Agfc - Over 152,000 Pounds Of Fish Stocked In State’s Waters

[fishinwrench]

Smallies, or so I've always heard, don't do well stocked in rivers. They also say that they don't do well in lakes unless the stockers are from lake fish.

This would seem to fit the Drop in a Bucket category, as would the Crappie stocking at Norfolk.

I wonder what Missouri's numbers look like?

Missouri has gone PADDLEFISH crazy ! Huge pet peeve of mine....don't even get me started.

[Guest]

deleted

[eric1978]

I am not for stocking gamefish--unless of course it was to replace fish that have been wiped out of an area.

Stocking more fish ussually isn't the answer, I don't want smallies to end up being like stocker rainbows.

Generally I agree, but on the rivers with the spot problem (here we go), it might be a better option than doing nothing...

Stocking them in the Bourbeuse would fit your "wiped out of an area" scenario.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Missouri has gone PADDLEFISH crazy ! Huge pet peeve of mine....don't even get me started.

I think that's the feds, but don't look at the Walleye stockings, I think they stock a couple of hundred for every walleye fishermen in the state.

Generally I agree, but on the rivers with the spot problem (here we go), it might be a better option than doing nothing..

Isn't the problem habitat encroachment? If so I don't see stocking doing anymore than stressing the already stressed survivors.

[eric1978]

Isn't the problem habitat encroachment? If so I don't see stocking doing anymore than stressing the already stressed survivors.

I just figured if you increased the ratio of smallie to spot, the smallies may have a better chance at regaining a foothold. But I'm not a fisheries biologist, so what do I know?

[ozark trout fisher]

Generally I agree, but on the rivers with the spot problem (here we go), it might be a better option than doing nothing...

Stocking them in the Bourbeuse would fit your "wiped out of an area" scenario.

I'm not sure they should stock them on the Bourbeuse... I just don't think it's a long term solution. Fact is, if the spots were gone there are still enough smallies scattered around to bring the population back up. I think the only way stocking could really raise the smallmouth bass population would be by making it a put and take fishery, stocked at least every year or so, and I don't think anyone really wants to see that happen. You could just do a one time stocking, which would let us all catch a bunch of smallies in the short term, but I'm sure it would be just a couple years till the spotties took back over.

Maybe stocking is better than doing nothing at all. It's such a tough situation, and I'm not really sure there is anything we can do to make that river worth fishing again, although we can't just give up on it. It makes me really sad to think about.

[eric1978]

I'm not sure they should stock them on the Bourbeuse... I just don't think it's a long term solution. Fact is, if the spots were gone there are still enough smallies scattered around to bring the population back up. I think the only way stocking could really raise the smallmouth bass population would be by making it a put and take fishery, stocked at least every year or so, and I don't think anyone really wants to see that happen. You could just do a one time stocking, which would let us all catch a bunch of smallies in the short term, but I'm sure it would be just a couple years till the spotties took back over.

Maybe stocking is better than doing nothing at all. It's such a tough situation, and I'm not really sure there is anything we can do to make that river worth fishing again, although we can't just give up on it. It makes me really sad to think about.

I pretty much agree with you OTF, but the fact is we are doing nothing, aside from removing the limits on spots and doing some roundups. I just don't think it's enough. Sad to say, that river might be shot.

My rationale works this way:

Say a mile of the Bourbeuse can sustain 1000 bass. And lets just say that there are 500 smallies and 500 spots in a particular mile. Say you stock another 1000 smallies and now have a total of 2000 fish in that mile, 1500 smallies and 500 spots. Assuming that smallies and spots have an equal ability to survive (this may be a problem with my equation), you would be led to predict that when the population drops back down to sustainable, you'll now have 750 smallies and 250 spots, as their respective populations would decrease at the same rate. Add 4500 smallies, and eventually you'll wind up with 950 smallies and 50 spots. If substantial numbers of fish were stocked year after year, perhaps the spot population could be significantly thinned...hypothetically. And of course you couldn't add too many at once or we'd see stunting. Maybe they could stock a few million baitfish while they're at it.

Now all this is thrown out the window if spots are simply better adapted to surviving in a river like the Bourbeuse than smallies are, which appears may be the case. Eventually they'd just take over again, as you said. It'd be an interesting experiment, though, and certainly things couldn't get much worse than they already are.

[ozark trout fisher]

I pretty much agree with you OTF, but the fact is we are doing nothing, aside from removing the limits on spots and doing some roundups. I just don't think it's enough. Sad to say, that river might be shot.

My rationale works this way:

Say a mile of the Bourbeuse can sustain 1000 bass. And lets just say that there are 500 smallies and 500 spots in a particular mile. Say you stock another 1000 smallies and now have a total of 2000 fish in that mile, 1500 smallies and 500 spots. Assuming that smallies and spots have an equal ability to survive (this may be a problem with my equation), you would be led to predict that when the population drops back down to sustainable, you'll now have 750 smallies and 250 spots, as their respective populations would decrease at the same rate. Add 4500 smallies, and eventually you'll wind up with 950 smallies and 50 spots. If substantial numbers of fish were stocked year after year, perhaps the spot population could be significantly thinned...hypothetically. And of course you couldn't add too many at once or we'd see stunting. Maybe they could stock a few million baitfish while they're at it.

Now all this is thrown out the window if spots are simply better adapted to surviving in a river like the Bourbeuse than smallies are, which appears may be the case. Eventually they'd just take over again, as you said. It'd be an interesting experiment, though, and certainly things couldn't get much worse than they already are.

I agree that there are definitely some arguments for stocking smallies, and I do see your line of thinking there. But there are a few reasons why I don't think stocking is really a viable option to restore the stream. When spots entered the stream 20 or so years ago, they were only a small minority of the bass population. Still, they managed to out compete the smallies, and now they've become the predominate species. I think theoretically, heavy stocking of smallmouth could bring the spot population down, for a while. But it seems to me the evidence shows that due to the habitat, spots are simply better at spawning. Sure, while you continued to stock smallies, you might be able to force them to become more numerous than spots. But I seriously doubt that you could totally crowd the spots out of the river. I bet within a couple years of pulling the plug on the stocking, spots would begin to regain the ground they'd lost. Also, I would worry about the stocked strain bass getting into other parts of the river system (mainly the Meramec) and altering the fish genetics there.

I might support fish stocking if somehow they could get the same strain of smallies that are native to the Meramec basin. It certainly would have the potential to give us a few more years of good fishing on the river. But still, I always think of smallies as being a totally a natural fish around here, and I think introducing stocked fish would kinda ruin that notion. I'd almost rather have just a few smallmouth among the spots than a whole bunch of stockers. I do understand your opinion though, and I agree we need to do something. The fact is that I have no idea what the right thing is, and suppose this is as good of an idea as any I have.

As a side note, I will continue to fish the Bourbeuse, but only when I want a few spots for the frying pan. It's the only situation where I feel okay about keeping bass, so I try to take advantage of that. But other than that, I agree. It's a waste of time.

[eric1978]

As a side note, I will continue to fish the Bourbeuse, but only when I want a few spots for the frying pan. It's the only situation where I feel okay about keeping bass, so I try to take advantage of that. But other than that, I agree. It's a waste of time.

If they weren't so wormy, I'd be more enthusiastic about eating them. I do usually keep them, though, and do, uh, something with them.

Agreed on all fronts. I wouldn't suggest stocking anything that wasn't a native strain. And you're right, you couldn't just stock a couple times and then stop, because the spots would just take over again. But if MDC started a program that stocked a good number of smallies way upstream every year, I think it would effectively increase the ratio of smallie to spot. It would have to be a neverending program, though, but it's not like they don't have those...ie trout. Look at that list Zack posted...I know it's AR...but they stocked nearly a million fish in just one month. It really wouldn't take that much money to dump a few thousand fingerlings at, say, Mint, Tea and Mill Rock for 5 years or so just to see what would happen.

I'm just frustrated that none of the MDC resources (that I know of) go directly to smallmouth preservation, when they are a species that could certainly use some help. I'm all for the trout programs and all the others for that matter, but how about throwing a bone to a very worthy gamefish where they need it?

[Al Agnew]

Actually, given the difficulty in raising smallmouth to a size that would insure good survival rates, there's no way it would be cost-effective. I'll tell you what WOULD be cost-effective...getting every MDC electroshocking boat on the Bourbeuse (and Big River) for a week or so in the best shocking conditions, shocking the whole river, and killing every spotted bass you shocked up. You wouldn't get them all, but if you did this once a year it would give the smallmouth a chance. Heck, invite the public to the accesses to take home all the spotted bass they wanted. Have volunteers to clean them and give them to food pantries. Sell them for cat food for all I care.