Trout In Missouri

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

I have been reading in all of these post and I don't think I agree. I can only speak of a handful of streams in my corner of heaven but, in those streams you will find it very difficult to catch a native fish. Go to a similar size stream in the vicinity and you won't have any trouble catching them. I would find it very difficult to believe that Hickory, Capp's, and Crane were the only streams that all through time had very few bass, goggle eye and perch.

Is it due to trout? I can't say for sure but that is what I am putting my money on. There is no difference in these streams except for the stocking of trout.

Now I also know of a few "other streams" that have some wild populations of trout in the head waters and very few native species. But you get as much as a half mile or so down stream and it is the complete opposite. Coincidence?

Do I like catching trout? Sure, its a blast. It gives me something else to due during the winter months. I am jsut not sure I would like to see it expanded to other streams. At this point in my life I think I have enough options for trout.

[Guest]

deleted

[laker67]

I am totally with you...but MDC is afraid to tick off the relatively small population of MO that gigs, let alone the thousands of people who visit the trout parks over the course of a summer. Plus I am sure that the revenue brought in by such a place has something to do with it.

But I would jump for joy if it happened.

I think you all are trying to create a problem that does not exist.

[ozark trout fisher]

I think you all are trying to create a problem that does not exist.

I really respect your knowledge on the subject... But I think there is a problem.

In the Meramec watershed, Maramec Spring is one of only a few spring branches large enough to be a significant thermal refuge for smallmouth bass during the winter. First of all, there is a rock dam on the lower end, which, unless water is high, prevents any fish from moving up. Also, it would make a lot of since that the 100,000 trout stocked per year would really deplete the food supply, even if the bass could get there. Considering smallmouth bass populations are declining dramatically for other reasons (primarily spotted bass,gigging, and overharvest), in the Meramec Basin, I would say this is a definite problem. I say some serious thought should be put in about changing management of Maramec Spring, and the rock dam at the lower end should be taken down no matter what.

I don't know about the Niangua watershed, and how bass are being affected there. I am just not familiar with the area.

[eric1978]

I really respect your knowledge on the subject... But I think there is a problem.

In the Meramec watershed, Maramec Spring is one of only a few spring branches large enough to be a significant thermal refuge for smallmouth bass during the winter. First of all, there is a rock dam on the lower end, which, unless water is high, prevents any fish from moving up. Also, it would make a lot of since that the 100,000 trout stocked per year would really deplete the food supply, even if the bass could get there. Considering smallmouth bass populations are declining dramatically for other reasons (primarily spotted bass,gigging, and overharvest), in the Meramec Basin, I would say this is a definite problem. I say some serious thought should be put in about changing management of Maramec Spring, and the rock dam at the lower end should be taken down no matter what.

I don't know about the Niangua watershed, and how bass are being affected there. I am just not familiar with the area.

OTF,

As a purely smallmouth fisherman, I tend to agree with you that any steps that can be taken to increase the native population and size of smallmouth on ANY stream should be taken. But out of the four issues that you raise (spots, gigging, regs, trout), trout are the least of the problem. The trout don't migrate away from the spring, so the smallmouth really have the rest of the river to themselves until they reach spotted bass downstream. They have other springs to winter around, assuming smallmouth actually migrate to winter holes. I think a lot of them stay in the same pool their whole lives, spring or no spring. Besides, water flowing out of a spring will warm freezing winter water for many miles downstream. On top of all that, trying to put the kibosh on trout at Meramec Spring would surely be met with a TON of opposition, not only by trout anglers, but by those who make money on the activity, who in general have more connections and clout politically. It's not that it's necessarily a losing battle, I just think there are other battles that are not only more important, but more winnable. I say start with changing regs on smallmouth and spotted bass limits, then go after tighter regs on giggers, and then, if things still aren't looking that good, worry about the trout. Actually, I'd personally rather see a ban on party floaters before a ban on trout stocking, but I know that's not realistic.

[ozark trout fisher]

OTF,

As a purely smallmouth fisherman, I tend to agree with you that any steps that can be taken to increase the native population and size of smallmouth on ANY stream should be taken. But out of the four issues that you raise (spots, gigging, regs, trout), trout are the least of the problem. The trout don't migrate away from the spring, so the smallmouth really have the rest of the river to themselves until they reach spotted bass downstream. They have other springs to winter around, assuming smallmouth actually migrate to winter holes. I think a lot of them stay in the same pool their whole lives, spring or no spring. Besides, water flowing out of a spring will warm freezing winter water for many miles downstream. On top of all that, trying to put the kibosh on trout at Meramec Spring would surely be met with a TON of opposition, not only by trout anglers, but by those who make money on the activity, who in general have more connections and clout politically. It's not that it's necessarily a losing battle, I just think there are other battles that are not only more important, but more winnable. I say start with changing regs on smallmouth and spotted bass limits, then go after tighter regs on giggers, and then, if things still aren't looking that good, worry about the trout. Actually, I'd personally rather see a ban on party floaters before a ban on trout stocking, but I know that's not realistic.

Interesting post....

I don't really think they should put a total kabosh on the trout fishing at Maramec... But I do think, first of all, they should take the rock dam down, and possibly consider reducing the number of trout stocked.

I do agree that it may be more important to change the regs on spotted bass. I say that they eliminate the daily limit, and make it mandatory to creel all spots caught, totally making it illegal to release them. Also, I'm not sure they should allow any harvest of smallies there, or at the very least enforce something like an 18" minimum, and a daily limit of 1. Of course that's pretty hard to enforce that, but most folks would follow it just because that's the rule, or at least I hope so.

I think I may have hijacked my own topic. Oh well. It's still an interesting conversation, or at least I think so.

[eric1978]

Interesting post....

I don't really think they should put a total kabosh on the trout fishing at Maramec... But I do think, first of all, they should take the rock dam down, and possibly consider reducing the number of trout stocked.

I do agree that it may be more important to change the regs on spotted bass. I say that they eliminate the daily limit, and make it mandatory to creel all spots caught, totally making it illegal to release them. Also, I'm not sure they should allow any harvest of smallies there, or at the very least enforce something like an 18" minimum, and a daily limit of 1. Of course that's pretty hard to enforce that, but most folks would follow it just because that's the rule, or at least I hope so.

I think I may have hijacked my own topic. Oh well. It's still an interesting conversation, or at least I think so.

I don't think it's a hijack. I think it's an extrapolation of the topic and gets right to the heart of your original question.

I agree with you on the regs. I think it would be difficult to enforce a "mandatory creel" for spots, but they should at least do away with any limits on them. I personally feel that there should be an 18" limit on smallmouths on EVERY river, stream and creek in MO, or at least a slot limit, depending on the population on each particular water. If you want to eat fish, eat another species. If you really want bass, go get the largemouths and spots. Smallmouth are the only coveted native gamefish that is having population and size problems. It's not unreasonable to make the vast majority, not all, of one species of fish, simply off-limits. I like Al's idea of a stamp system where you can keep one trophy per year, although I personally don't know what's wrong with pictures, measurements and a nice reproduction. I think that reg alone (in a perfect world without careless or law-breaking giggers) would drastically increase the quality and numbers of fish on the Meramec, with or without trout.

I would be a little worried about taking down the dam at MS, at least while continuing to stock trout there. I know they stock trout incapable of producing offspring (I think anyway), but I kind of like the added safeguard of the dam at least while they continue to stock. There are other spring areas on the Meramec that I believe would also be suitable habitat for trout, and if you get just one batch of stock that weren't properly sterilized, and no dam to contain them, then you really could have a trout dilemma to deal with. (I may be way off on this one, though).

[ozark trout fisher]

I don't think it's a hijack. I think it's an extrapolation of the topic and gets right to the heart of your original question.

I agree with you on the regs. I think it would be difficult to enforce a "mandatory creel" for spots, but they should at least do away with any limits on them. I personally feel that there should be an 18" limit on smallmouths on EVERY river, stream and creek in MO, or at least a slot limit, depending on the population on each particular water. If you want to eat fish, eat another species. If you really want bass, go get the largemouths and spots. Smallmouth are the only coveted native gamefish that is having population and size problems. It's not unreasonable to make the vast majority, not all, of one species of fish, simply off-limits. I like Al's idea of a stamp system where you can keep one trophy per year, although I personally don't know what's wrong with pictures, measurements and a nice reproduction. I think that reg alone (in a perfect world without careless or law-breaking giggers) would drastically increase the quality and numbers of fish on the Meramec, with or without trout.

I would be a little worried about taking down the dam at MS, at least while continuing to stock trout there. I know they stock trout incapable of producing offspring (I think anyway), but I kind of like the added safeguard of the dam at least while they continue to stock. There are other spring areas on the Meramec that I believe would also be suitable habitat for trout, and if you get just one batch of stock that weren't properly sterilized, and no dam to contain them, then you really could have a trout dilemma to deal with. (I may be way off on this one, though).

It would definitely be difficult enforce a mandatory creel limit. The lake I often fish has a mandatory kill order for largemouth under 12", but I know for a fact it is widely broken, for the simple fact that no one wants to fillet a 10" bass. I also agree with a statewide 18" and one limit for smallmouth. It would be a great thing for all fisherman, except a few "meat hunters".

About the trout issue, if the dam was taken down.... Hatchery trout are not sterilized in any way. They, however, cannot spawn well in the Maramec River due to heavy floods, and poor spawning substrate. Many trout do currently move from the spring branch to the river, and vice versa, but it is only possible when the water is quite high, and water is flowing over the rock dam. Still, there are enough park escapees to maintain a good rainbow trout fishery in the river below. There are a few wild trout there, but they are almost all migrants from tiny brooks like Blue Spring Creek, and a few other unmarked wild trout streams. Taking the dam down, would however, cause more of the Maramec Spring trout to escape into the river, which could definitely cause problems. Also, it would anger some meat hunters in the trout park, because the dam concentrates the trout, and makes them easier to catch. But I frankly don't care about that.

I feel as if this topic is kind of getting to the heart of one of the most uncomfortable conservation issues in this state, one that really no one is looking at.

[Chief Grey Bear]

But out of the four issues that you raise (spots, gigging, regs, trout), trout are the least of the problem. The trout don't migrate away from the spring, so the smallmouth really have the rest of the river to themselves until they reach spotted bass downstream.

Trout don't migrate? How then did my father catch trout in Spring River at Carthage? Many miles from the old trout farm near Verona? How did both my father and I catch trout in Table Rock? Many miles from the stocking at Roaring River. How did I catch trout in Shoal Creek many miles below where Capp's Creek runs in? And also many miles down from Hickory Creek?

A rare oddity? Possibly. But I think they do a lot more "migrating" than one might think.

And why is it that Spots and Brownies seem to live in perfect harmony in SW Missouri but nowhere else?

[ozark trout fisher]

Trout don't migrate? How then did my father catch trout in Spring River at Carthage? Many miles from the old trout farm near Verona? How did both my father and I catch trout in Table Rock? Many miles from the stocking at Roaring River. How did I catch trout in Shoal Creek many miles below where Capp's Creek runs in? And also many miles down from Hickory Creek?

A rare oddity? Possibly. But I think they do a lot more "migrating" than one might think.

And why is it that Spots and Brownies seem to live in perfect harmony in SW Missouri but nowhere else?

I would say that the spotted bass issue has little to do with trout, although I could be wrong. Most (though certainly not all) of the spotted bass in the Meramec system are far downstream of any water where a trout could survive, at least in the summertime. My opinion (and I could be totally off base on this) is that spots and smallies co-exist in Southwest Missouri, because they are native there. They have reached their natural balance many years ago. In the Meramec Basin, spots are very non-native, and I don't think the natural balance has worked itself out yet. Once again, I could be wrong, but I'm just guessing. I don't think anyone really knows for sure.

Trout are very migratory. They will migrate far out of their traditional habitat during the winter and spring but usually, they'll come back by early summer. Of course some will find an odd spring hole, or cool tributary, so they can survive in a stretch of river that is generally too warm to hold trout. This would explain the occasional summer trout that is caught way out of their normal range. Personally, I've caught trout more than 10 miles outside of the normal trout waters. I have heard of folks catching some all the way down to Onondaga State Park (about 30 miles below the furthest downstream stocking point) on the Meramec, although its pretty darn rare.