Trout In Missouri

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

According to what I have read from Kevin Meneau MDC, Fisheries Mgmt. Biologist, that is just about the opposite from his findings. Is he the same person you went with on the electroshocking?

Ain't you boys up there about ready to have a big ol' fish fry? Lets see, if we got about 20 people to go on this....thats 20 X 12....well its a small dent but a dent none the less.

[eric1978]

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.

After reading Al's post I think I'm willing to take a stand on the topic. The trout may or may not have an effect on native populations of fish. But they are non-native so they shouldn't be there. I say get rid of 'em.

Of course, I don't fish for trout so it's easy for me to say. However, if I was born and raised in Montana, I'm postitive that I would be a full-time trout flyfisherman, and if there was a stocked population of smallmouth in my favorite trout streams, I would want them out as well. Natives stay, non-natives go. That's the way the earth wanted it so that's the way it should be.

[drew03cmc]

I feel as though the line of native or non-native has been blurred almost to the point of nonexistence. Trout are in Missouri to stay, but unlike Arkansas streams where fish can actually sustain themselves, our trout are hatchery sustained. Those fish are a drain on the hatchery system and only serve to provide a meal of Purina Fish Chow to someone. Taneycomo, while a world famous trophy trout fishery, has little credibility in my eyes due to the lack of successful reproduction. Crane Creek is as close to a native trout stream as we have, having natural reproduction and self-sustainability for over a hundred years. Those trout have displaced some of the native species however. Among these are smallmouth, chain pickerel and sunfish. Now, does anyone complain that there are trout in Crane? Nope. This is likely the most challenging trout stream in Missouri.

A successful nonnative species is one that can sustain themselves without constant stocking from the state. Trout only do this in a dozen or so streams. Every red or white ribbon area, and a couple blue ribbon areas do not have sufficient reproduction to sustain trout, and therefore, in my opinion, the trout should be allowed to expire to have the native species fill the void again. Many people bring the forage preferences of smallmouth and trout into play, but have you ever caught a bass on a #16 nymph? I have. They eat insects just as trout do, so trout are in fact outcompeting bass for these food items. Get rid of all trout that do not self sustain and you will make me a happy camper. MDC would never consider this due to the fact that trout are their cash cow.

Great topic, and I hope that I have offered a little to the debate.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

It is simply not true that areas that hold trout do not have populations of native species. Myself, and quite a few others around here catch plenty of them in areas that hold trout. I don't know what is going on in southwestern Missouri, because I've never made it down there. But I do know what happens in my part of the state. Take Little Piney Creek. Part of it (about 7 miles of year-round stream) is a Blue Ribbon trout area, and the trout population is pretty good, depending on the year ranging from 150 to 200 per mile. Still, there are enough smallmouth bass and goggle-eye around that I often target them with pretty good success. As a matter of fact, I usually catch as many or more smallies than trout in many of the pools, even when I am fishing for trout. I don't know why, but at least in that situation, native species simply are not being crowded out, at least not badly. I know of several other streams where that is the case, including the Meramec, Blue Spring Creek, and Roubidoux Creek.

As I've said before, I don't have a strong stance on this issue, because I don't really know the effects of the trout on the smallies. I prefer not to rush to conclusions. One more question... Is it possible that those streams that you theorize are devastated by trout just never held a good population of native species? Is it more likely that the water is cold enough that it just isn't good smallmouth bass habitat? Maybe I was wrong to call it a debate. Maybe a conversation would be a better way to put it.

After reading Al's post I think I'm willing to take a stand on the topic. The trout may or may not have an effect on native populations of fish. But they are non-native so they shouldn't be there. I say get rid of 'em.

Of course, I don't fish for trout so it's easy for me to say. However, if I was born and raised in Montana, I'm postitive that I would be a full-time trout flyfisherman, and if there was a stocked population of smallmouth in my favorite trout streams, I would want them out as well. Natives stay, non-natives go. That's the way the earth wanted it so that's the way it should be.

Biologically, I don't have much of an argument against you. So I won't try to make one. Still, I think we would do better to focus on other issues that are hurting our streams more than trout. Based on things I've heard, particularly from folks who are very knowledgeable, like Al Agnew for example.

Maybe I will take a stand on the issue. I say as long as there is no concrete evidence that trout are having a very significant impact on native species, we continue to stock them, and protect them where they are wild.

[Chief Grey Bear]

It is simply not true that areas that hold trout do not have populations of native species. Myself, and quite a few others around here catch plenty of them in areas that hold trout. I don't know what is going on in southwestern Missouri, because I've never made it down there. As I've said before, I don't have a strong stance on this issue, because I don't really know the effects of the trout on the smallies. I prefer not to rush to conclusions. One more question... Is it possible that those streams that you theorize are devastated by trout just never held a good population of native species? Is it more likely that the water is cold enough that it just isn't good smallmouth bass habitat? Maybe I was wrong to call it a debate. Maybe a conversation would be a better way to put it.

Biologically, I don't have much of an argument against you. So I won't try to make one. Still, I think we would do better to focus on other issues that are hurting our streams more than trout. Based on things I've heard, particularly from folks who are very knowledgeable, like Al Agnew for example.

Eureka! I have discovered our communitcation problem. Well more than one of them.

1. You don't read what I write. I never said that there were "NO" native species at trout stocking points. What I said, for about the 3rd time now, is you will not catch them in the same numbers that you used too or can in a stream of the same similarity in the same area.

2. I did state what I felt the issue was with stream habitate and it was dismissed, even though the MDC is stating the same.

3. I am not a Al Agnew so I have no knowleage.

4. After reviewing the first 3, it stands to reason that obviously my information is of no significance, therefore I shall bow out of this discussion and let it continue with only those that have a biology degree.

5. Sorry just one more. I chanllange you or anyone to fish any of the streams that I mentioned and then fish a like stream in the area. I will gladly chauffeur you around just for the low price of conversation only. Excluding Crane. It is not stocked anymore and does a little better than others. But heck I am game and you want to hit it too, I will be more than happy to take a side trip there.

[laker67]

Taneycomo, while a world famous trophy trout fishery, has little credibility in my eyes due to the lack of successful reproduction. in my opinion, the trout should be allowed to expire to have the native species fill the void again.

Great topic, and I hope that I have offered a little to the debate.

Drew, Drew, Drew! You have gone and hurt my feelings saying that taney has no credibility. With the completion of TRD, I would say that MDC made the only choice possible to take advantage of the hand that they were dealt. I don't think that missouri has a native fish that would live and thrive on the upper end of the lake. Taney's fish are not stocked lunker size, they have to survive and feed to attain that status. About the only time native fish visit the upper end is at a flood gate event that raises water temps more to their likeing. If you removed the trout, I do not think the natives would do anything other than they do right now. Missouri's larger springs probably have the same un-comfort zone for a ways below them. Thanks for your input Drew.

[ohmz138]

Drew, Drew, Drew! You have gone and hurt my feelings saying that taney has no credibility. With the completion of TRD, I would say that MDC made the only choice possible to take advantage of the hand that they were dealt. I don't think that missouri has a native fish that would live and thrive on the upper end of the lake. Taney's fish are not stocked lunker size, they have to survive and feed to attain that status. About the only time native fish visit the upper end is at a flood gate event that raises water temps more to their likeing. If you removed the trout, I do not think the natives would do anything other than they do right now. Missouri's larger springs probably have the same un-comfort zone for a ways below them. Thanks for your input Drew.

I agree.

[ozark trout fisher]

Eureka! I have discovered our communitcation problem. Well more than one of them.

1. You don't read what I write. I never said that there were "NO" native species at trout stocking points. What I said, for about the 3rd time now, is you will not catch them in the same numbers that you used too or can in a stream of the same similarity in the same area.

2. I did state what I felt the issue was with stream habitate and it was dismissed, even though the MDC is stating the same.

3. I am not a Al Agnew so I have no knowleage.

4. After reviewing the first 3, it stands to reason that obviously my information is of no significance, therefore I shall bow out of this discussion and let it continue with only those that have a biology degree.

5. Sorry just one more. I chanllange you or anyone to fish any of the streams that I mentioned and then fish a like stream in the area. I will gladly chauffeur you around just for the low price of conversation only. Excluding Crane. It is not stocked anymore and does a little better than others. But heck I am game and you want to hit it too, I will be more than happy to take a side trip there.

1. I have read every post you have written on this thread. I realize you are not saying that there are no native species in trout streams. I was just pointing out that I know a couple trout streams with healthy populations.

2. I clearly stated that I agree with you. Stream habitat is part of the problem.

3. I never said you had no knowledge. I simply said that you shouldn't assume that you know way more than everyone else. That's the sense I get from you, not just in this thread, but in many others. I was simply stating that I thought that Al Agnew's opinion is pretty credible, and worthy of thinking about. I feel the same way about your opinion.

You really don't know how to have a conversation without getting personal, do you?

I don't think I've ever started a thread that you haven't derailed.

[drew03cmc]

Drew, Drew, Drew! You have gone and hurt my feelings saying that taney has no credibility. With the completion of TRD, I would say that MDC made the only choice possible to take advantage of the hand that they were dealt. I don't think that missouri has a native fish that would live and thrive on the upper end of the lake. Taney's fish are not stocked lunker size, they have to survive and feed to attain that status. About the only time native fish visit the upper end is at a flood gate event that raises water temps more to their likeing. If you removed the trout, I do not think the natives would do anything other than they do right now. Missouri's larger springs probably have the same un-comfort zone for a ways below them. Thanks for your input Drew.

I agree.

I have finally struck a chord. Trout in Missouri just do not belong. Bring the natives back, knock ALL dams down and I would be happy. I realize this will not and cannot happen however, and have gained a little understanding that the MDC's views on trout in MO have been passed down to the anglers. I am not against catching wild trout in Missouri, but stocked trout and trout populations that persist only due to stocking are artificial and are taking area from native species such as smallmouth bass, walleye and suckers. I can personally guarantee that in the larger spring streams such as Bennett, Maramec and Roaring River, there were smallmouth bass there all year long as in the winter, the springs provide warm water and in the summer, they provide cool water. This may explain why, every winter, there are smallmouth stacked in the Suzy Hole at BSSP. Why else could you catch smallmouth bass up to the rock dam in zone 3 at RRSP? Maramec has smallmouth bass in the spring branch ALL YEAR LONG. You can catch smallmouth, including some of trophy proportions all year long on Taney, however, due to the immense size of the trout population in the upper 6 miles, they choose (I believe) to avoid this section of lake in favor of the relative solitude that the middle and lower lake provides them. Can you deny the fact that the TRD displaced walleye and smallmouth bass as the primary predator species in what is now Taney? Check out the tributaries of the Ozark streams to catch one of the prettiest native species you will ever find; the longear sunfish.

[laker67]

I have finally struck a chord. Trout in Missouri just do not belong. Bring the natives back, knock ALL dams down and I would be happy.

Be thankful that you live in Kansas, Drew! I certainly am. I say this in jest because I know you are a good sport.