Trout In Missouri

[Wayne SW/MO]

I didn't get into this because overall its beyond late. The natural cold water streams have had trout in them far too long to know what, if any, impact that trout have had on native species.

The Niangua is a good example of misreading a stream. In summer when most are fishing the trout area the Smallie population is thin, but as the river cools in the winter the smallies flock to the now warmer water. I doubt that trout have had much of an impact on most native fish because most native fish don't tolerate the temperatures that trout do.

The biggest culprit in Missouri is dams and illegal introductions.

[ozark trout fisher]

I didn't get into this because overall its beyond late. The natural cold water streams have had trout in them far too long to know what, if any, impact that trout have had on native species.

The Niangua is a good example of misreading a stream. In summer when most are fishing the trout area the Smallie population is thin, but as the river cools in the winter the smallies flock to the now warmer water. I doubt that trout have had much of an impact on most native fish because most native fish don't tolerate the temperatures that trout do.

The biggest culprit in Missouri is dams and illegal introductions.

My opinion exactly.

[Al Agnew]

Chief Graybear...you will note that the article you quoted basically says degraded habitat is a guess as to why spotted bass invaded the Meramec. You will also note that it wasn't very specific about when the degradation of habitat started, while it was very specific about when the spotted bass invasion began. (I will note, however, that I caught a few hybrids in middle Big River back in the mid-1970s--but then never caught another or a pure spot until about 1983 on the Meramec around the mouth of the Bourbeuse.) I will also say again that I've been ON these rivers since well before the spotted bass invasion began, and I think I've always been a pretty observant river user. I also know a lot about the history of these streams. So I'll say it again...the habitat back in the 1960s (on Big River) and early 1970s was certainly no better than it was in the 1980s or 1990s. Most of the really bad land use practices that resulted in habitat degredation on these streams happened in the early 20th century. By the 1930s and 1940s these rivers were in REALLY bad shape. Better land use practices after that made habitat improve steadily into the mid-1980s when spotted bass first appeared. On the lower and middle Meramec, habitat started declining BEGINNING in the 1980s. Habitat is still holding steady on Big River. I don't know as much about the Bourbeuse, but it's a fact that articles from MDC in the late 1970s rated the Bourbeuse as having one of the most healthy riparian corridors in the state.

MDC is basically using the spotted bass situation as a vehicle for advocating improvement of land use practices. There is no doubt that improvement would be a good thing. But habitat degradation is NOT the cause of spotted bass invasion, nor will whatever habitat improvement that can be done take care of the spotted bass problem in these streams.

The simple fact is that spotted bass were not native to these streams, and would have had to travel very long distances up or down fairly inhospitable waterways in order to reach them. One way or another, humans furnished a pathway for the spotted bass to reach these streams, and when they got there they found habitat to their liking. But that habitat was also VERY MUCH to the liking of smallmouth. In the 1970s and early 1980s, there is little doubt that the Meramec was the best stream in the state for BIG smallmouth. Big River and the Bourbeuse weren't far behind. If it wasn't for two things--spotted bass and GREATLY increased angling pressure due to the advent of jetboats--the Meramec would STILL be one of the very best smallie streams in the Ozarks. And middle to upper Big and Bourbeuse would be right behind it.

[Buzz]

Not to be disrespectful but, could this be natural evolution?????? Stuff happens all of the time that we don't notice until it"s too late. This is concerning the spots that are moving into the streams and rivers mentioned.

Could it be that they are the stronger species? Sort of like eminent domain!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against this when government is involved but, we are talking about fish. It seems to me that it is or was going to happen anyway. Total eradication of a species just seems wrong.

I feel for you guys that have seen a decrease in smallmouth populations and I don't have any ideas for you, but to blatantly ask for the killing of any and all of any species of fish seems to be a little opposite of the conservationists that normally frequent this forum. I am strictly C & R.

Concerning the original topic of trout, I really don't see a problem there. They were put into places that were obviously needed for commerce and the support of the sport of trout fishing, which is a multi-million dollar industry in our state.

Buzz

[ozark trout fisher]

Not to be disrespectful but, could this be natural evolution?????? Stuff happens all of the time that we don't notice until it"s too late. This is concerning the spots that are moving into the streams and rivers mentioned.

Could it be that they are the stronger species? Sort of like eminent domain!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against this when government is involved but, we are talking about fish. It seems to me that it is or was going to happen anyway. Total eradication of a species just seems wrong.

I feel for you guys that have seen a decrease in smallmouth populations and I don't have any ideas for you, but to blatantly ask for the killing of any and all of any species of fish seems to be a little opposite of the conservationists that normally frequent this forum. I am strictly C & R.

Concerning the original topic of trout, I really don't see a problem there. They were put into places that were obviously needed for commerce and the support of the sport of trout fishing, which is a multi-million dollar industry in our state.

Buzz

Sometimes a little tough love is needed to save a fishery. Unless I'm incorrect, natural evolution in almost all cases occurs over a long period of time, moving so slowly that we can't really observe it happening. The spotted bass invasion happened so quickly, and without any warning, that I do not think this could be qualified as natural evolution. They are invading the smallies habitat, and drastically reducing their numbers. That's proven. I say kill 'em all.

[Buzz]

Not to be disrespectful but, could this be natural evolution?????? Stuff happens all of the time that we don't notice until it"s too late. This is concerning the spots that are moving into the streams and rivers mentioned.

Could it be that they are the stronger species? Sort of like eminent domain!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against this when government is involved but, we are talking about fish. It seems to me that it is or was going to happen anyway. Total eradication of a species just seems wrong.

I feel for you guys that have seen a decrease in smallmouth populations and I don't have any ideas for you, but to blatantly ask for the killing of any and all of any species of fish seems to be a little opposite of the conservationists that normally frequent this forum. I am strictly C & R.

Concerning the original topic of trout, I really don't see a problem there. They were put into places that were obviously needed for commerce and the support of the sport of trout fishing, which is a multi-million dollar industry in our state.

Buzz

Sometimes a little tough love is needed to save a fishery. Unless I'm incorrect, natural evolution in almost all cases occurs over a long period of time, moving so slowly that we can't really observe it happening. The spotted bass invasion happened so quickly, and without any warning, that I do not think this could be qualified as natural evolution. They are invading the smallies habitat, and drastically reducing their numbers. That's proven. I say kill 'em all.

So, maybe natural evolution wasn't the correct way of stating my point.

On the other highlighted statements, I still have to stick with them.

[ozark trout fisher]

So, maybe natural evolution wasn't the correct way of stating my point.

On the other highlighted statements, I still have to stick with them.

Okay, let me make my point with an analogy.... Say a thief goes into your house and steals everything, because the lock on the front door is broken. Will you fix the lock so someone else can't rob your house? Of course, that's just common sense. But you also will want to find the thief and have him charged, right?

For those who don't get it, here's a little help.....

Thief=spotted bass

All the valuables in your house= smallmouth bass

The broken lock= the habitat problems on the Meramec River

house= The Meramec River system

[eric1978]

Not to be disrespectful but, could this be natural evolution?????? Stuff happens all of the time that we don't notice until it"s too late. This is concerning the spots that are moving into the streams and rivers mentioned.

Could it be that they are the stronger species? Sort of like eminent domain!!!!

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against this when government is involved but, we are talking about fish. It seems to me that it is or was going to happen anyway. Total eradication of a species just seems wrong.

I feel for you guys that have seen a decrease in smallmouth populations and I don't have any ideas for you, but to blatantly ask for the killing of any and all of any species of fish seems to be a little opposite of the conservationists that normally frequent this forum. I am strictly C & R.

Concerning the original topic of trout, I really don't see a problem there. They were put into places that were obviously needed for commerce and the support of the sport of trout fishing, which is a multi-million dollar industry in our state.

Buzz

Exactly what government involvement are you against? I suppose you would prefer if the government would bow out of conservation issues altogether and just let "natural evolution" take over. Let's start with removing creel laws. Now you can catch, keep and gig any size, any species of fish at any time of year. You can kiss your gamefish goodbye, especially in the streams. You and I and most of us on this forum might be C & R only or mostly, but the local hillbillies would have the populations decimated in no time. But I guess that would be natural, since we humans are the "stronger species."

Total eradication of a species that is non-native and is invasive and harmful to the native population, a species that was introduced via human action, is NOT wrong. It's actually a correction. We're not talking about extinction, just localized removal.

[crawfly]

The same attributes of smallmouth bass that are displayed on the end of a fishing line are also in play otherwise. When smallmouth and trout are forced to cohabit, by whatever conditions that create the normally temporary situation, trout are intimidated by smallmouth. They will literrally hide out OR they will get their anal kicked. Ultimately temperature is the trouts best defense. In locales where both smb & trout inhabit the same rivershed, TYPICALLY, water temps are the barrier. The trout know this AND cool the anal area post haste.

Spots prefer slower water for a reason. Smallmouth bass aren't typically in the vicinity. Again temperature plays a part in this scenario as well. They find that in the summertime if largemouth bass had a thermostat they would set it at 80 F and the smallmouth setting would be 70 F. Spotted bass are right in the middle with a 75 F temperature preference. (this was determined in a study by surgically installed temp sensors) The spot will be more inclined to scrap with a smallmouth but the end result ........ move to slower water where he doesn't get his anal fin kicked for being there.

There are myriad factors in nature (spawning success being the major one) which "control" populations of any species of fish but the impact of fisheries by man, by whatever means (pollution, diversion/obstruction, etc, etc) causes big changes negatively (most often). Couple that with predation and more importantly INCREASED predation and you have all that is necessary for potential elimination.

Having said all that, I would appreciate it if more of you guys would stay home and I will promise to post up more reports of how the fish are doing as a result of it. Remember, I will only be catching fish for scientific purposes.

Seriously though, as an example, I shall relate recent events as told to me by a friend who was there. It seems this last Monday, at the 160 bridge on Finley, tickets were issued for illegal fishing & fish. Two guys seining the river. The 5 gallon bucket had a short walleye amongst the other fish. No license, no fishing poles, not a cast net, a seine is how they fish. Times they are a changin'.

[eric1978]

Spots prefer slower water for a reason. Smallmouth bass aren't typically in the vicinity....The spot will be more inclined to scrap with a smallmouth but the end result ........ move to slower water where he doesn't get his anal fin kicked for being there.

This is simply not true. While smallmouth do prefer slightly cooler, clearer and faster moving water, spots will move into prime smallmouth habitat, make themselves right at home, and will directly CAUSE a decline in the smallmouth population.