Trout In Missouri

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well I guess you have something special going on up there. Or you are one hell of a better fisherman than I am. Or anybody else down this way.

But then I think I am gettin lost in this thread. I thought you stated that you thought trout were displacing native species. Then you state you have no trouble catching native speices where there are high concentrations of trout.

You are all over the spectrum on this. Make a stand and stay there.

[Al Agnew]

Lots of thoughtful comments from everybody...let's see...

Whoever back on the first page that asked about stocked, native, and hatchery trout out West--the only native trout over much of the West was the various subspecies of cutthroats (and a minor species, bull trout). Rainbow trout were ONLY native to streams along the Pacific Coast. Browns, of course, were a European species. Rainbows, and soon after browns, were stocked over most of the West, and were directly responsible for decimating native cutthroat populations. Brook trout were also stocked in some streams, and also did their share to wipe out cutthroats. A number of cutthroat subspecies have been wiped out except in headwater areas above major waterfalls that the rainbows couldn't negotiate. The biggest reason the Yellowstone cutthroat is still a common species in the upper Yellowstone and tributaries is because of the great falls of the Yellowstone, which have kept rainbows and browns from colonizing the river above the falls. Yellowstone Lake and the large headwater watershed of the Yellowstone keeps the cutthroat population high enough to keep furnishing cutthroats far down the river and its tributaries. I've caught cutthroats as far downstream as the stretch between Livingston and Big Timber.

Most trout populations in the West are now self-sustaining, no matter what the species. There are still hatchery trout raised to stock in certain lakes that have a lack of suitable spawning habitat, but the trout in most streams are wild.

The difference between Missouri streams, especially the larger ones below the trout parks, and Western streams is that on the larger Missouri streams the water temperature isn't right during the window of time that trout spawn. They may spawn, but the eggs don't hatch. Once in a while, in some areas and on some smaller streams, the water temp window and the spawning window match up closely enough to get some reproduction, but on most streams the populations could never be self-sustaining.

Trout, especially rainbows, can do a lot of traveling when the water temps are right. They tend to spread during the winter and a lot of them end up dying during the summer if they are trapped in water that's too warm. Missouri isn't the only place this happens--I was floating the John Day River in Oregon one time; it's a warm water smallmouth fishery in the summer, but has rainbows in the headwaters (and a steelhead migration in the fall). There was a spot where a tributary stream came down a canyon and then trickled under a pile of rock from a landslide just before entering the river. The water coming out from under the rockpile was very cool, but was just a trickle, not much more water coming out than you'd have coming out of a garden hose. The rest of the river in July is probably in the high 70 degree range. There were a half dozen trout nosed up into this little trickle in about a foot of water in an area no bigger than a washtub, trying to survive.

Perhaps the best example of a stream where the warm-water fish population suffers, and has always suffered, from too much spring flow is the upper Current. If you look at water temps during the summer on the Current, the water is 60 degrees or less when it leaves Montauk Park, gradually warms into the upper 60s as you get close to Cedargrove, with other springs locally keeping temps down a bit between Cedargrove and Welch Spring. Welch Spring is big enough to drop the water back down into the low 60s, and other good sized springs keep it in the 60s until you get close to Round Spring. Round Spring isn't all that big, and below it the water temps quickly climb into the 70s. I fished the upper Current before there was any serious trout stocking, and there were plenty of trout escapees from Montauk through much of the stretch down to Cedargrove. There was a localized population around Welch Spring. But there were few trout between Cedargrove and Welch Spring--and a pretty decent population of smallies. However, below Welch Spring, even though there were few trout once you got a mile or so below, the smallie and rock bass population was pretty thin until you got close to Round Spring. Trout weren't the limiting factor, cold water probably was. I suspect that the cold water lasted that far down because the upper Current has few big, dead pools, and most of the river is well-shaded.

On the other hand, the Meramec and Niangua are bigger to begin with, less spring-fed below the two major springs, are wider with less shade in the summer, and have longer pools. All this makes them warm rather quickly to temps that are still marginal for trout but also livable for smallies. The smallmouth in the trout section of the Meramec tend to stay in bigger, slower holes during the summer, leaving the better aerated waters of the riffle areas to the trout. I suspect that, except for the area right around the big springs, smallies always did well in the Meramec and Niangua.

The trout parks PROBABLY once were major thermal refuges for warm-water gamefish. However, it would also be interesting to know what they looked like before trout management. Were they fast and shallow, or did they have deeper areas. Winter smallies LIKE warmer water, but they NEED depth, cover, and sanctuary from strong current. I'm not absolutely CERTAIN the big spring branches themselves were extremely important thermal refuges.

On the other hand, in really cold water periods, the areas JUST below the spring branches are far more important than the whole trout sections. I've fished below Maramec Spring in the winter when the water just above the spring was around 38 degrees. The water at the mouth of the spring was 55. A half mile downstream, surface temps on the same side of the river were back down around 46 (and since cold water sinks until it gets down into the upper 30s, you have to figure that if anything the deeper water was colder yet). Three miles downstream the river was back down to around 40. There is no doubt that the first half mile below the spring is an important thermal refuge for smallmouth and rock bass. What you have to wonder, though, is how far the smallmouth move to get to that thermal refuge...since they don't NEED the warmer water--they can survive in extremely cold water. It could be that there are fewer BIG smallies in the area of the Meramec within a few miles of the mouth of the spring than there used to be, though--smallies in 50 plus degree water have to feed, so those which spend the winters in thermal refuges will keep eating and keep growing, while those which stay in stream sections that get extremely cold don't feed much in the winter. Or it may be a wash...if those fish stay in spring-influenced water year-round, they probably grow more steadily but eat less and grow less during the summer.

Re smallies and spotted bass--it's very true that spots and smallies co-exist quite well in the streams of SW MO, but as was said before, they evolved together in those streams. Over much of the central and southern Ozarks where spots are native, they tend to keep separate from smallies, the spots relegated to slower, murkier downstream sections of the streams, smallmouths dominating where the streams are faster and clearer. The exceptions are the streams above the major reservoirs, where spots continually move up the streams from strong reservoir populations. The James and Bryant Creek are two examples of this.

Spots were not native to the north-flowing streams. But those streams have ALWAYS had a lot of good spotted bass habitat. Big River, Bourbeuse River, the lower portions of the Meramec, the lower half of the Gasconade, are all relatively slow and murky compared to many of the more southern Ozark streams. Smallmouths actually thrived in them AS LONG AS they didn't have to compete with spotted bass, and the more fertile water allowed the smallies to not only thrive but grow big. Once the spots moved into habitat they liked, however, the smallies which had NOT evolved with them were at a competitive and reproductive disadvantage. It's beginning to look like these streams will end up somewhat like Shoal Creek and a few other SW MO streams, where the smallies and spots are in equilibrium, but since the Meramec, it's tribs, and the Gasconade are slower (and gradient seems to be a big limiting factor for spotted bass) that equilibrium will more completely favor spotted bass.

But it isn't really man-made changes to the habitat that caused the spotted bass problem in the Meramec and Gasconade. If anything, water quality has improved in the last 30 years due to better conservation and land use practices (and probably a lot more pasturage and less plowing and row-cropping over the watersheds) in the main stems of these streams. Yet the spotted bass moved in and thrived during that time.

I tend to agree that trout are not the serious problem that illegal gigging, spotted bass, gravel mining, factory farms, poaching, and probably a few other problems are...at least over the whole of the Ozarks. In small, localized areas trout MIGHT be a serious problem.

[ozark trout fisher]

Lots of thoughtful comments from everybody...let's see...

Whoever back on the first page that asked about stocked, native, and hatchery trout out West--the only native trout over much of the West was the various subspecies of cutthroats (and a minor species, bull trout). Rainbow trout were ONLY native to streams along the Pacific Coast. Browns, of course, were a European species. Rainbows, and soon after browns, were stocked over most of the West, and were directly responsible for decimating native cutthroat populations. Brook trout were also stocked in some streams, and also did their share to wipe out cutthroats. A number of cutthroat subspecies have been wiped out except in headwater areas above major waterfalls that the rainbows couldn't negotiate. The biggest reason the Yellowstone cutthroat is still a common species in the upper Yellowstone and tributaries is because of the great falls of the Yellowstone, which have kept rainbows and browns from colonizing the river above the falls. Yellowstone Lake and the large headwater watershed of the Yellowstone keeps the cutthroat population high enough to keep furnishing cutthroats far down the river and its tributaries. I've caught cutthroats as far downstream as the stretch between Livingston and Big Timber.

Most trout populations in the West are now self-sustaining, no matter what the species. There are still hatchery trout raised to stock in certain lakes that have a lack of suitable spawning habitat, but the trout in most streams are wild.

The difference between Missouri streams, especially the larger ones below the trout parks, and Western streams is that on the larger Missouri streams the water temperature isn't right during the window of time that trout spawn. They may spawn, but the eggs don't hatch. Once in a while, in some areas and on some smaller streams, the water temp window and the spawning window match up closely enough to get some reproduction, but on most streams the populations could never be self-sustaining.

Trout, especially rainbows, can do a lot of traveling when the water temps are right. They tend to spread during the winter and a lot of them end up dying during the summer if they are trapped in water that's too warm. Missouri isn't the only place this happens--I was floating the John Day River in Oregon one time; it's a warm water smallmouth fishery in the summer, but has rainbows in the headwaters (and a steelhead migration in the fall). There was a spot where a tributary stream came down a canyon and then trickled under a pile of rock from a landslide just before entering the river. The water coming out from under the rockpile was very cool, but was just a trickle, not much more water coming out than you'd have coming out of a garden hose. The rest of the river in July is probably in the high 70 degree range. There were a half dozen trout nosed up into this little trickle in about a foot of water in an area no bigger than a washtub, trying to survive.

Perhaps the best example of a stream where the warm-water fish population suffers, and has always suffered, from too much spring flow is the upper Current. If you look at water temps during the summer on the Current, the water is 60 degrees or less when it leaves Montauk Park, gradually warms into the upper 60s as you get close to Cedargrove, with other springs locally keeping temps down a bit between Cedargrove and Welch Spring. Welch Spring is big enough to drop the water back down into the low 60s, and other good sized springs keep it in the 60s until you get close to Round Spring. Round Spring isn't all that big, and below it the water temps quickly climb into the 70s. I fished the upper Current before there was any serious trout stocking, and there were plenty of trout escapees from Montauk through much of the stretch down to Cedargrove. There was a localized population around Welch Spring. But there were few trout between Cedargrove and Welch Spring--and a pretty decent population of smallies. However, below Welch Spring, even though there were few trout once you got a mile or so below, the smallie and rock bass population was pretty thin until you got close to Round Spring. Trout weren't the limiting factor, cold water probably was. I suspect that the cold water lasted that far down because the upper Current has few big, dead pools, and most of the river is well-shaded.

On the other hand, the Meramec and Niangua are bigger to begin with, less spring-fed below the two major springs, are wider with less shade in the summer, and have longer pools. All this makes them warm rather quickly to temps that are still marginal for trout but also livable for smallies. The smallmouth in the trout section of the Meramec tend to stay in bigger, slower holes during the summer, leaving the better aerated waters of the riffle areas to the trout. I suspect that, except for the area right around the big springs, smallies always did well in the Meramec and Niangua.

The trout parks PROBABLY once were major thermal refuges for warm-water gamefish. However, it would also be interesting to know what they looked like before trout management. Were they fast and shallow, or did they have deeper areas. Winter smallies LIKE warmer water, but they NEED depth, cover, and sanctuary from strong current. I'm not absolutely CERTAIN the big spring branches themselves were extremely important thermal refuges.

On the other hand, in really cold water periods, the areas JUST below the spring branches are far more important than the whole trout sections. I've fished below Maramec Spring in the winter when the water just above the spring was around 38 degrees. The water at the mouth of the spring was 55. A half mile downstream, surface temps on the same side of the river were back down around 46 (and since cold water sinks until it gets down into the upper 30s, you have to figure that if anything the deeper water was colder yet). Three miles downstream the river was back down to around 40. There is no doubt that the first half mile below the spring is an important thermal refuge for smallmouth and rock bass. What you have to wonder, though, is how far the smallmouth move to get to that thermal refuge...since they don't NEED the warmer water--they can survive in extremely cold water. It could be that there are fewer BIG smallies in the area of the Meramec within a few miles of the mouth of the spring than there used to be, though--smallies in 50 plus degree water have to feed, so those which spend the winters in thermal refuges will keep eating and keep growing, while those which stay in stream sections that get extremely cold don't feed much in the winter. Or it may be a wash...if those fish stay in spring-influenced water year-round, they probably grow more steadily but eat less and grow less during the summer.

Re smallies and spotted bass--it's very true that spots and smallies co-exist quite well in the streams of SW MO, but as was said before, they evolved together in those streams. Over much of the central and southern Ozarks where spots are native, they tend to keep separate from smallies, the spots relegated to slower, murkier downstream sections of the streams, smallmouths dominating where the streams are faster and clearer. The exceptions are the streams above the major reservoirs, where spots continually move up the streams from strong reservoir populations. The James and Bryant Creek are two examples of this.

Spots were not native to the north-flowing streams. But those streams have ALWAYS had a lot of good spotted bass habitat. Big River, Bourbeuse River, the lower portions of the Meramec, the lower half of the Gasconade, are all relatively slow and murky compared to many of the more southern Ozark streams. Smallmouths actually thrived in them AS LONG AS they didn't have to compete with spotted bass, and the more fertile water allowed the smallies to not only thrive but grow big. Once the spots moved into habitat they liked, however, the smallies which had NOT evolved with them were at a competitive and reproductive disadvantage. It's beginning to look like these streams will end up somewhat like Shoal Creek and a few other SW MO streams, where the smallies and spots are in equilibrium, but since the Meramec, it's tribs, and the Gasconade are slower (and gradient seems to be a big limiting factor for spotted bass) that equilibrium will more completely favor spotted bass.

But it isn't really man-made changes to the habitat that caused the spotted bass problem in the Meramec and Gasconade. If anything, water quality has improved in the last 30 years due to better conservation and land use practices (and probably a lot more pasturage and less plowing and row-cropping over the watersheds) in the main stems of these streams. Yet the spotted bass moved in and thrived during that time.

I tend to agree that trout are not the serious problem that illegal gigging, spotted bass, gravel mining, factory farms, poaching, and probably a few other problems are...at least over the whole of the Ozarks. In small, localized areas trout MIGHT be a serious problem.

Interesting. That sheds a lot of light on a few issues I didn't really understand. Although I could be wrong, it seems like working to take out spotted bass, and further regulating gigging might be a better place to focus our efforts.

Does the Missouri Department of Conservation take out the spotted bass they catch in their annual electroshock of the Meramec? If not I think they should look into to it. It might help the situation somewhat.

[ozark trout fisher]

Well I guess you have something special going on up there. Or you are one hell of a better fisherman than I am. Or anybody else down this way.

But then I think I am gettin lost in this thread. I thought you stated that you thought trout were displacing native species. Then you state you have no trouble catching native speices where there are high concentrations of trout.

You are all over the spectrum on this. Make a stand and stay there.

In regard to this post, I'm not quite sure what to say. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I prefer not to rush to "take a stand" on an issue I don't really understand. I feel that would be irresponsible.

As I think you already know, I was not saying I am a better fisherman than anyone. As a matter of fact, I don't really even know what's going through your head on that one. I simply said that there are areas with high concentrations of trout, that also hold decent populations of native species. Where did you get off on that one???

Lastly, I don't think your negativity is needed here. Can we not have a debate without it? I don't think I have said anything here that could be considered offensive by anyone, and I would appreciate it if that was reciprocated. You have not done any scientific research on this topic. You cannot be sure of what is going on. Don't pretend to be.

There have been no topics where any kind of a debate has occurred on this forum lately that has not turned into a pissing match. Mr. Greybear, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't help this descend into one. This topic is about the effects of non-native species of fish on native species. I will confine my conversation to that from here forward.

[hank franklin]

I floated the North Fork on a recent March and I wouldn't have cared if the trout were stocked there or not. In fact I'd have probably preferred they weren't. I enjoyed catching them however.

If you have a true "leave no trace ethic," then how can trout possibly fit into that? Their existence is almost completely dependent on the stocking truck.

Of course my great-grandpa came from Germany so I'm probably trespassing every time I step foot anywhere.

[ozark trout fisher]

I floated the North Fork on a recent March and I wouldn't have cared if the trout were stocked there or not. In fact I'd have probably preferred they weren't. I enjoyed catching them however.

If you have a true "leave no trace ethic," then how can trout possibly fit into that? Their existence is almost completely dependent on the stocking truck.

Of course my great-grandpa came from Germany so I'm probably trespassing every time I step foot anywhere.

I understand your point. But then again, we do love catching them so much. I understand this is selfish, and I won't deny it. But I these are my feelings. That's why I struggle with this issue so much, and refuse to take a strong stand on either side, right or wrong.

Just as an unimportant side note, it is very likely the trout you caught in the North Fork were wild. All of the rainbows there are (except for an occasional hatchery mistake, or a trout farm escapee), although I believe the browns are hatchery fish.

[Greg]

In regard to this post, I'm not quite sure what to say. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I prefer not to rush to "take a stand" on an issue I don't really understand. I feel that would be irresponsible.

As I think you already know, I was not saying I am a better fisherman than anyone. As a matter of fact, I don't really even know what's going through your head on that one. I simply said that there are areas with high concentrations of trout, that also hold decent populations of native species. Where did you get off on that one???

Lastly, I don't think your negativity is needed here. Can we not have a debate without it? I don't think I have said anything here that could be considered offensive by anyone, and I would appreciate it if that was reciprocated. You have not done any scientific research on this topic. You cannot be sure of what is going on. Don't pretend to be.

There have been no topics where any kind of a debate has occurred on this forum lately that has not turned into a pissing match. Mr. Greybear, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't help this descend into one. This topic is about the effects of non-native species of fish on native species. I will confine my conversation to that from here forward.

Well said. This is the kind of topic that lends itself to friendly open ended debate. Who says you can't open up a topic to debate without taking a firm stance? I'm not sure any of us on here know enough about the specifics of this topic to give clear cut absolute answers. Perhaps not even the MDC.

Good topic and I've enjoyed it. Thanks for starting it.

Greg

[Al Agnew]

No, MDC doesn't kill the spotted bass they electroshock. The last time I went with one of their biologists on an electroshocking trip on Big River, it just about killed me to have to measure and release the huge numbers of spotted bass we got.

Why don't they? Same reason they ONLY put on a 12 fish, no length limit on spots in the Meramec river system...fear of what anglers would say and do if they did what they REALLY know needs to be done. To too many people, spotted bass are bass and bass are to be protected no matter what. If it was known that they killed all those spotted bass they electroshocked, there would be a tremendous hue and cry from everybody from bass clubs to PETA types.

I agree that it should be mandatory to kill every spotted bass you catch in the Meramec and Gasconade river systems. Couple that with complete protection of smallmouth bass everywhere that spots are present in any kind of numbers in those two river systems. That's the only way you'll REALLY help the smallies.

[ozark trout fisher]

No, MDC doesn't kill the spotted bass they electroshock. The last time I went with one of their biologists on an electroshocking trip on Big River, it just about killed me to have to measure and release the huge numbers of spotted bass we got.

Why don't they? Same reason they ONLY put on a 12 fish, no length limit on spots in the Meramec river system...fear of what anglers would say and do if they did what they REALLY know needs to be done. To too many people, spotted bass are bass and bass are to be protected no matter what. If it was known that they killed all those spotted bass they electroshocked, there would be a tremendous hue and cry from everybody from bass clubs to PETA types.

I agree that it should be mandatory to kill every spotted bass you catch in the Meramec and Gasconade river systems. Couple that with complete protection of smallmouth bass everywhere that spots are present in any kind of numbers in those two river systems. That's the only way you'll REALLY help the smallies.

That seems silly that they don't kill the spots they shock. It's a classic case of a few whiners overriding biology. The spots are killing a large part of the Meramec basin. The MDC needs to get serious about this.

I would be all for a no-kill rule on the smallies throughout the Meramec basin. I would be worried about the amount of poaching that would occur under such management though. Still, we need to try something different.

[Chief Grey Bear]

In regard to this post, I'm not quite sure what to say. I have mixed feelings on the issue. I prefer not to rush to "take a stand" on an issue I don't really understand. I feel that would be irresponsible.

What I meant, and admittedly did not properly convey, was stay on one side of the issue. From what I have read of your posts, you are concerned that trout may be having a negative effect on the native populations of game fish. But then you state that you have no problem catching native species where trout are in high concentrations.

I stated that in the streams that have trout stocked that I fish, native species have all but disappeared. You appeared to dismiss that claim because there was no scientific findings from a qualified biologist. I may not be a qualified biologist but, I believe after 40 years of fishing the creeks and rivers of SW Missouri, I am qualified enough to ascertain if native species have had a negative impact from streams that are stocked with trout.

Did trout cause this? In my opinion, yes.

So, no pissing match from me. I just want to know where you stand since you want to call this a debate and not a conversation.