Trout In Missouri

[FishinCricket]

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.

naw, I'm all about heavy thoughts.. That's one of many reasons why I fish, too many epiphanies while holding onto an ultralight and thinking deep thoughts..

But, this is fishing... Spose we'd better get back to the subject at hand..

I would lve to hook a rainbow that got eaten by a brown that in turned got eaten by a bass.. Any chance we could just go ahead and stock the area with stripers ourselves?

[fishinwrench]

Trout of course.

Oh....Yeah. LOL

Plastic is a by-product of technology, but I certainly wouldn't call it natural.

Good point. Wow, we have really taken a fork in the road here.

Do you consider Honey to be a natural product ? At which point in it's refinement does crude oil escape naturality, the instant it is removed from the earth, or after other elements are added/subtracted ?

[Bird Watcher]

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.

I thought it was Catch and Release only up there? Nevertheless, I didn't know Stripers were wiped out of Bull Shoals. I think they still catch them there. I understand that they have trouble with the oxygen depletion at the depths it takes for them to find their desirable temp, but I didn't know they had problems other than they quit stocking them.

What were we talking about? Missouri Trout? Ah yes, trout.

Trout are great, trout are pretty, it's just too bad they taste so shhh.....er..., bad. They taste bad.

[eric1978]

Oh....Yeah. LOL

Good point. Wow, we have really taken a fork in the road here.

Do you consider Honey to be a natural product ? At which point in it's refinement does crude oil escape naturality, the instant it is removed from the earth, or after other elements are added/subtracted ?

Admittedly, there is a lot of gray area there, but I guess I would say that a by-product becomes unnatural as soon as it's no longer biodegradable. I can't think of a by-product of any animal other than humans that isn't. Honey is completely natural, start to finish. Although some crude oil does occasionally make it to the surface on it's own, it wouldn't be a problem of any significance if we weren't drilling for it and turning it into fuels and lubricants, etc.

[ozark trout fisher]

Admittedly, there is a lot of gray area there, but I guess I would say that a by-product becomes unnatural as soon as it's no longer biodegradable. I can't think of a by-product of any animal other than humans that isn't. Honey is completely natural, start to finish. Although some crude oil does occasionally make it to the surface on it's own, it wouldn't be a problem of any significance if we weren't drilling for it and turning it into fuels and lubricants, etc.

This topic is sure going places, although maybe not the places I wanted it to go LOL.

In regard to Gavin's post, I think it's a tricky business deciding which non-native species are trash fish, and which aren't. If conservation is all based on our fishing, it all seems terribly shallow to me. Personally, I am more interested in conserving the system at large than just one species of fish. Let's face it. The native suckerfish are just as important, ecologically speaking, as native smallmouth bass. It just all depends on whether your just interested in conservation to make fishing better, or whether it's the stream that your worried about. That's my viewpoint at least.

[laker67]

. The simple fact is, trout are non-native to our Missouri streams. So, put simply, any trout present in our streams are an intrusion on the natural, native ecosystem.

Does anyone out there recall what our natural, native, eco system was like in the 1890's? Maybe angling has been detrimental to our eco system. Surely missouri's trout have been around long enough to fall into the "grandfather clause".

[ozark trout fisher]

Does anyone out there recall what our natural, native, eco system was like in the 1890's? Maybe angling has been detrimental to our eco system. Surely missouri's trout have been around long enough to fall into the "grandfather clause".

I do think that the native species deserve more concern than trout. It just seems logical to me.

Still, as I've said many times in this thread, I am by no means suggesting we quit stocking trout in any water they are currently stocked. I would be (admittedly selfishly so) upset if they did. But I do not think we should stock any new waters with trout where they aren't currently found. I wouldn't have said that a year ago, but my opinions have changed.

By the way, to the other "topic at hand" I hope to catch use a minnow as bait, catch a small rainbow, catch a big brown on the rainbow, catch a striper on the brown, and then catch the Loch Ness monster on the striper. All on my ultralight spooled with two pound test. :lol: :lol:

[Al Agnew]

Very interesting topic...

I agree with most everybody else that trout in MO mainly live in stream sections that would otherwise have somewhat of a shortage of game fish. They don't seem to compete directly with any other fish to the extent that they are very harmful to the other fish's population.

One thing that occurs to me, however, if we're talking true conservation...We know that trout have been in most of the spring branches and stream sections for many years, actually far before people started worrying much about native species. The question is, what WERE the big spring branches and the stream sections that are heavily spring-fed enough to have trout before the trout were first stocked? Were there native fish in them that we don't even remember now, that were wiped out by the trout? Or other organisms? I can't imagine that trout had NO real effect on the other denizens of such streams. I wonder if we were considering first introducing trout today, whether we would find some species that would be in danger if the trout were stocked.

Here's another thought...consider the big spring branches, especially Maramec and Bennett. These branches flow into streams that have thriving smallmouth and rock bass populations both upstream and down. We know that a significant number of smallies and goggle-eye migrate into warmer, spring-fed areas in the winter. You gotta suspect that a large number of them once went up into the spring branches and spent their winters there before trout. Now, the trout are so thick, and keep the natural food base so low, that maybe they are precluding the smallies and other game fish from moving up into the spring branches anymore. Now...I haven't noticed that there is a tremendous shortage of smallmouth on the Meramec above Maremec Spring, or the Niangua above Bennett, but I suppose it's possible that smallie populations BELOW the spring branches might have once been much greater.

Point is, though, that we simply don't know. Trout have been in MO so long that we don't have the data to tell us just how they DID impact the waters of the state when they were first introduced. Heck, there could have been species in some of the spring branches that became extinct because of trout, and we'll never know it.

I like trout and trout fishing. I like it a little better out West where the trout are self-sustaining. But I find it enough of a challenge here in MO to make it interesting. And I gotta admit, as cool as I think it is to catch native cutthroat out of the Yellowstone ecosystem, the browns and rainbows fight better!

[McManus]

Interesting. What trout are native to the coldwater streams in the American West?

How many--which of those streams--now are primarily hatchery trout?

Other than brown trout, what trout were primarily stocked in the United States?

[ozark trout fisher]

Very interesting topic...

I agree with most everybody else that trout in MO mainly live in stream sections that would otherwise have somewhat of a shortage of game fish. They don't seem to compete directly with any other fish to the extent that they are very harmful to the other fish's population.

One thing that occurs to me, however, if we're talking true conservation...We know that trout have been in most of the spring branches and stream sections for many years, actually far before people started worrying much about native species. The question is, what WERE the big spring branches and the stream sections that are heavily spring-fed enough to have trout before the trout were first stocked? Were there native fish in them that we don't even remember now, that were wiped out by the trout? Or other organisms? I can't imagine that trout had NO real effect on the other denizens of such streams. I wonder if we were considering first introducing trout today, whether we would find some species that would be in danger if the trout were stocked.

Here's another thought...consider the big spring branches, especially Maramec and Bennett. These branches flow into streams that have thriving smallmouth and rock bass populations both upstream and down. We know that a significant number of smallies and goggle-eye migrate into warmer, spring-fed areas in the winter. You gotta suspect that a large number of them once went up into the spring branches and spent their winters there before trout. Now, the trout are so thick, and keep the natural food base so low, that maybe they are precluding the smallies and other game fish from moving up into the spring branches anymore. Now...I haven't noticed that there is a tremendous shortage of smallmouth on the Meramec above Maremec Spring, or the Niangua above Bennett, but I suppose it's possible that smallie populations BELOW the spring branches might have once been much greater.

Point is, though, that we simply don't know. Trout have been in MO so long that we don't have the data to tell us just how they DID impact the waters of the state when they were first introduced. Heck, there could have been species in some of the spring branches that became extinct because of trout, and we'll never know it.

I like trout and trout fishing. I like it a little better out West where the trout are self-sustaining. But I find it enough of a challenge here in MO to make it interesting. And I gotta admit, as cool as I think it is to catch native cutthroat out of the Yellowstone ecosystem, the browns and rainbows fight better!

This post, as like most of your posts, was very interesting and informative. I was hoping you would chime in on this topic, given your almost boundless knowledge of Missouri streams. That is an interesting thought that some unrecorded species may have been caused to be extinct by trout. It's a sad thought really. It seems like the winter refuge of the Meramec River (Maramec Spring Park) has been ruined. Rock dams have been built, restricting fish movement, and as you stated earlier the trout greatly deplete the population of forage. The same thing has happened at Montauk State Park and Bennett Spring. I don't know about trout parks. They're a lot of fun, but ecologically, they are terrible. Dumping in 100,000 non-native fish into a one mile long stream each year does not sound like conservation to me. It just seems wrong. But on the flip side of this issue, these trout parks bring many new anglers into the sport that may not found there way to our great streams otherwise. They definitely have value in that since.

There are so many facets to this issue. It's difficult, and even impossible to take one hard stance on the issue. There are altogether too many factors to consider.

I will say this. If the trout parks at Bennett and Maramec Spring are hurting the smallmouth fishing in the main rivers, something must be done. What that something is, I don't know. Smallies are a precious resource, and they are becoming less common, especially in the Meramec watershed.