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

[Wayne SW/MO]

Any discussion of trout expenses should include the economic impact to those areas affected. One figure, that is several years old, gives the Branson area 13.3 million. I know the impact on laclede county, and to some degree Dallas county, is certainly significant. The revenue doesn't stop there, it extends to fly shops across the state and even the state government coffers.

[Phil Lilley]

Figures from the chamber are:

Lake Taneycomo $15m

Table Rock $52m

Did some quick figuring/guessing - I bet resort and marina revenue only make up less than 50% of $15m. Guides, less than 2%.

[ozark trout fisher]

Please expound on this concept. You say you know... how? What proof do you have? Truly and honestly, I'm interested. Not being mean-spirited in my asking.

Thanks

I guess technically I don't know it as fact, maybe I went too far in saying I'm sure... It just seems to make perfect since. Is it a coincidence that the smallie streams around here (which don't have a great deal of commerce associated with them, with the exception of a canoe rental here and there), receive no money from the MDC except what it takes to maintain fishing access sites, but they spend millions of dollars a year maintaining the fishery on Lake Taneycomo, where the banks are lined with resorts. Doesn't it then make perfect since that the MDC is spending all that money to placate guide services? Really I'm not trying to go out of my way to step on people's feet with my opinion, but I suppose it's inevitable.

Laker, you're comment about native species being "on welfare" is plain ridiculous. First off, consider the fact that the MDC doesn't spend hardly any money maintaining native species. They do not need to be stocked, and I don't know of any habitat improvement projects going on in any native fishery. How can native species be on welfare when nothing is spent maintaining them? No matter how much we do not want to face this, trout are simply intruders to our ecosystems in the Ozarks. However much we like to catch them, they don't belong here. I'm not saying we shouldn't stock them, but native species must always come first. They are natural. Trout are not.

[eric1978]

Alright.... very stupid error on my part. In my hast to get out the door to Springfield, I offered some off-the-mark figures in my last post. I was thinking about it on the drive up and it hit me... I knew something was wrong with $325.

1/4% of our total sales tax paid would be $2284 by my updated calculations... still not sure if I'm doing it right. Can't seem to get my head around it for some reason.

One quarter of one percent of $103,000 is $257.50

103,000 X .0025 = 257.50

Or an easier way to think about it is: 1 percent of 103000 is 1030...one fourth of that is 257.5

[drew03cmc]

Eric1978, you mentioned that trout can survive indefinitely in Taney. Is there any reliable record of successful spawning in Taney? No. Therefore, trout can survive only until the last silver bullet croaks or gets caught and fried. After that happens, no more trout. Take James A Reed in KC for example. I have caught rainbows, brown and bass on the same day. Those trout were almost sickly looking and definitely malnourished. That is neither good, nor endearing for that fishery. These fisheries are stocked, warm-water fisheries, that tolerate coldwater fish for six months of the year.

In my opinion, any National Sportfish funds should be spent on native species in native habitats, so the answer to the title question is NO. There is no question about it; wasting these funds on artificial fisheries for the sole purpose of attracting tourists and the like to the state is just preposterous. There is nothing on Taney to attract anyone other than the prospect of catching someone's pet trout? That's right, the geniuses behind stocking the trout at absurd levels years ago didn't place any consideration on the fact that the trout, in the upper half of the lake, would outcompete and outpopulate the natives, thus causing their numbers to dwindle to their current state.

Someone in this thread mentioned that brown trout aren't even from this continent, which is true, but in waters where no native species are being displaced and they can sustain themselves, I feel they are occupying a space in the food chain that was previously vacant.

I am all for turning fish loose in a waterway and seeing if they can survive on their own, without repeated stockings. Take the Crane rainbows, they haven't been stocked in decades. Turn trout loose, and if they die, call it a loss and move on.

Please, MDC, CONSERVE our native species of fish.

[eric1978]

Eric1978, you mentioned that trout can survive indefinitely in Taney. Is there any reliable record of successful spawning in Taney? No. Therefore, trout can survive only until the last silver bullet croaks or gets caught and fried. After that happens, no more trout. Take James A Reed in KC for example. I have caught rainbows, brown and bass on the same day. Those trout were almost sickly looking and definitely malnourished.

I said they can survive indefinitely, not spawn. That record brown looked pretty healthy to me...

[drew03cmc]

I said they can survive indefinitely, not spawn. That record brown looked pretty healthy to me...

They cannot survive indefinitely without reproduction. Death is pretty definite.

[laker67]

Laker, you're comment about native species being "on welfare" is plain ridiculous. First off, consider the fact that the MDC doesn't spend hardly any money maintaining native species.

It was a joke OTF. But concerning your comment, MDC operates 5 warm water hatcheries for native fish restocking. It stocks 864 waterways statewide. It also raises and stocks non native warm water fish such as muskie, stripers, and hybrids. It also operates one hatchery totally aimed at replenishing the endangered sturgeon from the missouri and mississippi water ways. I would say that this is a considerable amount of "maintainence". Not trying to start an arguement, just pointing out some facts.

[Wayne SW/MO]

There is a big difference in species survival and specimen survival. They do survive in Taney.

It just seems to make perfect since. Is it a coincidence that the smallie streams around here (which don't have a great deal of commerce associated with them, with the exception of a canoe rental here and there), receive no money from the MDC except what it takes to maintain fishing access sites,

Thank the Heavens for that!

[eric1978]

They cannot survive indefinitely without reproduction. Death is pretty definite.

But they don't die at Taney unless they are caught. They survive. No, they don't reproduce, but the stocked fish survive.

Maybe we're talking about two different things. Trout stocked at Busch will live about 6 months. Most trout stocked at Taney will live out the best part of their life expectancy, given they are not harvested. I do know that if the stocking program stopped there, they would eventually disappear from that body of water. My point is only that stocking Taney, to me, is not as ridiculous a program as stocking Busch, because individual fish can survive for years there, while at Busch they cannot.

As far as the idea that MDC should focus their efforts more on native species, trust me my friend, we are on the same page.