Trout In Missouri

[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.

Wow eric, you really misread my post. When I wrote of government, it was pertaining to the laws of Eminent Domain, where they can take your home or business if they see it necessary. Sorry you didn't get it.

You guys just go ahead with your ideas to eradicate a species. I won't be involved with that.

You and OTF are obviously passionate about this subject and won't see any other views, so I'll bow out now and let you like minded individuals discuss this amongst yourselves.

[eric1978]

Wow eric, you really misread my post. When I wrote of government, it was pertaining to the laws of Eminent Domain, where they can take your home or business if they see it necessary. Sorry you didn't get it.

You guys just go ahead with your ideas to eradicate a species. I won't be involved with that.

You and OTF are obviously passionate about this subject and won't see any other views, so I'll bow out now and let you like minded individuals discuss this amongst yourselves.

Apologies. I reread your post and you're right, I did misunderstand what you were saying. I get that you were making an analogy that the spots are to smallmouth as eminant domain is to helpless landowner. I should slow down before I jump to conclusions.

I do stick to the last part of my post however, that removing an invasive species is not wrong, but a correction of human error. And again, it's not eradication of a species, it's just removal of that species from where the earth did not intend it to be. I have no inclination to remove spotted bass from its native habitat.

[Al Agnew]

Is it evolution? In a word...NO. The spotted bass got there entirely because of human interference. There are three ways this could have happened, and it would take a very extensive genetic study to have a real chance of finding out exactly where the spots came from. But, fact is that before human interference, in order for a spotted bass to reach the Meramec river system, EVEN though they are native to the St. Francis River which has its headwaters just across some low ridges from the headwaters of Big River, that spot would have had to come from where the St. Francis and Castor Rivers flowed into the Mississippi halfway down the state of Arkansas, traveled up the Mississippie all the way to south St. Louis, and entered the Meramec. Due to the turbidity of the Mississippi below the mouth of the Missouri, it simply wasn't the kind of water that spotted bass would have moved up that far.

So how did they get there? As I've written before, there are three main possibilities. Somebody at some point dumped some spotted bass into Lake of the Ozarks soon after it was built, and they thrived in that lake and in the lower Osage. They could have moved down the Osage to the Missouri, down the Missouri to the Mississippi, down the Mississippi to the Meramec, and up the Meramec. MDC actually stocked them in the Loutre River, which enters the Missouri a little downstream of the Gasconade from the north, which would have been a shorter path down the Missouri. Or, my theory as I have written before--the Diversion Channel was built in the early 1900s, diverting the Castor River to the Mississippi just south of Cape Girardeau, shortening the path for spots UP the Mississippi by two thirds. The Clean Water Act cleaned up the Mississippi below St. Louis to make it more hospitable to spotted bass travel. And reservoirs up in the Dakotas on the Missouri made that river, and thus the Mississippi below it, much less turbid than it had always been before. NOW the spots had a clear and short path upstream to the Meramec. Like I've said, it's ironic that a GOOD thing--cleaning up the Mississippi, a major construction project that made the Bootheel of MO farmable, and dams a thousand miles away, may have combined to give spotted bass an opportunity to colonize new territory that they had never been able to do before.

Once they got to the Meramec, THEN it was partly evolution that allowed them to thrive. Absent spotted bass competition, smallies were perfectly well-adapted to the Meramec and its tributaries. But once the spotted bass got there by human interference, they WERE the species that had a competitive advantage. Evolution didn't put them there, but now it's evolution that will decide how they end up co-existing with smallmouth.

"Prime" smallmouth habitat doesn't have to be extremely fast and clear. Smallies can live in murky, slow water, and actually do better in such water due to the fertility and abundance of smallie food. Spotted bass, unfortunately, thrive in such waters, and are really just a little bit BETTER adapted to them. Spotted bass are only at a competitive disadvantage in waters that are very clear, cool, and fast. Fact is that such waters are really not "prime" smallmouth habitat. They are too infertile. But smallmouth are able to do well in such waters, while spots can't. So...what we think of as prime smallmouth habitat in the south-flowing streams of the Missouri Ozarks is actually only decent habitat...but the smallies have it pretty much to themselves because the spots can't do well in it. If spotted bass didn't exist, the best fishing for big smallmouth would probably be in some of the places where spots dominate now.

[crawfly]

I have a question......... Do you consider the threat to smallmouth bass to be applicable to all watersheds that contain them or just Missouri watersheds?

If it's just Missouri, why?

The premier water for Va. for 2009 ..........

Staunton River

The Staunton River may be the most over-looked smallmouth bass fishery in Virginia. From Leesville Dam downstream to Brookneal, the Staunton River holds ideal habitat for both smallmouth bass and spotted bass. Anglers will find abundant rocky habitat as well as numerous submerged trees along the river banks which hold bass year round. Strong year class production in 2005 and 2007 should mean good catch rates of smallmouth bass in the 8-14 inch range. However, because of above average growth rates, anglers always have the chance at citation-sized smallmouth bass. Crayfish are important in the diets of smallmouth bass in most rivers but anglers should also consider crank baits as well to mimic the abundant minnow and shad populations in the river. While generally less popular, the Staunton River also holds quality sized spotted bass. Each year, biologists collect spotted bass up to 15 inches in electrofishing surveys. Catfish are abundant in the Staunton River and anglers should have no problem finding them whether fishing from the shoreline or by boat. The average size collected by biologists while sampling was 13 inches with the largest being 24 inches. Blue catfish and flathead catfish are common in the Staunton as well. Other species anglers will find are walleye, striped bass, white perch, and a variety of sunfish species. Visit the Staunton River section of the Department's website for information on access to the Staunton River.

http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/fishing/forec...ng-forecast.asp

Fall Creek study conducted in 2000 .....

The most numerous species collected that also had the highest average population estimate was smallmouth bass. Fifty-seven smallmouth that weighed 24.65 pounds were collected. The average population estimate was 132 smallmouth bass per mile, however, the two reaches had vastly different population estimates (Table 1). The estimate for the parkway reach was 194 per mile, but just 70 per mile for the Fort Harrison reach. The estimates for the present survey are nearly identical to those observed in 1996 (181 per mile at the parkway reach and 72 per mile in Fort Harrison

Table 1. Game fish population estimates (number per mile) for the Fort Harrison and parkway reaches of Fall Creek in the fall of 2000.

Smallmouth ranged from 3.3 to 18.1 inches long and averaged 7.8 inches (Table 2). Overall, nearly 23 percent of the smallmouth bass collected were 12 inches or larger and six were 16 inches or greater. In 1996, 33 percent of the smallmouth were a harvestable size. Smallmouth growth was slightly below normal in the present survey compared to smallmouth bass collected from other central Indiana streams (Table 3). Growth, however, is very similar to smallmouth growth observed from Fall Creek in 1992 and 1996. At 3-years-old, Fall Creek smallmouth are over one-half-inch smaller than the central Indiana average. The bulk of the smallmouth bass collected were spawned in 1999. The spring and summer of 1999 were very dry which generally results in strong year classes in streams. The spring and summer of 1997 and 1994 were also fairly dry, however, the 1997 year class of smallmouth was not extremely well represented. The 1994 year class on the other hand is still fairly well represented considering the age of those fish and their vulnerability to harvest (averaged 15.3 inches). Smallmouth bass average weights were slightly to well below normal.

Forty-eight spotted bass were sampled that collectively weighed 17.43 pounds. Spotted bass were nearly equally divided at the two reaches as the Fort Harrison station contained 124 per mile while the parkway reach had 132 per mile. In 1996, the two stations combined averaged 112 spotted bass per mile and they were nearly equally distributed, so the population has remained fairly stable over the four year period. Lengths of spotted bass ranged from 2.7 to 14.1 inches and averaged 7.8 inches (Table 4). Eight of the spotted bass (17 percent) were 12 inches or larger which is identical to that observed in 1996.

Growth of spotted bass was well below normal at all ages. It is currently taking spotted bass six years to reach legal size where normally it should take them about five years to reach 12 inches. Like smallmouth, the 1999 year class of spotted bass was very strong. The 1997 and 1994 year classes were also fairly well represented. Average weights of spotted bass from 6 to 10 inches long were generally below normal.

http://www.in.gov/dnr/fishwild/3533.htm

There's more but for OAF bandwidth purposes I'll cut it off here ........ If the information is wrong then spots are taking over everywhere, not just Mo.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Al,

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.

Well I didn't read it as a guess but, questioning, you the reader, if you had also noticed the changes that have occurred. There was no doubt in my mind as to what they were pointing to as the reasons.

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.

Yes I did. And it struck me that you both quoted "the last 30 years" Now of course some of what the MDC spoke of was, as you said, started in the 20th century. But they also spoke of developments that have been increasing in occurrence in the last 30 years.

Record keeping has changed quite drastically since the 20th century. There just wasn't much record keeping of destruction. I think that we will both agree that by the time 1985 rolled around, the MDC pretty well knew the whereabouts of species in their charge through countless hours of research.

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.

This is from a 2007 post of yours:

I grew up on Big River is southeast MO. I've been fishing the upper river for more than 45 years, and have spent a lot of time studying its environmental problems. It is by far the most impaired Ozark stream in MO, due to lead mining, over development, tiff mining, and poor land use practices in the watershed. Even with all those problems, it was once a terrific smallmouth stream, but now spotted bass are providing the latest and worst assault on smallmouth populations.

I just think that land use practices in all forms are the deadliest form of destruction that can happen to a waterway. I also think there is validity in what the MDC article states. Just my take.

While on the subject of Kentuckies migrating into the mentioned waterways, didn't brownies also migrate into these waters? If I recall correctly I think it has been reported that they migrated from the upper Mississippi and Ohio rivers systems? And if that it correct I wonder, and I know we don't have any means of positively knowing, how quickly they migrating up these waterways? As fast as the Kentuckies? I would think it would be a possibility anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ozark trout fisher]

Wow eric, you really misread my post. When I wrote of government, it was pertaining to the laws of Eminent Domain, where they can take your home or business if they see it necessary. Sorry you didn't get it.

You guys just go ahead with your ideas to eradicate a species. I won't be involved with that.

You and OTF are obviously passionate about this subject and won't see any other views, so I'll bow out now and let you like minded individuals discuss this amongst yourselves.

You'd be passionate about it too if all your home waters were in the Meramec basin.

I don't mind a differing opinion. I just don't agree with you.

[ozark trout fisher]

Al,

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.

Well I didn't read it as a guess but, questioning, you the reader, if you had also noticed the changes that have occurred. There was no doubt in my mind as to what they were pointing to as the reasons.

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.

Yes I did. And it struck me that you both quoted "the last 30 years" Now of course some of what the MDC spoke of was, as you said, started in the 20th century. But they also spoke of developments that have been increasing in occurrence in the last 30 years.

Record keeping has changed quite drastically since the 20th century. There just wasn't much record keeping of destruction. I think that we will both agree that by the time 1985 rolled around, the MDC pretty well knew the whereabouts of species in their charge through countless hours of research.

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.

This is from a 2007 post of yours:

I grew up on Big River is southeast MO. I've been fishing the upper river for more than 45 years, and have spent a lot of time studying its environmental problems. It is by far the most impaired Ozark stream in MO, due to lead mining, over development, tiff mining, and poor land use practices in the watershed. Even with all those problems, it was once a terrific smallmouth stream, but now spotted bass are providing the latest and worst assault on smallmouth populations.

I just think that land use practices in all forms are the deadliest form of destruction that can happen to a waterway. I also think there is validity in what the MDC article states. Just my take.

While on the subject of Kentuckies migrating into the mentioned waterways, didn't brownies also migrate into these waters? If I recall correctly I think it has been reported that they migrated from the upper Mississippi and Ohio rivers systems? And if that it correct I wonder, and I know we don't have any means of positively knowing, how quickly they migrating up these waterways? As fast as the Kentuckies? I would think it would be a possibility anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously.... I really don't understand why you think you know WAY more about the Meramec River system than anyone else, even though I'm pretty sure you don't fish it very often, if at all. Mr. Agnew has been on all of the rivers in the system, and has fished them all extensively for decades. Just like I don't really know what's going on in your part of the state, you may not know what's going on in this part of the state. Experience on the river is the best judge of these things if you ask me.

[Chief Grey Bear]

That is funny coming from you.

[ozark trout fisher]

That is funny coming from you.

Not really, actually. I just listen to people that have many years of experience on the river in question.

Let's face it. You don't fish here, you really don't know what's going on with the system. I don't really know either, because I have only been fishing the river a few years myself. Personally, I will chose to trust Al Agnew's observations on the subject.

The difference between you and I sir, is I admit it when I'm not sure of something. You can consider that a weakness, but I don't.

[hank franklin]

Al, I very much appreciate your writing on the spotted bass topic. Very interesting, and very balanced too. Thanks.