Missouri Bass

[Walcrabass]

I have always been extremely interested in how other states handle there wildlife. In Texas they would like for every Angler who catches a Bass of 13 pounds or more to contact the Department of Fish and Wildlife so that they may keep this fish to use for broodstock. They are looking to increase the size and numbers of Bass through this effort.They are also allowing the release of genetically superior Deer on some of the Larger ranches. If you look at what they have done through these efforts it is quite amazing. Texas also stocks Florida, California, and crossbred larger Bass. I know that their growing season is longer and thus bigger fish. All this is leading up to the fact that we continue to put Kentucky Bass in the same length and creel limit as Largemouth. I was told by a Game Warden many years ago that it was because fishermen couldn't differentiate them from Largemouth. Why then are we able to tell Largemouth from Smallmouth? I would like to see the Kentucky Bass in a category of it's own with a length limit of about 11 inches. Then maybe the Largemouth we have would get a better chance. I would also like to see our Department start an aggressive program of stocking the larger species of Largemouth and at the same time enforce a slot limit that would give them a good foothold in our lakes.Something like nothing under 16" and only one fish over 22". These lengths could be adjusted in later years as the "NEW" Bass took hold. It is kind of depressing to watch other states improve their Bass population in these ways and we are not attempting the same. Yes I have heard that these other species are more aggressive,just another great reason to do this and a perfect way to let the slot length do it's work. Any comments from other Anglers or the Missouri Department of Conservation would be appreciated.

[Trav]

Texas has an outstanding concept. Many other states should take notice of their efforts. The idea of genetic handpicking is used in almost every aspect of farming so why not use the same approach to improve a fishery?

[Dutch]

MDC still has the opinion that MO fishermen aren't smart enough to tell one species from another. That is why we have a 4 over 18" limit on stripers, whites, and hybrids.

My opinion is if you are going to keep it, know what it is or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

[fozzie.]

Comparing MO bass fishing to bass fishing in California, Texas, or Florida, is like comparing apples and oranges. Different genetics, different climate, different habitat. I agree that regulation changes could certainly produce more trophy largemouth in MO reservoirs, but I'm not sure what you'd get would be anything comparable to reservoirs in warmer climates. They're just fundamentally different systems.

I wince at the idea of our fisheries being managed the same way as a farm or feedlot. Selecting genetic traits such as body size and conformation has led to genetic deficiencies in other areas- think hip dysplasia in dogs, and the myriad genetic and immune deficiencies in livestock and other domesticated organisms. Genetic manipulation is great in human terms- creating higher yielding food organisms, for example. But those traits are often a genetic disadvantage in the wild, and how many organisms currently raised in the farm/feedlot fashion could survive without our intervention? I'm not convinced it's a wise road to go down.

I'm not sure trophy bass should be the end all, be all goal of the MDC in the first place, and to me it seems liberalizing regs on spotted bass is sort of arbitrary. Lots of species compete with bass for food- white bass, walleye, smallmouth, crappie, hybrid bass, flathead catfish- should we liberalize regs on all those species in order to potentially produce larger bass? Reservoir fisheries are probably the toughest to manage, in that you have a bunch of interested parties with a variety of ideas on what they want from the water, and you have to balance all of that. Overall I think MDC does a decent job, but there's certainly room for improvement. It's a tough job, and there are no easy solutions.

[straw hat]

Walcrabass; I am in full agreement with your comments. I worked in and around the fishery business for nearly 30 years and Texas' programs are excellent. From the discussions that I have had with other in the field there appears to be two main concerns. First and most important, money. Most states, including Missouri, do not have any hatcheries or limited space for bass reproduction but allow natural reproduction to provide for "stocking" of the lake. A program such as Texas' would require an additional hatchery and labor. Not cheap. There is one other concern. True, by selectively using only the largest fish it does lead to a larger bass but with each time a larger bass is collected the odds become better and better it is a descendant one of the fish that was bred before. In the long term this leads to less genetic variabilty in your wild stock. This can cause the fish to become less adaptable to climate changes, desease, stress, .... While I am not in the field anymore I do still read a lot of the research journals and this is an area that Texas is very closely monitoring (dna testing just adds more expense too). I hope this helps.

[Walcrabass]

Walcrabass; I am in full agreement with your comments. I worked in and around the fishery business for nearly 30 years and Texas' programs are excellent. From the discussions that I have had with other in the field there appears to be two main concerns. First and most important, money. Most states, including Missouri, do not have any hatcheries or limited space for bass reproduction but allow natural reproduction to provide for "stocking" of the lake. A program such as Texas' would require an additional hatchery and labor. Not cheap. There is one other concern. True, by selectively using only the largest fish it does lead to a larger bass but with each time a larger bass is collected the odds become better and better it is a descendant one of the fish that was bred before. In the long term this leads to less genetic variabilty in your wild stock. This can cause the fish to become less adaptable to climate changes, desease, stress, .... While I am not in the field anymore I do still read a lot of the research journals and this is an area that Texas is very closely monitoring (dna testing just adds more expense too). I hope this helps.

[Trav]

I wince at the idea of our fisheries being managed the same way as a farm or feedlot. Selecting genetic traits such as body size and conformation has led to genetic deficiencies in other areas- think hip dysplasia in dogs, and the myriad genetic and immune deficiencies in livestock and other domesticated organisms. Genetic manipulation is great in human terms- creating higher yielding food organisms, for example. But those traits are often a genetic disadvantage in the wild, and how many organisms currently raised in the farm/feedlot fashion could survive without our intervention? I'm not convinced it's a wise road to go down.

I agree but if your just adding a "booster" population then future wild breeding with the stock will maintain genetic diversity.

I believe the Texas Lunker program is basically using eggs and seed of already naturally healthy fish to improve the geneology. It is no different than taking a known excetionally proven race horse and studding it out.

[Walcrabass]

My main thrust for this topic on the Kentucky Bass is that they are in DIRECT competition with the Largemouth. They spawn at the same time, eat the same food, spawn in the same places, etc. I have been told and read that they spawn at a smaller size. This means that they get a jump on the Largemouth in number of spawning years. This is coupled with the fact that they do not reach length as quickly and so are harder to remove from the lake. I understand that the gene pool needs to be kept as wide as possible. I think back to the Brown Trout that were developed by a man in England. He mixed the Eggs and Milt of several super trout at the same time to get a better genetic diversification but still maintain his goal of better trout. Some states have as many as 13 types of Bass. Surely we can find a way to differentiate between 3 or 4. I am constantly thinking of the 4 point rule for Bucks. It literally saved hunting for mature Bucks in other states. We have finally adopted it in several counties but maybe 30 years later than it should have been. I think we simply need bigger Bass. We have millions of Shad die each year. Many of these are pretty big. We need more Large(Mouth) Predators to utilize this food source. If we have the money to buy land, lease it back to the farmers, and then not allow hunting, fishing, or field trials on it then maybe some of this money could be used for a program for the Bass. I feel sure there are many more fishermen than people who want to see a field of wild flowers. Think about how many Missouri fishmen go to Texas, California, etc. to fish. How many of those states come here to fish? Fishermen bring in a lot of money in gas, license, motels, food... and all of these bring in sales tax. Our Department gets a share of this sales tax. We simply need to help out in the catagory of better Bass Fishing whether it is through stocking or allowing the Kentucky Bass to be taken at a smaller size and greater creel limit. After that, stocking, slot length limits and other tools could really take off.

[straw hat]

Please don't misunderstand. I am not telling you how it is but rather what I have heard in many conversations. I learned a long time ago that us fishery biologists don't always get it right. Myself, I tend to agree with the race horse senerio. You would think that there would be enough bass in a lake to assure genetic variability, especially if the bass taken from lake A for s[awning was only used to produce fry for say lake B. This could help the situation as well.

In regards to the Kentucky bass issue. I also would like to see seperate regulations for this species for exactly the same reasons given earlier. I have been many times before that fisherman can not tell Kentucky bass from largemouths. I know that it is more difficult below 6" long or from muddy water. certainly no one would keep a fish that small anyway. Over the years I have read several research articles on cats that say only about 20% of the fisherman can tell the diffence between a channel and a blue cat. This goes along with the "dumb" fisherman concept you mentioned. I certainly have met more than a few fisherman that couldn't identify these fish. Frankly, I think this is sad. If you are going to fish I think you need to be able to identify your catch.

[Walcrabass]

Please don't misunderstand. I am not telling you how it is but rather what I have heard in many conversations. I learned a long time ago that us fishery biologists don't always get it right. Myself, I tend to agree with the race horse senerio. You would think that there would be enough bass in a lake to assure genetic variability, especially if the bass taken from lake A for s[awning was only used to produce fry for say lake B. This could help the situation as well.

In regards to the Kentucky bass issue. I also would like to see seperate regulations for this species for exactly the same reasons given earlier. I have been many times before that fisherman can not tell Kentucky bass from largemouths. I know that it is more difficult below 6" long or from muddy water. certainly no one would keep a fish that small anyway. Over the years I have read several research articles on cats that say only about 20% of the fisherman can tell the diffence between a channel and a blue cat. This goes along with the "dumb" fisherman concept you mentioned. I certainly have met more than a few fisherman that couldn't identify these fish. Frankly, I think this is sad. If you are going to fish I think you need to be able to identify your catch.