resource. If so, I wish they'd simply call it what it was. 5.) Present use is another non-issue, and seems to defy logic. If I was picking two streams I'd never heard of, one an SMA and the other not...I'd pick the SMA. 6.) The habitat suitability makes sense, but I think it falls far short of what it should be. Using a simple 1-5 rating system seems awfully subjective, especially since not every fisheries biologist is an avid smallmouth angler. To me it should've been something more rigorous, more detailed, and something which allows you to compare between different stream systems. Something concrete, like gradient, riffle stability, pool:riffle ratio, things like that would be nice. Even a simple habitat characterization in pools and riffles (% vegetation, woody cover, boulder/chunk rock) per each, would I think be more applicable than simply having a biologist decide whether X stream rates a 2 or a 3 while sitting in his boat. I also wanted to know how this criteria was affected by the others- Species composition and CPUE. IF the smallmouth habitat was there, but it was being occupied by spotted bass...how does that rate? 7.) Other species- I'm all for maintaining biodiversity, and nongame species are close to my heart. I love snorkeling ozark streams, snapping pictures of all the fish I see. But this one seems a bit arbitrary. First off, if we can't establish an SMA on the Niangua River because of fears of Niangua darters being preyed upon by smallmouth bass..how can we stock brown trout there every year? And how come presence of Niangua darters didn't disqualify Tavern Creek, which is a stronghold for the fish? And what about the Western Fanshell, a state-imperiled freshwater mussel which resides in the Niangua and uses smallmouth bass as a host? If SMA regs were implemented on the Niangua and the darter population began showing declines, would it not be possible to simply rescind the regs? The noodling regs were rescinded early because of fears of damage to the resource, why couldn't the same thing be done in this instance? 8.) The diversity of opportunities defies any logic I can think of. I can't see how having a SMA on the Elk River benefits smallmouth bass in Finley Creek, or how a SMA on the Big River benefits smallmouth bass populations in the proposed Meramec reach. Don't designate (or not-designate) SMAs to fulfill some geographic balance, designate SMAs because the potential is there to produce quality fishing, regardless of where in the state that water is. I think that's it. Sorry for the long rant. I've read over the entire thing, but if I've just rehashed it all, I'm sorry. Tom.

I'm a bit indifferent to regulations. Don't get my wrong, I follow them to a T. I just don't think their the end all, be all solution, and I think that's the general consensus of this board. Yes, they're the easiest variable to manipulate in a fishery (whether people obey those manipulations is an entirely different question). And you can put all the regulations you want in place in hopes of growing bigger fish- but if those fish don't have places to hide, if they don't have enough food to pack on pounds, if they don't have the proper water quality to fuel the ecosystem, then all the regulations dreamed up are for nothing. It's true that smallies can put up with a lot of water issues- Al mentioned the Big River, which is just downright nasty in places, big floating mats and serious heavy metal issues. And smallies thrived in the James River when it was more or less an open sewer for the city of Springfield. Some of the destination streams- in Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Pennsylvania- have had very serious water quality issues in the past, and are now phenomenal smallmouth waters. But these are also all big, nutrient-rich, fertile waterways flowing through corn country as well as the naturally rich glaciated plains. The Ozarks have been around for millions of years, the soils are thin and nutrient-poor, most of the nutrients available are locked up in the trees and other surface vegetation. The streams are clear, not green with algae blooms (except in places where there's significant human impact), and the food chain isn't based on plankton and shad so much as it is on dead leaves and crayfish. They're two aquatic ecosystems which are set up and function very differently. I'm not sure if most Ozark streams have the habitat and chemistry to create truly phenomenal, big bass, destination-type smallmouth fisheries. And guess I don't really expect them to. A few- the Big, Bourbeuse, Meramec, Gasconade, and some others, certainly seem to me to be capable of supporting better fisheries than they do. And some, such as the Jacks Fork, are about as good as I figure they'll get given their limitations. I just enjoy being on those streams, and whether I catch a 20 inch smallie or twenty ten inchers, I'm content. Out of curiosity though, I'll pose a few more ideas... 1.) How does Ozark smallmouth fishing stack up to smallmouth fishing in Northern Arkansas and central Tennessee and Kentucky (Cumberland plateau area, etc)? I've never fished most of those areas (KY only a bit), and they're physiologically the most like our Ozark streams. It'd be interesting, for me at least, to compare fish size, catch rates of quality fish, etc, and perhaps even learn what they're doing that MDC isn't, if their fisheries are in fact higher quality. 2.) Another thought while I was writing... up north, smallies compete with and are preyed on by numerous other species- northern pike, muskellunge, walleye, lake trout. Down here, what fish eat smallmouth? Gar, on occasion? I've read that one of the reasons biologists believe brook trout get so large in Labrador, for example, compared to other parts of their range- is because there is plenty of predatory pressure on the population (pike and lake trout munching on them). It'd be neat to explore whether the same holds true of smallmouth bass. Just my thoughts. I'm going to start on dinner. Tom

Hey guys, I have a wild hare to go up to Thomas Hill Reservoir near Macon this winter and try the warmwater arm for crappie and hybrids. Anyone know anything about the fishery? Is bank access do-able? Any recent reports? I did a google search but couldn't come up with anything less than several months old.

.

My only experience is on the middle Missouri and Osage Rivers, and I haven't done it that much. It's fun, though. If you're targeting blue cats, I'd suggest fishing behind (downstream) of wing dykes, particularly in January and February- that's when they begin spawning, and they'll rest in the eddies downstream of those. I'd also recommend a full sink line, as those eddies are often 30-40 feet deep. Clousers, Decievers, and bunny flies in baitfish colors (gray/white, Olive/White, Chartreuse/White), seem to work, as well as bunny patterns and articulated leech type flies. Especially flies with rattles, big deer-hair heads, or something else which pushes water and makes a disturbance. 5 to 6 inch flies seem to be the most productive, but bigger flies may equate to fewer, but bigger fish. Most all of the fish I've caught are in the 2-5 pound range. Biggest was around 30, but that was with electrofishing gear Another area you may want to focus on is creek mouths- frequently a bunch of different species will congregate there- channel, blue, and flathead catfish, sauger, walleye, white bass, and skipjack herring, which can be pretty sporting on light tackle. There also excellent areas to try for asian carp. As for Chain of Rocks...be careful, especially late winter into early spring, late January through the middle of March or so. It's a major breeding site for all three species of sturgeon and blue suckers. It's fun watching lake sturgeon- fish up to 4 and 5 feet long, over 40 lbs, who are older than me and have been around for a couple hundred million years, rolling on the surface and chasing each other around and generally going about their business. But targeting them or the federally listed pallid sturgeon is, I believe, illegal. Hope that helps!

Sweet flatheads- that's one of those fish that I think would be a blast on an 8 weight. All this talk about Busch has my mind wandering, I may have to go tool around there during the holidays for muskies or hybrids. If nothing else I can go catch dumb stocker trout. Is the area open till 9 year-round?

Hey everyone, I'm Tom, just found the site a couple days ago and figured I should join. I'm an avid fly angler, fly tier, and have built some of my own rods. I also enjoy spinfishing on occasion, hunting turkeys, deer, ducks, and small game. I hope to learn a lot, and to share some of the things I've learned as an outdoorsman. Wild Missouri Rainbow Rainbow, Current River, October 2009 North Fork of the White River, November 2009 Funky sunfish hybrid- Longear/Green? St. Francois County, Missouri Millstream Gardens CA