Should Money Be Spent On A Put-and-take Trout Lake?

[Phil Lilley]

I'm just asking...

What good are they anyhow?

[jjtroutbum]

I personally think dollars drawn in should directly reflect dollars recieved. Call me a capitalist I take that as a compliment.

[fiveweight]

What JJ said. If it's some pet project that draws funding from streams, then no but if it generates enough fishing licenses and trout stamps to fund itself, why not?

In St Louis, there are maybe a dozen put and take trout lakes. You still need to buy a license to fish there, and from seeing how many people do I can only imagine they make their money back and then some. I think most of the people fishing for them are not likely to otherwise buy a trout stamp and head down to the Ozarks, but for others it's a nice afternoon fix when we can't get down south. They aren't hard for the DNR to manage - you don't even have to care if they make it past the spring because nobody cares. Suitable habitat? Blah! Abundant forage? Blah! It increases both the number of people buying trout stamps as well as general interest in the sport, not unlike trout parks.

[Chief Grey Bear]

In a report from the MDC that I linked in my post below, it is stated that the economic impact to Taneycomo lake is in excess of $13 million a year. I wouldn't mind having me a slice of that free pie.

[Greg]

We are not talking Taneycomo here are we?

Greg

[laker67]

My question would be, are we {the sportsman} penalized with reduced limits and reduced stocking numbers in order to support this holiday angling on urban lakes and ponds?

[jjtroutbum]

Phil,

This may need a poll.

Chief,

I see no link?

Greg,

Yes I believe we are including in put and take.

Laker,

Yes, I believe that is probably true. The urban projects however do foster youth into trout fishing too an extent. I belive that a disproportionate amount of funds are allocated to nature centers, bird watchers, and hiking trails (tree hugers) in those places that do not allow hunting.

[Phil Lilley]

To clarify the reason I created this topic... this subject kept coming up on a topic I started on Taneycomo's Habitat Improvement. I asked that they started another topic to talk about this subject, they didn't, so I started it for them.

I think it's a valid question and the subject should be discussed.

My opinion is... put-take fisheries have their place in the state's budget and money "raised" by trout permits should go back to trout fisheries in the way of stocking and improving the fishery. Plus I think there's nothing wrong with using general funds for, say, trout, ie. additional hatchery space at Shepherd.

I acknowledge there is a school of thought that native, natural fisheries should receive preferential treatment. I don't share that opinion although I do think it's important for MDC to do what they can to enhance those fisheries because I do think they are important.

I mis spoke in statement on another topic. Taneycomo is not a put-and-take lake. It's a put-and-grow-and-take lake. The change is due to the restricted area and its regulations.

[fishinwrench]

In a report from the MDC that I linked in my post below, it is stated that the economic impact to Taneycomo lake is in excess of $13 million a year. I wouldn't mind having me a slice of that free pie.

Any attraction whether natural-tax-maintained, or mand-made-tax-funded is going to boost the surrounding area's economy. Hell, not that long ago there was a topic crying for people to spend more money in Crane.

It isn't the attraction that creates income however...people that "want a slice of the pie" have to take the initiative to offer something worthwhile if they expect to take advantage of it. No different than myself relocating to L.O. to take advantage of the huge number of broken boats/motors.

The only economic potential that nothing but a a lake with trout in it has to an area, is the coins that may get dropped on the ground by visitors. People don't just drop money everywhere they go...there has to be a desired service offered, which means that someone has to invest and work to get some of it. So "free pie" really doesn't exist.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Taney would probably be a poor example given the fact its heavily subsidized by the feds for mitigation. I assume this is still true.

I have mixed emotions about the trout put and take in the large cities. For fishermen as a group it creates, or should, another political alliance when it comes to conservation dollars. Many who are big city dwellers see no benefit in many of the MDC programs, but creating a you scratch my back I'll scratch yours mentality changes that in my opinion.

If we're going to talk programs that are questionable, lets talk Walleye. There's a very expensive ongoing program to make this state a walleye destination, yet I've yet to see any real evidence that it has any real economic impact. Long before big money was infused into Bull Shoals the jack Salmon run existed and its not a whole lot better today than it was than.