fishinwrench Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 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? What would be considered forage for Stripers in a tailwater ? Shad wouldn't make it.
Danoinark Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Gavin beat me to it.... Glass Has Class "from the laid back lane in the Arkansas Ozarks"
eric1978 Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 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 I understand your point, and it's a good one. I think the best label we'll be able to put on MO trout is "non-indigenous, non-invasive."
Bird Watcher Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Trout of course. Bingo. Perfect food source. One non-native fish feeding on another high protein non-native that has no natural predators and is replenished through stockings by the state. Perfect! And boy oh boy, think about the recreation dollars if there were 50 lb stripers in Taney. Perfect temperature range...I'm telling ya, I think it would be dynamite.
FishinCricket Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 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 I'm not one to argue semantics, but I believe the "forefathers" would definitely disagree, citing devine providence and manifest destiny.. In other words, there are many who would say that it was Gods intent all along that we take this land from hethen spirit worshippers.. Even the Mormans feel that the Ozarks is actually the Garden of Eden... (Bear in mind that the above is in no way shape or form my opinion of the facts, simply my interpretation of the reality of about a half a billion citizens who claim those religions and those Gods as their reason for being here) just sayin... Personally I believe we were all put on this planet by an advanced alien race, therefore it's all fair game.. cricket.c21.com
fly2fish Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Bingo. Perfect food source. One non-native fish feeding on another high protein non-native that has no natural predators and is replenished through stockings by the state. Perfect! And boy oh boy, think about the recreation dollars if there were 50 lb stripers in Taney. Perfect temperature range...I'm telling ya, I think it would be dynamite. Thats what I would be afraid off, bringing in a 10 in. rainbow , having it eaten by a 20+ in. brown then swallowed by a 40 lb+ striper all on a 4wt. F2F
eric1978 Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 I'm not one to argue semantics, but I believe the "forefathers" would definitely disagree, citing devine providence and manifest destiny.. In other words, there are many who would say that it was Gods intent all along that we take this land from hethen spirit worshippers.. Even the Mormans feel that the Ozarks is actually the Garden of Eden... (Bear in mind that the above is in no way shape or form my opinion of the facts, simply my interpretation of the reality of about a half a billion citizens who claim those religions and those Gods as their reason for being here) just sayin... Personally I believe we were all put on this planet by an advanced alien race, therefore it's all fair game.. Here's how I draw the distinction between Native American and American: The Native Americans walked across the Bering Strait about 10,000 years ago from Russia when it naturally froze over at the end of the last ice age. They were in pursuit of food in order to survive. I would call that a MIGRATION, made possible by geological events over which man had no control. Europeans used technology to construct vessels to surmount the geological boundaries that were until then impervious. They were in pursuit of spices and gold in order to enrich themselves, and used their religion to justify the exploitation of the new lands and people. I would call that a CRUSADE. Now you could make the argument that technology is a natural by-product of the particular path of evolution taken by man, and therefore any changes on the planet imposed by man are natural. But I don't really buy that. Just an example: Plastic is a by-product of technology, but I certainly wouldn't call it natural. Sorry to get so heavy, I just find this conversation really interesting.
Flysmallie Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Thats what I would be afraid off, bringing in a 10 in. rainbow , having it eaten by a 20+ in. brown then swallowed by a 40 lb+ striper all on a 4wt. F2F Sounds like a good time to me!
rainbow Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 As I understand it the stripers in Bull Shoals pretty well got wiped out because they came up to Powersite to eat the trout. Same thing would happen in Taney. They would follow the current to the dam and guys with 12" trout swim baits would wipe them out in no time. If there are fish the men will find a way to catch them.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now