Trout Coming To Busch Soon

[eric1978]

Oh come on, man, it's a little different than that isn't it?

Yeah, it's a little different. And don't get me wrong, going to Busch Wildlife is not beneath me...I go there all the time, albeit usually just to test out some new gear or tackle. I was just there yesterday. It's kinda hard to avoid given that it's only ten minutes from my house. But the place does suck. I fished about 3 hours yesterday, walked completely around two lakes, and caught 4 dinks. It's just overfished and the C&R lakes are overpressured. You could go into business collecting all the lures hanging from the trees and selling them on ebay.

If you could take a private canoe out on the lakes it would be better. I know there are big fish in some of those lakes, you just can't get to them. I'm not gonna pay $5 to paddle around their jonboats. I don't know why, I just won't.

My point was only that the pheasants thing and the Busch trout thing are kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't know, it just doesn't do it for me. I would rather venture out into the wilderness and be skunked than go angle or hunt some game that's all but caught or killed for you before you even try. It kind of feels impure, and really doesn't get me excited. Of course any fishing is better than no fishing, and I completely understand wanting to run out to Busch to catch a few some time when you just can't get out to the real places. I know you're well aware of the difference, I've read your blog, so I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

[ozark trout fisher]

Yeah, it's a little different. And don't get me wrong, going to Busch Wildlife is not beneath me...I go there all the time, albeit usually just to test out some new gear or tackle. I was just there yesterday. It's kinda hard to avoid given that it's only ten minutes from my house. But the place does suck. I fished about 3 hours yesterday, walked completely around two lakes, and caught 4 dinks. It's just overfished and the C&R lakes are overpressured. You could go into business collecting all the lures hanging from the trees and selling them on ebay.

If you could take a private canoe out on the lakes it would be better. I know there are big fish in some of those lakes, you just can't get to them. I'm not gonna pay $5 to paddle around their jonboats. I don't know why, I just won't.

My point was only that the pheasants thing and the Busch trout thing are kind of like shooting fish in a barrel. I don't know, it just doesn't do it for me. I would rather venture out into the wilderness and be skunked than go angle or hunt some game that's all but caught or killed for you before you even try. It kind of feels impure, and really doesn't get me excited. Of course any fishing is better than no fishing, and I completely understand wanting to run out to Busch to catch a few some time when you just can't get out to the real places. I know you're well aware of the difference, I've read your blog, so I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

I have to agree with you that Busch Wildlife definitely has a fake feel to it. It probably is nice to those who have never fished outstate, but it definitely gets boring. I am just a prisoner I guess to having to go fishing about every weekend. I wish I could head south all the time, but unfortunately I can't. (sad face). That's where Busch and the lakes around my house come in. Just kinda junk food fishing, you know what I mean?

But as you've pointed out, I guess I'll just go ahead and say they ought to take that trout stocking money from Busch, and try to do something to help one of the smallie streams with. That's way more worthwhile IMO.

[brownieman]

It's sad but I'm afraid it's coming to the point where game/fish reserves will be all that's left, hell, water that will support life may be rare.

IMO I don't care what they say or put in print bottom line is little effort has ever been actually put out to help small game populations anywhere in the state unless it's a pet project by a big wig or commisioner.

Trout, deer and turkey are the top 3...don't think if some of those efforts and tax dollars had been put towards saving

some of the above mentioned the populations would be better.

Long as it can be viewed in a nature center does it really matter if there are any left in the wild ?

If it's stuffed you can get alot better look at it also, even touch it, lol...and what you talkin helpin smallies, they sustain themselves just fine, right...why else wouldn't they help ?

later on

[Gavin]

I'm not a big fan of that program..think it sucks up around 50,000 trout or more a year. It is popular though...I hardly ever drive up to St. Chuck, but I almost always see people out fishing for trout at Tilles, or Jefferson Lake in Forest Park.

Dont worry about those trout going to waste though. The 5 gallon bucket brigade usually fishes them out quickly..often before its legal to keep them. Cheers.

[Gatorjet]

IMO this just shows how the MDC caters to the urban areas, the vote.

With the exception of the white ribbon areas which are not stocked during winter months and the blue and red ribbon areas where you're lucky to catch a keeper these days the rural folks don't have any place to catch and keep a mess of stinkers.

To boot, when the water warms enouph in the spring the remaining fish that haven't been caught belly up.

Ask most rural folk what they think of this program but the dept. doesn't seem to care because they know where the majority of the voters are. St. Louis alone will trump the whole rural population. Pretty much shows the trend to me but what do I know, I'm just a simple country boy.

bm

Cater to the urban areas, maybe, but keep in mind that the sales tax paid in the urban areas far overshadows the rest of the state. That means a large amount of the 1/8 percent conservation tax comes from the urban areas. Yes , there may be a few trout belly-up in the spring, but probably a whole lot less than what becomes "eagle food" on Taney from being miss handeled.

At a time when participation in outdoor sports is declining among the young people in our country, I think programs like this are well worth the cost. If it gets more kids, and adults interested in our sport it will only help everyone in the future.

[Brian Sloss]

I think the local areas have to pay to get the fish stocked. I know they did in Columbia anyway. I'm torn about the urban trout program. On one hand it may get some people interested in trout fishing that otherwise would never get exposed to it. That is great. On the other hand, it devalues the trout as a game fish in Missouri. In Missouri and Arkansas there is too much of an emphasis on putting trout on stringers. That mentality travels from those lakes to our Blue ribbon areas. I see it all the time on the Eleven Point in the blue ribbon area. People who can not conceive of releasing a trout. Too much time at the trout parks and urban lakes. I know poaching blue ribbon areas is not the fault of the lakes directly, but I do think they contribute to the mentality that trout are only valued on stringers.

[snagged in outlet 3]

2 of the lakes at Busch are CnR only until Feb 1st. I talked to one of the conservation guys at Busch last year and he said they never have any dead leftover trout in the spring. I believe one of them posts here from time to time.

I don't even know how the program started or where the funds come from. I'll tell you what, it's no tailwater or trout park, But when gas was $4 a gallon and my trout trips were too expensive it was nice to go down and catch a few.

SIO3

[ozark trout fisher]

I think the local areas have to pay to get the fish stocked. I know they did in Columbia anyway. I'm torn about the urban trout program. On one hand it may get some people interested in trout fishing that otherwise would never get exposed to it. That is great. On the other hand, it devalues the trout as a game fish in Missouri. In Missouri and Arkansas there is too much of an emphasis on putting trout on stringers. That mentality travels from those lakes to our Blue ribbon areas. I see it all the time on the Eleven Point in the blue ribbon area. People who can not conceive of releasing a trout. Too much time at the trout parks and urban lakes. I know poaching blue ribbon areas is not the fault of the lakes directly, but I do think they contribute to the mentality that trout are only valued on stringers.

That's an interesting perspective. Not one I'd thought of.

[eric1978]

I think the local areas have to pay to get the fish stocked. I know they did in Columbia anyway. I'm torn about the urban trout program. On one hand it may get some people interested in trout fishing that otherwise would never get exposed to it. That is great. On the other hand, it devalues the trout as a game fish in Missouri. In Missouri and Arkansas there is too much of an emphasis on putting trout on stringers. That mentality travels from those lakes to our Blue ribbon areas. I see it all the time on the Eleven Point in the blue ribbon area. People who can not conceive of releasing a trout. Too much time at the trout parks and urban lakes. I know poaching blue ribbon areas is not the fault of the lakes directly, but I do think they contribute to the mentality that trout are only valued on stringers.

That is a very interesting point that I also had never considered, and I think a very valid one. I'm willing to go one further, although it probably won't be a popular opinion and I'll likely get reamed for it. I'm generally against the urban programs as stated before so the following may or may not surprise you guys.

Other than the revenue that fishing licenses bring to MDC, I really couldn't care less if more people are exposed to fishing. In fact, I would prefer that they weren't. For all of you in the industry, I know you don't share this opinion because you're trying to put food on the table, and the more people fishing, the more you make, and that's fine. I'm all for capitalism. I completely understand that.

But for all the other serious anglers out there who don't seek profits from any aspect of the sport, more people fishing just spells more problems. More pressure on water, more fish being kept, more fish dying from guthooks and improper handling and stress. More litter. More crowds. I believe that most people are pigs and in general contribute nothing but degradation to the resources that we cherish. Now note that I said in general. Obviously there are many serious anglers who contribute significantly to making angling better for everyone. I personally am not as involved as I should be in conservation efforts, but I can say that whenever I go on a trip, I get back to the truck with zero fish on a stringer and with way more trash than I left with, and at least that's something in the direction of a positive impact. Most people have a neutral to negative impact.

It's my opinion that the majority of people who are "exposed" to fishing either don't care about it at all or continue to do it on a very casual basis. And casual anglers spell disaster for fisheries. These people tend to have an exploitative view of fishing. It's only serious anglers that seem to leave no trace when it comes to our beloved resources, and I would venture to say that most people who have their first fishing experience at Busch Wildlife catching stocked mud trout, aren't going to catch fire over the sport. Again, that's a sweeping generalization. I'm sure a couple passionate fishermen will be spawned from their Busch experience. Good for them. I welcome them to the club and I'm happy to see someone love the same thing I love. And don't get me wrong, I'll be taking my kids out as soon as they're old enough to teach them how to fish. But they will have respect for nature both as a necessity for life and a resource for fun, but not as something that's theirs to exploit.

I know the argument is made that the more people that are exposed to fishing, the more aware people are, the more they contribute to the resources in a positive way. I simply don't see it that way, and the next time you get out to Busch you'll be reminded of why I'm right. Busch really is a perfect example of the point I'm making. Look at that place. During the summer the banks are lined with people casting into the same little pond. And look at what's left. Terrible fishing and garbage everywhere. Do we really need more of that? Do you want your favorite place in the world to look like that? People invariably screw things up, and the more people, the more screwed up they make it.

Okay, I'm ready for the firing squad.

[ozark trout fisher]

That is a very interesting point that I also had never considered, and I think a very valid one. I'm willing to go one further, although it probably won't be a popular opinion and I'll likely get reamed for it. I'm generally against the urban programs as stated before so the following may or may not surprise you guys.

Other than the revenue that fishing licenses bring to MDC, I really couldn't care less if more people are exposed to fishing. In fact, I would prefer that they weren't. For all of you in the industry, I know you don't share this opinion because you're trying to put food on the table, and the more people fishing, the more you make, and that's fine. I'm all for capitalism. I completely understand that.

But for all the other serious anglers out there who don't seek profits from any aspect of the sport, more people fishing just spells more problems. More pressure on water, more fish being kept, more fish dying from guthooks and improper handling and stress. More litter. More crowds. I believe that most people are pigs and in general contribute nothing but degradation to the resources that we cherish. Now note that I said in general. Obviously there are many serious anglers who contribute significantly to making angling better for everyone. I personally am not as involved as I should be in conservation efforts, but I can say that whenever I go on a trip, I get back to the truck with zero fish on a stringer and with way more trash than I left with, and at least that's something in the direction of a positive impact. Most people have a neutral to negative impact.

It's my opinion that the majority of people who are "exposed" to fishing either don't care about it at all or continue to do it on a very casual basis. And casual anglers spell disaster for fisheries. These people tend to have an exploitative view of fishing. It's only serious anglers that seem to leave no trace when it comes to our beloved resources, and I would venture to say that most people who have their first fishing experience at Busch Wildlife catching stocked mud trout, aren't going to catch fire over the sport. Again, that's a sweeping generalization. I'm sure a couple passionate fishermen will be spawned from their Busch experience. Good for them. I welcome them to the club and I'm happy to see someone love the same thing I love. And don't get me wrong, I'll be taking my kids out as soon as they're old enough to teach them how to fish. But they will have respect for nature both as a necessity for life and a resource for fun, but not as something that's theirs to exploit.

I know the argument is made that the more people that are exposed to fishing, the more aware people are, the more they contribute to the resources in a positive way. I simply don't see it that way, and the next time you get out to Busch you'll be reminded of why I'm right. Busch really is a perfect example of the point I'm making. Look at that place. During the summer the banks are lined with people casting into the same little pond. And look at what's left. Terrible fishing and garbage everywhere. Do we really need more of that? Do you want your favorite place in the world to look like that? People invariably screw things up, and the more people, the more screwed up they make it.

Okay, I'm ready for the firing squad.

The Firing Squad has arrived (just kidding)

I see your point, but I do think we should try to recruit responsible people to the sport of fishing. The more responsible individuals who fish, and learn to love the waters they fish, the more leverage we will have on conservation issues. If numbers of fisherman continue to dwindle, I am afraid this just translates into fewer people advocating for the protection of our waterways. And that's something we can't afford.

With that said, I'm not sure things like the winter trout program encourage new anglers to be responsible, and catch and release minded. While a few lakes are C&R for a few months, on most of the lakes for most of the time, the emphasis is on putting as many fish on a stringer as possible. And if that is the only experience a trout fisherman has, when they had down to a Blue Ribbon area, they are probably going to creel every fish they catch, legal or not.

So basically, I see the point of both sides of this issue.

And finally, I make no money whatsoever from the fishing industry. I only spend money when it comes to fishing. :lol: