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

[laker67]

. Does anyone have any idea how much MDC spends on those areas?

Greg

I don't know how much they spend, but I know that they stock 25 lakes for the urban program twice between nov and feb. The latest accounting on numbers, that I could find, is from 07. They stocked 38,000 in the st. louis lakes alone. That did include busch wildlife area. I'm not positive, but I think this urban program began in 89. We are funding alot of trout dinners.

[ness]

Again, I think there's some incremental sale of licenses that factors into this. I don't have a clue how many, but there are some for sure. I doubt they're hiring any extra people, or buying any equipment to do this. Likely they're using the existing people and stuff -- so, the marginal cost is the cost of the trout mostly. Likely, one of the side-benefits is keeping some staff busy that doesn't have as much to do in the fall/winter.

I can't argue that this is the best use of their money. They've got a huge, guaranteed revenue stream, and they're gonna spend it all -- every year -- just like any other government agency would.

I also doubt this causes a lot of folks to become trout junkies, and creates a bunch of extra traffic on our more fragile trout streams. It's a whole different animal, and I'd guess it's largely a different clientele.

Sure, I'd love to see them pay more attention to the places I fish with the money, especially in the area of enforcement. But moaning about the urban trout program is a dead end. There's money coming in and money going out, and without solid data we can't really make a determination if this is a good deal. If you just don't like the idea of fishing from a mud puddle, well don't do it. But I'm not going to fault the people that do, or the MDC for making it available.

[ozark trout fisher]

What I'm saying is I think it's silly to spend a bunch of money puffing up a purely artificial fishery. I would much rather see that money spent trying to do what a Conservation Department is really there for: Trying to protect natural resources. Lake Taneycomo is in no way a natural resource, it is 100% unnatural. Yet the MDC spends untold $$$ on it annually, when they could be trying to catch the poachers that are ruining the fisheries in natural streams.

I firmly believed that a dammed river system is a broken ecosystem. All we can do by installing habitat "improvements"

on Lake Taneycomo would be toward making an unnatural ecosystem even more unnatural. I do not believe that we can make the natural world any better. It's best the way it was originally made.

In short, I am opposed to even one penny being spent on habitat in Lake Taneycomo.

[ness]

What I'm saying is I think it's silly to spend a bunch of money puffing up a purely artificial fishery. I would much rather see that money spent trying to do what a Conservation Department is really there for: Trying to protect natural resources. Lake Taneycomo is in no way a natural resource, it is 100% unnatural. Yet the MDC spends untold $$$ on it annually, when they could be trying to catch the poachers that are ruining the fisheries in natural streams.

I firmly believed that a dammed river system is a broken ecosystem. All we can do by installing habitat "improvements"

on Lake Taneycomo would be toward making an unnatural ecosystem even more unnatural. I do not believe that we can make the natural world any better. It's best the way it was originally made.

In short, I am opposed to one penny spent on habitat in Lake Taneycomo.

Sure, it's unnatural, but it's gonna be that way until the dam is gone -- and I don't see that happening. If you want natural (and I do too) there are places to go for that. And, Branson isn't one of them. Not knocking it -- it is what it is.

Anyhow, I was talking about the urban program. I haven't been keeping up with the Tanycomo discussion, because I really don't care too much.

Seems like these discussions generally circle-back to the enforcement issue. And believe me -- I'm all for reallocating some resources to that -- everywhere. But, debating the 'naturalness' of Taney or grumbling about the urban program are a waste of our resources. I'd much rather see a movement develop that encourages the MDC to improve enforcement. I truly believe we could get some movement on that issue if we put some effort into it.

[ozark trout fisher]

Sure, it's unnatural, but it's gonna be that way until the dam is gone -- and I don't see that happening. If you want natural (and I do too) there are places to go for that. And, Branson isn't one of them. Not knocking it -- it is what it is.

Anyhow, I was talking about the urban program. I haven't been keeping up with the Tanycomo discussion, because I really don't care too much.

Seems like these discussions generally circle-back to the enforcement issue. And believe me -- I'm all for reallocating some resources to that -- everywhere. But, debating the 'naturalness' of Taney or grumbling about the urban program are a waste of our resources. I'd much rather see a movement develop that encourages the MDC to improve enforcement. I truly believe we could get some movement on that issue if we put some effort into it.

What I'm saying is the money we currently spend trying to improve habitat on unnatural fisheries should go to trying to enforce regs on natural fisheries. Is it not the mission of the MDC to protect natural resources? Heck, I am watching the smallmouth becoming extinct in the Bourbeuse River for example, and the MDC spends $0 whatsoever trying to help that situation. But heaven forbid the trout in Taneycomo don't have the perfect habitat, and everyone is rushing to spend a bunch of money to get boulders hauled in. I just don't get it. I feel like we're forgetting our native species in natural waters, and dumping all our money into the tailwaters and reservoirs.

[Wayne SW/MO]

The trout won't leave the general vicinity of the springs, so it's not like they can take over the entire river.

Just for fun Eric, how far down, or upstream do you think they travel?

Wrench I know that there are a reasonable number of Browns between the highway access and Barclay. The old fella that has taken my son and grandson out loads up on them, comparatively speaking.

When we speak of habitat improvement in Taney, what part are we reffering too? Given the fact the trout don't reproduce, what would be gained from any changes? I can see creating holes and chutes in the upper end being benificial in attracting trout for the fishermen, but I don't see it really benefiting the trout.

[eric1978]

What I'm saying is the money we currently spend trying to improve habitat on unnatural fisheries should go to trying to enforce regs on natural fisheries. Is it not the mission of the MDC to protect natural resources? Heck, I am watching the smallmouth becoming extinct in the Bourbeuse River for example, and the MDC spends $0 whatsoever trying to help that situation. But heaven forbid the trout in Taneycomo don't have the perfect habitat, and everyone is rushing to spend a bunch of money to get boulders hauled in. I just don't get it. I feel like we're forgetting our native species in natural waters, and dumping all our money into the tailwaters and reservoirs.

I pretty much agree with you OTF, but it's been said a million times and I'll say it again...the squeeky wheel gets the grease. Compared to the Bourbeuse, there are many more people who fish Taney and others who have a vested interest in keeping the lake chock full of "tourist attractions" all year long.

You get into a lot of gray area when you consider how subjective it is. I'm totally opposed to the Busch program, even though I'm 5 minutes away from it, and I really couldn't care less what they put in Taney since I don't fish it. But if Taney was in my backyard I'm pretty sure I'd be enthusiastic about any money dumped into it, natural or not.

If they started a program on the Bourbeuse and turned it into a put-grow-take smallmouth-producing machine through constant stocking, I'd be happy as a clam, even if it wasn't a "natural" ecosystem. Would I enjoy it as much as fishing a wild and untouched stream? No way. But it's close, so I would go frequently just to get a fix. Other guys wouldn't care a bit about it, especially if they lived in the opposite corner of the state, and they'd probably be opposed to their tax dollars going to fund a project they'll never get to enjoy.

But your philosophy in general I agree with, that the native species should come first, and then worry about the trout. But let's face it, as long as the state is making money from the programs, they will exist and be a priority since nothing is more important than the almighty dollar.

Trout bring in more bucks than smallmouth. You need look no further for an explanation or a rationale.

[Guest]

deleted

 

[Phil Lilley]

Just to make sure you all understand what's going on on Taney, MDC has money from the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and Bass Pro to add fish habitat in Table Rock and it's watershed as well as Taneycomo. The are in the third of a five year of the project.

This money isn't coming from MDC.

It is to enhance fishing areas below the dam. Create holes for fish to hold in, wood structure for bugs and to help spread out anglers instead of having them group up in preferred areas like the outlets and rebar.

It won't really help the trout except give them areas to hold without being hammered as much by anglers. And it should help the food base.

[laker67]

I can see creating holes and chutes in the upper end being benificial in attracting trout for the fishermen, but I don't see it really benefiting the trout.

You are exactly right Wayne. The benefits gained would be for the fisherman. Creating holding areas would attract more fish and hopefully larger fish. Right now the upper lake is in desperate need of some improvements. The wading fisherman, like myself, would gain the most from this project. I am all for any type of change on the upper lake. If it doesn't work, then we are no worse off than we are now.