Trout In Missouri

[ozark trout fisher]

I have thought about this many times myself. I agree that trout probably do not directly compete with many of the native species, but the fact remains...They are not native. That is why I have so much more respect for the 5lb smallmouth out of a river than I do for the 5lb trout out of Taneycomo. Let me be clear....Not the angler who caught it, the fish itself. It's still tough to catch either one.

I just really like seeing an old, mature, native fish. I really like to see Big Flatheads from Rivers, Big crappie from rivers, Turkeys from places like Camden County where they haven't been supplemental stockings. I like seeing big Ozark Whitetails from Mark Twain, I like that the fact that there are Elk on the Buffalo River again. I don't know, I guess what I am trying to say is I personally get a huge thrill out of seeing things the way they are supposed to be, they way they have always been. There is less and less of that the older I get.

To me, there will always be a little bit of a "high fence" feel to trout in Missouri. They are neat, I'm glad they are available, but "they're not from around here, ya know?"

I know what you mean. But I would have to disagree that there is a "high fence feel" of trout fishing in Missouri, with the notable exception of the trout parks. The fish in the wild streams are just as difficult to catch as anywhere in this country.

But I do have to agree with you on a larger scale. Native species deserve precedence over trout here, for the simple reason that they were here first. Essentially, if there is a conflict between trout and smallmouth bass (or goggle-eye, sunfish, suckers, or any other native species), we must put the interest of the native species first.

Lately, I've been trying to focus my attention more on fishing for native species, mostly smallmouth bass. I have found that this kind of fishing is honestly some of the most satisfying that I've ever had. There is something about catching a fish that has blood lines in the particular stream I am fishing that go back for thousands of years. I've found myself getting pretty absorbed into this kind of fishing, maybe even enjoying it more than I ever did trout fishing. I don't know. It's all personal feelings, and nothing more.

[Flysmallie]

but "they're not from around here, ya know?"

And neither are we. We have to be the most destructive non-native species out there. Yes there were other men here before us but they didn't treat the resources the way we do.

I don't worry about it. In this part of the country we have some of the best bass lakes, smallmouth streams and trout waters in the world. I'm not trying to justify what I'm doing, I just enjoy it the best that I can and make sure that I'm not hurting the resources that we have available to us.

[Bird Watcher]

I know what you mean. But I would have to disagree that there is a "high fence feel" of trout fishing in Missouri, with the notable exception of the trout parks. The fish in the wild streams are just as difficult to catch as anywhere in this country.

I think you misunderstood me. I don't mean that these trout are easy to catch.

Look, Blue wilderbeast on the 777 ranch in Texas are hard to hunt, but they are from Africa. So are scimitar horned Orex, but they are from the middle East. It doesn't mean they are easy, just a little out of place. I think it's neat that you can go hunt them without buying a passport, but at least to me, the whole experience is cheapened a little by the location of the encounter. That's all I am saying.

I never meant it to come out as "trout are easy to catch". Not my intent at all.

[Greg]

This is a really thought provoking topic. A couple of other random thoughts occurred to me that I thought I would share:

The first is that how long before an introduced species (like trout) is considered a native species? Maybe never if it was introduced by man. But you could certainly make an argument that some of our trout that have been introduced years ago and that are no longer stocked (like the bows in Crane Creek and NFOW) and that have been thriving for decades (over 100 years in crane creek) would at some point be considered a native? Maybe not ever totally but certainly a shade of gray in this discussion.

To me the concern of trout not being native here (in MO) is much less relevant than in other states. In other states non native browns and rainbows have totally pushed out (in some cases to near extinction) the native trouts. Meaning brook trout and the various strains of cutthroat. In that instance the introduced species directly compete with natives and force them out. To me that is much more serious and detrimental than the situation we have in MO.

Greg

[eric1978]

And neither are we. We have to be the most destructive non-native species out there. Yes there were other men here before us but they didn't treat the resources the way we do.

I don't worry about it. In this part of the country we have some of the best bass lakes, smallmouth streams and trout waters in the world. I'm not trying to justify what I'm doing, I just enjoy it the best that I can and make sure that I'm not hurting the resources that we have available to us.

Flysmallie nailed it.

I think it was an absolute atrocity what our European ancestors did to the Native Americans. But am I gonna move back to Europe because of it? I don't think so. It is what it is, the damage is done and you can't turn back time. The best we can do now is appreciate what we have and do our best to preserve our treasure. Same goes with the trout. They're already there, they're filling a niche, and they're not hurting anything. Enjoy it, don't exploit it, and pick up someone else's garbage while you're on the stream. You really can't do much else.

[eric1978]

This is a really though provoking topic. A couple of other random thoughts occurred to me that I thought I would share:

The first is that how long before an introduced species (like trout) is considered a native species? Maybe never if it was introduced by man. But you could certainly make an argument that some of our trout that have been introduced years ago and that are no longer stocked (like the bows in Crane Creek and NFOW) and that have been thriving for decades (over 100 years in crane creek) would at some point be considered a native? Maybe not ever totally but certainly a shade of gray in this discussion.

To me the concern of trout not being native here (in MO) is much less relevant than in other states. In other states non native browns and rainbows have totally pushed out (in some cases to near extinction) the native trouts. Meaning brook trout and the various strains of cutthroat. In that instance the introduced species directly compete with natives and force them out. To me that is much more serious and detrimental than the situation we have in MO.

Greg

Smallmouth bass were introduced to the eastern and western states around the time of the Civil War via aerated barrels on trains. Are they now native because they've been inhabiting those areas for nearly 150 years? Nope. They just happen to thrive in those areas, but they will never be native. Anytime man is involved with the introduction of a species, whether it be directly or indirectly, they cannot be considered native, because they wouldn't have inhabited that area otherwise. Al Agnew makes an argument for the introduction of spotted bass in the Meramec River System. He contends that the invasion of spotted bass was made possible simply by the building of several manmade structures on rivers local and distant. So one could then argue that, since the spots naturally migrated and were never stocked in the Meramec that they are native, right? Nope, they were led to this migratory path by the hand of man indirectly, but they are non-native nonetheless because they wouldn't have made that transition if we hadn't tinkered with nature.

[Gavin]

Trout arent native to Missouri but I dont care. They may compete with natives, but so what. Most of the water they inhabit would be virtually devoid of gamefish if they were absent (too cold to produce a good smallmouth population). They provide more benefit than harm IMO, so I'd call them a beneficial non-native species. They arent in the same category as Carp (Asian or European), Spotted bass on the Meramec drainage, or other species that I'd classify as invasive trash fish. Cheers.

[Greg]

Smallmouth bass were introduced to the eastern and western states around the time of the Civil War via aerated barrels on trains. Are they now native because they've been inhabiting those areas for nearly 150 years? Nope. They just happen to thrive in those areas, but they will never be native. Anytime man is involved with the introduction of a species, whether it be directly or indirectly, they cannot be considered native, because they wouldn't have inhabited that area otherwise.

Going strictly by the definition of "native species" you are right of course. And I actually stated that in my prior post. I was just throwing out a theory that it could be viewed as a gray area.

Greg

[Bird Watcher]

I would be willing to bet that stripers would do well in a fishery like Taneycomo. Would anyone have a problem if they were stocked in there?

[fishinwrench]

QUOTE (Chris Farris @ Sep 4 2009, 07:43 AM)

but "they're not from around here, ya know?"

And neither are we. We have to be the most destructive non-native species out there.

The difference there is: We (non-native Americans) were not placed in this country by a higher power. Our forefathers migrated here on thier own and we evolved from there (survival of the fittest, albeit not very democratically). I guess you could say that WE are the "Spotted Bass" of the human race.