Trout In Missouri

[eric1978]

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?

Anything other than a mass migration is not going to have any significant effect. That was my point. Are there going to be some wanderers? Of course. But if they were "migrating" in vast numbers, they would be caught more than rarely. They may be able to survive in the water down to Onandaga, but it's clearly not ideal habitat for them, otherwise they would have established a population there. Sometimes you see a whale on the beach. It doesn't mean he belongs there.

[Chief Grey Bear]

You two are aware that the regs for Kentuckies in the Meramec and its tributaries was changed in 2002?

[ozark trout fisher]

You two are aware that the regs for Kentuckies in the Meramec and its tributaries was changed in 2002?

Yes. I did here about the regulation change. I think it may have helped, but more still needs to be done about the spots (kentuckies). They are still actively invading new habitat, especially in the Bourbeuse and Big. Of course trout are not a factor in either of those areas.

I am aware that the occasional wandering trout will have no effect on bass populations. I was just trying to give as objective of an account of the issue of trout migration as I could. I know that the water around Onondaga is not at all good habitat for trout. The few trout that are down there probably just live in spring holes, not having any effect whatsoever on the trout. Frankly, I do not know what effect trout have on native species in the areas in which they are common. As far as I am aware, there is little or no research on the topic, so all is just speculation.

[hank franklin]

To be as honest as I can be, I wouldn't care if Missouri stopped managing the streams for trout. In fact maybe they should stop. Keep the trout parks the way they are and if fish escape into the rivers, so be it. But don't stock trout in the rivers.

Having said that, I'll try to catch trout if they're there. I guess I'm easy.

[ozark trout fisher]

To be as honest as I can be, I wouldn't care if Missouri stopped managing the streams for trout. In fact maybe they should stop. Keep the trout parks the way they are and if fish escape into the rivers, so be it. But don't stock trout in the rivers.

Having said that, I'll try to catch trout if they're there. I guess I'm easy.

I want to make something just a bit clear. I am not advocating that we stop stocking trout anywhere they are currently planted. They are well established in many areas, and many folks incomes are staked on chasing them. Plus, many folks, like myself, have developed a love affair with fishing for them. I would be absolutely heartbroken if Missouri's trout program were ended.

I'm just saying we should consider the issue, and maybe not expand the trout program.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion though. It is complicated.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I am aware that the occasional wandering trout will have no effect on bass populations. I was just trying to give as objective of an account of the issue of trout migration as I could. Frankly, I do not know what effect trout have on native species in the areas in which they are common. As far as I am aware, there is little or no research on the topic, so all is just speculation.

I think it was you that stated that 100,000 trout per year were stocked in the Meramec. At that rate you would have to harvest 273.9 trout per day for a year so as to be ready for the next. Now of course they don't stock them all at once but , you get my point. You will have more than just an occasional wandering trout.

It is no speculation as to what trout have done to native speices in my neck of the woods. It is fact. I invite you to study it for yourself. I would gladly join you.

As for the Kentuckies, man has made that river more inhabitable for them while reducing the prime brownie habitat. Kentuckies have not pushed the brownies out of there as much as man has.

[ozark trout fisher]

I think it was you that stated that 100,000 trout per year were stocked in the Meramec. At that rate you would have to harvest 273.9 trout per day for a year so as to be ready for the next. Now of course they don't stock them all at once but , you get my point. You will have more than just an occasional wandering trout.

It is no speculation as to what trout have done to native speices in my neck of the woods. It is fact. I invite you to study it for yourself. I would gladly join you.

As for the Kentuckies, man has made that river more inhabitable for them while reducing the prime brownie habitat. Kentuckies have not pushed the brownies out of there as much as man has.

Of course there is some effect on bass by trout... I just don't know what the effect is. That is where speculation comes in. Unfortunately, I don't have the scientific knowledge or training to make a meaningful investigation on this. Otherwise I would.

As for the Kentuckies/vs. smallies... That is an interesting point of view, never really thought of it that way before. I bet it was a mixture of man making the habitat worse, and the Kentucky's entering the river. As a firm believer in global warming, your explanation would make a good bit of since to me.

By the way, below the park at Meramec is not just an "incidental" trout area. Besides the thousands of trout that escape from the park (enough rainbows escape to keep just the rainbow population at about 150 per mile for 8 miles below the park, a very significant number), the state also stocks brown trout in the river itself intentionally. The brown trout add about another 200 trout per mile to the count. This brings it to about 350 per mile, a very respectable trout population. So there are definitely enough trout there to have some sort of effect on the local bass population, if only for 8 or 10 miles of river. Once the river warms up below Scotts Ford however (8 miles below Maramec Spring), the river begins to warm well out of a trout's comfort range, and I doubt if there are enough trout to impact the bass population below there. But again, just speculation on my part.

[Buzz]

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.

I remember fishing Hickory Creek a little more than 20 years back when you would catch Brownies, goggle-eye, perch, and the occasional largemouth. I even caught a 15 in. Brownie on a buzzbait near the ballfields. You won't find that anymore. Neosho would stock trout every once in a while, but not consistently. Now you feel lucky to catch any of those native fish in this stream. I don't think the trout are directly responsible, I believe it was because of the trout publicity and the p!$$ poor monitoring of the stream that decimated the smallmouth population. These people never even bothered to check the rules or regs. and would take out any and every fish that was caught.

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?

Don't forget the huge trout that were found under the Grand Falls several years back. I wonder where they came from?

Anything other than a mass migration is not going to have any significant effect. That was my point. Are there going to be some wanderers? Of course. But if they were "migrating" in vast numbers, they would be caught more than rarely. They may be able to survive in the water down to Onandaga, but it's clearly not ideal habitat for them, otherwise they would have established a population there. Sometimes you see a whale on the beach. It doesn't mean he belongs there.

In truth, I believe you are right. I have never found any great numbers of trout in any of the places that were stated before, but I don't fish for them in those places either. I have heard from reliable sources that they are are there and are still caught occasionally.

Yes. I did here about the regulation change. I think it may have helped, but more still needs to be done about the spots (kentuckies). They are still actively invading new habitat, especially in the Bourbeuse and Big. Of course trout are not a factor in either of those areas.

I am aware that the occasional wandering trout will have no effect on bass populations. I was just trying to give as objective of an account of the issue of trout migration as I could. I know that the water around Onondaga is not at all good habitat for trout. The few trout that are down there probably just live in spring holes, not having any effect whatsoever on the trout. Frankly, I do not know what effect trout have on native species in the areas in which they are common. As far as I am aware, there is little or no research on the topic, so all is just speculation.

Sort of funny we have never heard of this old (seven years) regulation until today on this forum. Apparently, it can be found on the MDC web site.??????

Trout are a funny creature, you all have to agree, they thrive in some of the strangest places. Kansas has at least one pit that is stocked on a regular basis with the same size fish that are normally stocked in any of the trout parks. I know co-workers who fish it regularly and have caught trout much bigger than the normal stocking size. I even caught an 8 in. rainbow in Shoal Creek several years ago. This was in late August.

[Chief Grey Bear]

So there are definitely enough trout there to have some sort of effect on the local bass population, if only for 8 or 10 miles of river. Once the river warms up below Scotts Ford however (8 miles below Maramec Spring), the river begins to warm well out of a trout's comfort range, and I doubt if there are enough trout to impact the bass population below there. But again, just speculation on my part.

You are mixing two different...debates, if you will. The first one was that trout don't migrate. Well in the big sense of the word, no they don't such as, say waterfowl. But you will have a few, more than you would think, that do seem to like explore. Like Buzz said, we only occasionally catch one, mainly because we are not fishing for them. I know of a few other people that have caught them many miles from the nearest stocking point.

The other "debate", I really don't consider this a debate and I do just a couple of people carring on a converstaion, was about effects of stocking trout and how native species have declined. Well of course when you get a certain distance from the stocking points, the native bass and goggle eye can sustain. But what we are talking about is with in say a couple of miles of the stocking point.

[ozark trout fisher]

You are mixing two different...debates, if you will. The first one was that trout don't migrate. Well in the big sense of the word, no they don't such as, say waterfowl. But you will have a few, more than you would think, that do seem to like explore. Like Buzz said, we only occasionally catch one, mainly because we are not fishing for them. I know of a few other people that have caught them many miles from the nearest stocking point.

The other "debate", I really don't consider this a debate and I do just a couple of people carring on a converstaion, was about effects of stocking trout and how native species have declined. Well of course when you get a certain distance from the stocking points, the native bass and goggle eye can sustain. But what we are talking about is with in say a couple of miles of the stocking point.

I have made it perfectly clear, that I do care about trout displacing native species in areas in which trout are common. That is the reason why I started this thread in the first place. And the fact is, a decent number of native species can survive in areas where trout are extremely common. I quite often catch bass in the Blue Ribbon area off the Little Piney, and the Red Ribbon area of the Meramec. As a matter of fact, numbers are high enough in both places that I often target smallies in both areas. The White Ribbon trout area of the Little Piney (stocked with a number of thousands of trout per year) is one of my favorite places around to catch goggle-eye and smallies. I probably fish for them there more than I do trout, especially in Summer. I know for a fact that even in Bennett Spring, where the highest stocking rate of any trout park occurs, there are enough smallies that some people target them, especially below the Whistle Bridge. Are their populations dropped somewhat? I would think so. Is it a catastrophic effect on the bass? Probably not.

I am not a proponent that we stop stocking any trout water without a large amount of scientific evidence that there is a disastrous effect on the native species. I don't think this is something that we should rush into recklessly. With that said, if trout are causing a huge problem, we need to do something to mitigate it.