Missouri Bass

[Walcrabass]

I understand completely what you are saying. As for the identification of the Kentucky Bass this is how I see it. If I am wrong someone please tell me. I know that there are other identifying methods but these seem the simplest to me.

1. If you impose a line straight down from the eye and the jaw hinge point is behind it with the fishes mouth closed......Largemouth.

2. If you impose the same line and the jaw hinge point is straight below or shorter then....

a. open mouth to feel for "Rough Tooth Patch" on tongue, if it is present it is a Kentucky.

b. open mouth to feel for "Rough Tooth Patch" on tongue, if it is NOT present it is a SMALLMOUTH.

This takes out all guesswork from Muddy Water coloration. As you said no 6" fish are legal anyway so no need to check.

[Trav]

I understand completely what you are saying. As for the identification of the Kentucky Bass this is how I see it. If I am wrong someone please tell me. I know that there are other identifying methods but these seem the simplest to me.

1. If you impose a line straight down from the eye and the jaw hinge point is behind it with the fishes mouth closed......Largemouth.

2. If you impose the same line and the jaw hinge point is straight below or shorter then....

a. open mouth to feel for "Rough Tooth Patch" on tongue, if it is present it is a Kentucky.

b. open mouth to feel for "Rough Tooth Patch" on tongue, if it is NOT present it is a SMALLMOUTH.

This takes out all guesswork from Muddy Water coloration. As you said no 6" fish are legal anyway so no need to check.

http://mdc.mo.gov/fish/sport/bass/bassid/

[straw hat]

I understand completely what you are saying. As for the identification of the Kentucky Bass this is how I see it. If I am wrong someone please tell me. I know that there are other identifying methods but these seem the simplest to me.

1. If you impose a line straight down from the eye and the jaw hinge point is behind it with the fishes mouth closed......Largemouth.

2. If you impose the same line and the jaw hinge point is straight below or shorter then....

a. open mouth to feel for "Rough Tooth Patch" on tongue, if it is present it is a Kentucky.

b. open mouth to feel for "Rough Tooth Patch" on tongue, if it is NOT present it is a SMALLMOUTH.

This takes out all guesswork from Muddy Water coloration. As you said no 6" fish are legal anyway so no need to check.

Absolutely correct. Under 6" in length these are not as clear but like I said that should not be an issue. Personally I am in full agreement. If there is anyone out there monitoring this discussion and want clarification on identifying any Missouri fish then you may want to purchase the book "The Fishes of Missouri" by Bill Pfliger. The same key he uses is used by most states and is very clear and accurate. It can be bought from the Missori Conservation Department and is available in hard cover and soft. If my memory serves me correctly it is not too expensive either. It also gives a great discription of there life history in Missouri.

By the way Walcrabass; I read an interesting article last night. The researcher studied the bass feeding pattern in a lake for several months. His testing showed that the clearer the water the more the bass feed on smaller shad followed by larger shad then crawfish. As the water became muddier the small shad became a much smaller part of the diet,the consumption of large shad went up slightly and the taking of crawfish increased considerable. This may be something that bass fisherman already know but I thought I would mention it.

[fozzie.]

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.

I guess my only issue is this: the Florida strain (and others), are adapted to growing conditions entirely different from ours. Even if they were stocked, there's no guarantee their genetics would provide any advantage in our lakes, or that they would perform any better than the native strain. If there were some research that indicated they would perform better, it'd certainly be interesting.

I'm not opposed to liberalizing limits on Kentucky bass, I'm just not sure what effect, if any, those regulations would have on largemouth. Kentuckies and largemouth do compete, but I'm not sure Kentuckies have a real advantage.

Kentuckies spawn at a smaller size, but bass are territorial, and a bigger largemouth would certainly be able to kick a smaller Kentucky out of prime spawning areas. Largemouth can also produce more eggs (larger body size), and would be able to protect their fry from predation better than spots. They do compete for food, but a bunch of other species compete with largemouth for food as well, so to me that's a non-issue.

And MDC is charged with protecting all the state's resources, not just the most popular ones. Whether it's cave critters no one ever sees, or wildflowers in a field, or trophy largemouth bass, MDC has to oversee all of them. And there's a lot of different folks with a lot of different attitudes and perceptions of what they'd like to see. MDC has to take all that into account, and I'm sure it's a tough job.

[Gilly]

I'm not that familiar with MDC personnel (new to the Stockton area) but all of the years that I was a scoutmaster, the many years I've spent developing a habitat in Nebraska, our interaction with Ducks Unlimited and Pheasants Forever, the one thing that has struck me about the biologists and other personnel of the various state entities has been the dedication they have to what they do. Hopefully it is the same down here with MDC but the folks I've dealt with over the years have been super. I'm far from being as knowledgeable as some of you folks on here so it's a real pleasure to read these topics and coupled with the assumption that the MDC are good people I'd have to say that Stockton is in good hands.

[Walcrabass]

I guess my only issue is this: the Florida strain (and others), are adapted to growing conditions entirely different from ours. Even if they were stocked, there's no guarantee their genetics would provide any advantage in our lakes, or that they would perform any better than the native strain. If there were some research that indicated they would perform better, it'd certainly be interesting.

I'm not opposed to liberalizing limits on Kentucky bass, I'm just not sure what effect, if any, those regulations would have on largemouth. Kentuckies and largemouth do compete, but I'm not sure Kentuckies have a real advantage.

Kentuckies spawn at a smaller size, but bass are territorial, and a bigger largemouth would certainly be able to kick a smaller Kentucky out of prime spawning areas. Largemouth can also produce more eggs (larger body size), and would be able to protect their fry from predation better than spots. They do compete for food, but a bunch of other species compete with largemouth for food as well, so to me that's a non-issue.

And MDC is charged with protecting all the state's resources, not just the most popular ones. Whether it's cave critters no one ever sees, or wildflowers in a field, or trophy largemouth bass, MDC has to oversee all of them. And there's a lot of different folks with a lot of different attitudes and perceptions of what they'd like to see. MDC has to take all that into account, and I'm sure it's a tough job.

[Walcrabass]

Now that we have opened the subject of watching out for all the critters in Missouri it brings other things to mind. Missouri is trying to reinstate the Prairie Chicken. I think that is great because they were a native species. This program is undoubtedly expensive and from what I understand it is not taking off like we had hoped. But getting back to the subject of money I have found that it drives a lot of things in our world. A few years ago we were polled on the subject of restocking Elk in Missouri. If my memory serves me correct we overwhelmingly said yes to this idea. As you know it was dropped and I am told that the Cattlemen's Association had a lot to do with it. I am thinking that they have a few dollars amongst them. I was told that they were "concerned" the Elk would give Black Leg to the Cattle. I believe the Cattle are what gave it to the Elk in the first place. But the Elk lost out. Along with the sportsmen, photographers, and conversationists. We lost revenue for the same things again like food, lodging, licenses, gas, etc. I probably should mention that I am not in favor of reinstating dangerous species at this time. The whole point here is that we need to try and then possibly fail, not fail from not trying. I hope that we see some changes in the Bass regulations in Missouri for the betterment of our economy, sportsmen, Missouri Department of Conservation and all others involved.

[ckjacks]

Regarding the Kentucky's- I lived in Fayetteville, AR for four years and fished Beaver lake often. Beaver has a 12" length limit on KY's and 15" on LM and SM. From what I have seen, the smaller length limit did not improve the LM production. In fact, the LM production on Beaver is not what I believe it could be. In my opinion Beaver is over run with 12" and smaller KY's. My guess is that the 12" length limit on KY's hasn't increased the number of "harvested" fish, but rather increased the number of 12" fish being weighed in tournaments. This being said, I would not be opposed to decreasing the length limit on Kentucky's, I just don't think it would have as great of impact on the LM's as would be hoped for.

As for identifying the fish.....I have seen many tournament anglers bring in short LM thinking they were 12" KY's. The smaller fish are the harder it is to tell the difference. I can do it just fine, but there are plenty of people out there that can't.

I also don't like the idea of genetically modifying our bass population. If mother nature is struggling I am all for helping, but I don't think thats the case here. I think that Stockton is about as awesome as they come (caught a 5lber out of a 12ft jon on friday). Table Rock is an awesome fishery and when you think about the amount of tournament's, guides, and just number of people on the lake, you have to admit the bass population is thriving. If its not broke, don't fix it.

Overall I think the MDC is doing a good job. They don't have the same amount/type of resources as Texas, California, or Florida. I competed in collegiate tournaments and had the opportunity to discuss "Texas Trophy Lakes" with some guys from UT while at a tournament. They loved having huge bass and great lakes to support them, but they also expressed that it was somewhat of a beast of burden. They have those awesome lakes, but the ones that have the huge populations of 12lb+ bass often have funky slot limits or restrictions that aren't conducive to tournaments. Lake Fork is a prime example of this, 16" to 24" can't be kept and only one over 24". So they do have these awesome lakes, but they also come at a price. Now, as far as MDC new draw procedures for some of the duck parks, thats a different story....

[fozzie.]

Regarding the Kentucky's- I lived in Fayetteville, AR for four years and fished Beaver lake often. Beaver has a 12" length limit on KY's and 15" on LM and SM. From what I have seen, the smaller length limit did not improve the LM production. In fact, the LM production on Beaver is not what I believe it could be. In my opinion Beaver is over run with 12" and smaller KY's. My guess is that the 12" length limit on KY's hasn't increased the number of "harvested" fish, but rather increased the number of 12" fish being weighed in tournaments. This being said, I would not be opposed to decreasing the length limit on Kentucky's, I just don't think it would have as great of impact on the LM's as would be hoped for.

As for identifying the fish.....I have seen many tournament anglers bring in short LM thinking they were 12" KY's. The smaller fish are the harder it is to tell the difference. I can do it just fine, but there are plenty of people out there that can't.

I also don't like the idea of genetically modifying our bass population. If mother nature is struggling I am all for helping, but I don't think thats the case here. I think that Stockton is about as awesome as they come (caught a 5lber out of a 12ft jon on friday). Table Rock is an awesome fishery and when you think about the amount of tournament's, guides, and just number of people on the lake, you have to admit the bass population is thriving. If its not broke, don't fix it.

Overall I think the MDC is doing a good job. They don't have the same amount/type of resources as Texas, California, or Florida. I competed in collegiate tournaments and had the opportunity to discuss "Texas Trophy Lakes" with some guys from UT while at a tournament. They loved having huge bass and great lakes to support them, but they also expressed that it was somewhat of a beast of burden. They have those awesome lakes, but the ones that have the huge populations of 12lb+ bass often have funky slot limits or restrictions that aren't conducive to tournaments. Lake Fork is a prime example of this, 16" to 24" can't be kept and only one over 24". So they do have these awesome lakes, but they also come at a price. Now, as far as MDC new draw procedures for some of the duck parks, thats a different story....

Not to mention- the development of recreational fisheries is a double-edged sword. Developing nationally or internationally-renowned trophy bass fisheries would increase permit sales and revenues, but also increases crowding, resource exploitation, and negative interactions between anglers and between anglers and other resource users.

There are already significant concerns with the pace of development and the fouling of our reservoirs in the Branson/Table Rock area as well as LOZ (zebra mussels, water pollution, etc). I'd love to have higher quality trophy bass fisheries on our lakes, but at what cost? If it means trashing our reservoirs and turning them into tourist destinations (more so than they are now), I'm not certain that's something I'd like to see.

[Gilly]

[if it means trashing our reservoirs and turning them into tourist destinations (more so than they are now), I'm not certain that's something I'd like to see.

Concur 1000%

We spent a lot of time visiting the lakes of Missouri before we settled on Stockton. Very clean, very 'untouristy', although there are some private lands right along the highway that it would be nice to see them cleaned up.