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

[eric1978]

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

Well Wayne, my instinct says that since you're asking that I'm going to be way off. But my guess would be, on a hypothetical stream, say with one major spring that could be traveled upstream or down from, that the trout wouldn't move very far above it at all, except possibly during winter.

How far downstream? That depends...on the volume of the spring and how far down the river the water temp is regulated by that spring. I suppose on some rivers they might move down 10 or even 20 miles or more during colder months. On others perhaps no more than a few miles. I really don't know.

[eric1978]

Trout don't belong in the ozarks in the first place, so it doesn't really matter if they are in a mudpuddle or a river.

Well there is a slight difference, since they can survive year round in the rivers, but they die in the mudpuddles. They're not native to many good trout streams in the U.S., but that doesn't mean they don't thrive in them.

[ness]

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.

Thanks for saving me from reading the other 4-page thread!

So, we're talking about private money? (I guess NFWF is private). Doesn't really matter anyway because nobody ever declines free money. Taney/Branson is a cash-cow for the state, and this has got to be peanuts in the grand scheme of things. Kudos to whoever worked to have this money spent.

Now if you guys feel strongly enough about abolishing the urban trout program, or helping smallmouth reclaim their native territory, then get to work. Squeaky wheel, and all that.

[Troutfishn]

This is debate will not be decided by trout fisherman. The trout are simply there for convenience. MDC just wants to put trout in everyone's back yard to hook new anglers on trout to buy stamps and maybe so they later go visit a trout park. However 99% of the people I creel are men and 90% are retired. So the target audience is not being reached. I even heard Hoskins the old Director wanted to buy land 30 minutes south of STL to start a new trout stream. Yes the fish die june-ish when temperatures hit 70's but not very many. Those that go will tell you after a couple weeks fishing is tough, because MOST fish get caught. The only real debate I can see is the "natural setting" but if you like an ozark stream go to one. No matter how you look at it the urban trout program is a GOOD thing. The urban programs budget is set aside from other trout programs, basically if they did away with it then it would not provide more fish for streams or ANYTHING. It would be spent somewhere else probably trying to save the niangua river darter . Majority wins in this case some want progress and others want rehabilitation. Busch already has an excellent population of warm water species, if you cannot find what you are fishing for PM me or look for the blue stratus at busch. There is a new Director for MDC..... Hoskins was the trout fishing fanatic.... some of you may get what you wished for.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Eric I'm only familiar with the Niangua, so I have to speak only of it. The trout do move differently, as you said, in winter than in summer. I think many would be surprised that they will move several miles above Bennett in the winter, and at least to Prosperine to the north. In the summer however they will still be just above Prosperine, and there is some good fishing below Barclay.

I have no idea what the river can sustain in trout, smallies and Goggle eye, but I imagine it has its limitations.

[eric1978]

I have no idea what the river can sustain in trout, smallies and Goggle eye, but I imagine it has its limitations.

Absolutely. And if I had to pick one or the other it would be the smallmouth and even goggle eye over the trout, since they were "meant" to be there. But they all seem to do okay with cohabitating, from what I hear anyway. I don't know diddley about the Niangua, but I think the Meramec is pretty similar...the trout hang around the spring, and the smallmouth do pretty good in most parts of the river above and below the park until you get way downstream. From what I gather it's not nearly as good as it was 20-30 years ago, but I think that has little to nothing to do with the trout program there.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

I know why Taney get's more attention than the Bourbeuse. What I'm saying is that's not how a conservation department should operate. I believe (actually I know) that Taneycomo gets more attention because of all the resorts, fishing guide services, etc that operate on it. What I am saying though, is that a conservation department should be about preserving natural resources, not about helping to stuff the wallets of resort owners and fishing guides. This is not in any way an attack on the resort owners or fishing guides on here, hell you have my dream job right now. I just believe a conservation department should be about conserving natural resources resources, not puffing up unnatural ones. Sure, I do think they should stock Taneycomo just so there will be some sort of a fishery, but that's it.

Trout do bring in more bucks than smallmouth, but here, living in Missouri where trout are not native, one would think a conservation department would be firmly in the corner of smallmouth and other native species, when the two interests clash. Not so unfortunately

[eric1978]

I just believe a conservation department should be about conserving natural resources resources, not puffing up unnatural ones.

Should be? Yes. Will be? Doubt it. Money is always the trump card.

[fiveweight]

Nobody is asking the question: is money generated from the trout program supplementing or siphoning off funding to protect and provide access to native species? When you have a program as big as it is, it can obviously both take in and spend huge resources. If there was no trout stocking program, would there be more purchasing of public land and providing of access to rivers like the Gasconade, Black, Current, etc. or less? I cannot guess what the answer is, but the high concentration of fishermen in trout parks and Taney is an enormous source of revenue. Is all that and more spent directly where it is generated, or does some of it go back into the general budget to supplement funding for other waterways?

Currently living back in a state with a much smaller and less significant trout program (Indiana) our warm water streams do not have nearly the amount of managed access and publicly owned stream side property that warm water Ozark streams get even on the few decent streams we do have here. You would think that in Indiana, with only a handful of quality streams worth caring for it shouldn't be hard to do more per stream mile but that doesn't seem to be the case. If having a huge trout program to increase DNR revenue is indeed the factor making the difference in Missouri, even the warm water streams are in a better situation because of it. Perhaps the same could be said of the giant Army Corps lakes as massive fishing destinations which we also lack here.

[laker67]

Nobody is asking the question: is money generated from the trout program supplementing or siphoning off funding to protect and provide access to native species?

I read somewhere that 15 percent of missouri's total fishing program, is funded by trout fishing. Those native fishes are on welfare.