Trout In Missouri

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

You are right. How could I have an opinion that differs from the OPINION of Al's current stance? An opinion that agreed with Al in 2007. An opinion that is the same as that of the MDC's that has been studying that river for more than 45 years.

And that is just what it is an opinion. That is just what Al is sharing, his opinion. You keep claiming that I am on some high horse looking down upon you. Get over yourself.

Talk about being a know it all. If I was you I sure wouldn't be pointing that finger. I don't know how anybody that has lived in this state only as long as you have knows and posts on every waterway forum on this board.

I liked your advice on Crane Creek. Have you fished it yet?

[ozark trout fisher]

You are right. How could I have an opinion that differs from the OPINION of Al's current stance? An opinion that agreed with Al in 2007. An opinion that is the same as that of the MDC's that has been studying that river for more than 45 years.

And that is just what it is an opinion. That is just what Al is sharing, his opinion. You keep claiming that I am on some high horse looking down upon you. Get over yourself.

Talk about being a know it all. If I was you I sure wouldn't be pointing that finger. I don't know how anybody that has lived in this state only as long as you have knows and posts on every waterway forum on this board.

I liked your advice on Crane Creek. Have you fished it yet?

No I have not fished Crane Creek. And I believe I have said that at least once before on this site. But I have fished streams that were quite similar to it, so I thought I might be able to help, if only a little bit. I never claimed to have fished the creek.

Honestly, I'll admit it. I post about streams sometimes that I don't have extensive experience on, especially when no one else responds to someone asking a question. Is it better to leave that person with no answer, or is it better to give them an educated guess, based on experiences elsewhere. I would prefer the latter, but maybe you wouldn't. I guess its just a difference in opinion. I am not trying to be a know it all. I am just trying to give a little bit of advice. Should I just leave the thread blank? Maybe. But I don't really think that's for you to judge. I have never given fishing advice on this forum with anything less than good intentions, and that I can promise. Also, I always read, and appreciate your posts about your home waters, even though I may never fish them. I have nothing against you even after this particular thread, I just disagree with you on the spotted bass issue, and maybe got a little too pissed off about it. Not a huge deal is it?

Really, this is getting altogether too personal. I do not want to continue with this argument. Its as much my fault as yours, not denying anything here. But I would like for it to be done.

[Al Agnew]

Chief, yes, Big River IS the most impaired river in the Ozarks. BUT, I'm pretty sure you didn't see me say anywhere that the degradation of Big River is a recent thing. The lead mines and barite mines that have caused most of the problems on Big River were in full swing in the early part of the 20th Century. The complex of municipalities in the Old Lead Belt on the upper River have been dumping sewage into the river for longer than that, and didn't get ANY sewage treatment plants until the Clean Water Act made them do it...Desloge and Flat River (Now Park Hills) built their first sewage lagoons around 1969, and the water coming from them then was a putrid green and stank immensely...but it had to be better than what was happening before that. It was about then that water quality in Big River began to improve. The mine waste problem also started to improve after major disasters in the mid-70s caused something to be done about unsafe barite settling pond dams and lead tailings pond dams. The river's water supply, which had been depressed somewhat when the mines shut down for good in the 1960s and ground water was no longer pumped out of the mines into the river to keep them dry enough to operate, came back up once the mines completely filled with water and the excess began to emerge both in old exploratory boreholes and in the former springs. And as I said before, row-cropping, once very common in the bottoms along Big River, was being phased out by then as well, replaced by pasture and hay production. Those are facts, not my opinion. The facts are that Big River was in much better shape by the time spotted bass began to invade it from the lower end than they had been before. Since that time, the biggest changes on Big River have been good--the lead mine tailings areas were made into Federal Superfund sites (and the last one of the seven major areas is approaching final clean-up right now), and bad--more development in the upper watershed.

The fact also is, and you'll get this answer from MDC if they wish to be honest, they DO NOT have really good baseline data for the health of the riparian corridors along these streams, or the water quality, before they began to really take Ozark stream resources seriously in the 1960s and 70s. They simply didn't have either the resources nor the will to pay close attention to the streams before then, concentrating their efforts much more on the big reservoirs. That's their biggest problem not only with such things as spotted bass encroachment, but in the possible damage caused by jetboats on the major rivers--they really don't have the data to show them what the rivers were like before jetboat use exploded...not in any real quantifiable way. The only early study MDC ever did on an Ozark stream before Fleener's study of smallmouth on Courtois Creek in the 1960s was an extensive study of Black River (where spotted bass were native) back in the 1940s. I'd venture to say that NOBODY within MDC at present has first-hand knowledge of what Big River was like prior to about 1970, and maybe much later. The biologists who have been responsible for Big River are younger than I am and didn't grow up anywhere near the river.

What they KNOW is when spotted bass first began showing up in their samplings and creel surveys. And what I know is when I started catching spotted bass. While spots were common in the Osage river system prior to 1950, and invaded the Moreau River just upstream from the mouth of the Osage by 1950, there is no record of spotted bass in the Gasconade prior to 1974 (and chances are that Gasconade River spotted bass came from MDC stockings in the Loutre River). A single specimen was found at the junction of the Missouri and Mississippi in 1969, and several specimens were also taken at the mouth of Isle du Bois Creek, downstream on the Mississippi below the Meramec, in 1969. But there is no official record of spotted bass in the Meramec prior to 1975.

Meanwhile, my own experiences in the eastern Ozarks might be a pretty good document of spotted bass spread into the Meramec and tributaries. I've fished all the creeks flowing into the Mississippi south of the Meramec since the early 1970s, as well as the Meramec and tribs. In 1974, spotted bass were common in lower Apple Creek below Appleton Mill dam, non-existent above the dam--I was going to college in Cape and fished Apple Creek a lot in 1974-76. Apple Creek is the FIRST good-sized creek that spotted bass would come to as they moved up the Mississippi from the Diversion Channel. At that same time, I was also fishing Saline Creek, including the lower end (it was a decent place to fish for walleye, which I was really into at that time.) Saline Creek is the next stream that spotted bass would come to as they moved up the Mississippi. There were no spotted bass in Saline Creek (at least I never caught any), until a few years later. Next creek up the river--Establishment Creek. There were spotted bass in it a couple years after they first appeared in Saline Creek. Joachim and Plattin Creek were next. Isle du Bois Creek, where specimens were collected at the mouth in 1969, is between Establishment Creek and Joachim Creek, but it is a tiny creek that is unsuitable for spotted bass--chances are that those fish, collected only once, were strays from either very early penetrations up the Mississippi or down from the Missouri. So, next stop for spotted bass--the Meramec...and the first spotted bass showed up there in the early 1980s. That's why I think my theory is correct.

But the main point is that spotted bass were able to get to these streams in an "unnatural" way...they weren't directly stocked, but humans gave them a pathway one way or another. And they invaded from the lower ends, which were ALWAYS good spotted bass habitat--witness where spots are found in the Ozark streams where they are native...mostly in the slower, murkier lower stretches. Once they got to the lower ends, where they liked it and thrived, they continued moving upstream. Habitat CHANGES had nothing to do with it. Had they been able to reach the Meramec by entirely natural means, they would have been in the lower 30 miles or so since the last ice age. And once they were there in the lower end, habitat changes had nothing to do with it either, because their invasion was simply too fast. In a period of less than 25 years, they were able to not only invade but become the dominant or nearly dominant bass species in 100 miles of the Meramec, 55 miles of the Bourbeuse, and 100 miles of Big River. And all that mileage includes a lot of healthy smallie habitat along with whatever degraded stretches there are. In fact, the only things that stopped them were the mill dams, that formed a barrier to their upstream movement. Guths Mill on the lower Bourbeuse held them back for a period of several years, and Noser Mill is still apparently slowing their spread into the river above it. Four mill dams held them out of the middle and upper portions of Big River for a number of years. It appears that the Meramec above Meramec State Park may be habitat that is not enough to their liking, because it has been at least 10 years since they became common below the park, but they are still reasonably scarce upstream.

So yeah, I'm guessing about some things...but I think they are well-educated guesses with a lot of evidence to back them up.

And in the end, whether or not land use practices are improved, whether or not habitat degradation is stopped, simple geology will to a large extent determine the future of spotted bass and smallmouth in these rivers. The biologists will tell you that gradient is one of the biggest limiting factors in spotted bass habitat. They can live in pretty nice smallmouth water, but they just don't do well where the rivers are really fast. Kevin Meneau and Mike Reed, MDC biologists, have both said that a gradient of about 3.5 to 4 feet per mile is the limit of good spotted bass habitat, greater than that and they don't do well (with some exceptions in the streams where they are native, most notably the St. Francis River). Big River's gradient is less than 4 feet per mile until you get above Leadwood. The ENTIRE Bourbeuse is less than 4 feet per mile. The Meramec is less than 4 feet per mile below Steelville. And only the Meramec is heavily spring fed enough to make it possibly too cool for spotted bass, which is probably why they haven't thrived above Meramec State Park. No amount of habitat quality will change those characteristics.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Great post as always Al. I thank you for the time you spend sharing with us. But I thought our difference in opinion was really whether there had been habitat change or not. And it appears that we have both steered off of that course.

[hank franklin]

Al, I hope you put your writing into a book at some point. Your writing and research on this needs to be recorded.

I fish the Bourbeuse above Noser's and the Meramec above the park with some regularity. In my experience, spotted bass are dominant above Noser's, really without question. It is amazing frankly how quickly it happened. My experience would bear out the points in your research--the faster cooler water (riffles and chutes) are more apt to hold smallmouth, the more sluggish water is really overrun with spotteds.

I would agree that smallmouth are still dominant on the Meramec above the park, but spotteds are frequent. Smallmouth are still king above Maramec Spring though I've caught occasional spotted above 8 bridge as well. So they are getting past the spring at least in some numbers.

[Al Agnew]

Thanks, Hank...I gotta admit I haven't been on the upper Bourbeuse in the last few years, so I was going by what others were telling me that the spots were not dominant above Noser yet. Unless something very unexpected happens, though, they WILL become the dominant species throughout the entire Bourbeuse, given the type of habitat it is. As for the Meramec, yes, you will catch spotted bass farther upstream, especially in years with a lot of high water. Spotted bass REALLY move around in high water. But the thing that keeps me hopeful is that they have been unable to become dominant above Meramec State Park even though they've had the opportunity for a long time. As fast as you and I have both seen them explode in Big River and the Bourbeuse, it would appear that if the upper Meramec was suitable habitat they would have done the same there.

Chief, I think we aren't much in disagreement about PRESENT habitat changes. The thing that's really starting to hurt the rivers now is simply the greatly increased development in the watersheds. I fear for the future of all the Ozark streams. But my point with habitat is that until the last couple of decades the situation had been improving on many stretches, not deteriorating. Big River is kind of a special case...it was getting better, but "better" is a relative term when you consider where it was to begin with. The Bourbeuse is almost the opposite--really good conditions on it when a lot of other streams were in bad shape, but probably now starting to deteriorate with development.

Right now Mike Reed, the biologist for upper Big River, and others in MDC are working on a serious problem on the river where the Park Hills sewage treatment plant dumps into Flat River Creek. Ever since sewage treatment plants were first put in the watershed, every summer the bottom of the river becomes covered with mats of algae which then break loose, float to the surface, and drift downriver until something stops them. The algae is sickly blackish green and it stinks just like a sewage lagoon. This year it is the worst I've ever seen it. In many places between Flat River Creek and St. Francois State Park, the river surface is almost completely covered with this gunk, and it piles up against logs into mats several feet across and up to 6 inches thick. I can't imagine anybody would want to swim in the river at St. Francois Park, which is usually a pretty popular park. MO DNR supposedly tested the water coming out of the treatment plant, and says it is within acceptable limits. There is a possibility that there is something in the water chemistry on Big River, given the ongoing contamination from lead mine waste, that is combining with the nutrients coming out of the sewage plant to make this algae thrive. Stay tuned.

[Greg]

Honestly, I'll admit it. I post about streams sometimes that I don't have extensive experience on, especially when no one else responds to someone asking a question. Is it better to leave that person with no answer, or is it better to give them an educated guess, based on experiences elsewhere. I would prefer the latter, but maybe you wouldn't. I guess its just a difference in opinion. I am not trying to be a know it all. I am just trying to give a little bit of advice. Should I just leave the thread blank?

I do the same thing. I've never really thought about it but sometimes I'll post info on areas/streams I only fish occasionally (like the upper Current and NFOW). I've never really thought that was wrong especially if someone posts wanting info and there are few or no responses. I've always thought the more information/help you can give someone the better.

Greg

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief, I think we aren't much in disagreement about PRESENT habitat changes.

One thing you can always count on from me Al, we may have minor dissagreements on our journey but, I assure you, we have the same destination! I will meet you there. Rod in hand.

I do the same thing. I've never really thought about it but sometimes I'll post info on areas/streams I only fish occasionally (like the upper Current and NFOW). I've never really thought that was wrong especially if someone posts wanting info and there are few or no responses. I've always thought the more information/help you can give someone the better.

Greg

You are absolutely correct Greg. I couldn't agree more. It just seemed kind of odd to be scolded like a redheaded step child when I was the one giving the info/opinion. Wouldn't you agree?

[Al Agnew]

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.

Crawfly, it depends upon one or two factors. Are they native to the watershed? And is something happening that is making them increase at the expense of other bass species? In MO, they are a big problem ONLY in the Meramec and Gasconade river systems, where they were NOT native. Other stream stretches further south have seen an increase in their population mainly because of the effects of dams on these streams--as I said, in the case of lower Black River because of dam releases off the top of Clearwater Lake, which made the river below warmer and murkier. And in the case of Bryant Creek and the James River, continual movement upstream out of robust populations in Norfork and Table Rock Lake. Other than that, spotted bass are no problem at all in the streams where they are native.

In some other parts of the country, it's likely that habitat changes in streams that once had spotted bass only toward their lower ends have allowed them to move into what once was mainly smallmouth water--not a good thing. And maybe in a case or two, removal of low-head dams might have allowed them to spread further upstream than they had been before. But for the most part, if they were native to a river system, they and the smallies have evolved together and have their own ecological niches, or co-exist quite well. So it's a case by case deal. If for some reason the spot population suddenly explodes and the smallmouth population drops, you know something is wrong. But when both populations are stable, even in the same waters, then there is probably nothing to be concerned about.

Don't get me wrong. I think spotted bass are a valuable game fish in the places where they are native. I am just as protective of the spotted bass in the St. Francis River as I am the smallies and largemouth. But dang it, they don't belong in the Meramec and Big River, and I will not release one there that I can legally keep, period.

[Greg]

You are absolutely correct Greg. I couldn't agree more. It just seemed kind of odd to be scolded like a redheaded step child when I was the one giving the info/opinion. Wouldn't you agree?

I do of course. The few times that's happened to me I didn't appreciate it either. But I really think you both just misinterpreted each other's comments. And then it snowballed from there.........

We are just not all going to agree on everything. Al Agnew is probably the most knowledgeable guy on here (MHO) but I certainly don't always agree with him.

Greg