White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[drew03cmc]

I'm with you there. Post all you want about the officially managed trout streams, but keep the rest quiet to anyone but your closest friends.They are too fragile and too special to be spoken of on a public forum except in the most vague terms.

Like I have said multiple times on this forum, the self sustaining fisheries, or the ones that you can't figure out why the hell there are trout here, are special. I am not against chasing wild fish in a place they have adapted and learned to survive.

I got the score at

Chief - 7, plus or minus a couple, mostly minus because his evidence is weak and he seems a bit inflexible.

Outside Bend - 14, but could knock off a few if he becomes too verbose.

Ozark Trout Fisher - 3 ( could be 9 if he had changed his avatar)

Al Agnew - a spotless 100, the man has records and spreadsheets people, i'm not crappin you.

DrewMc - 3 (could be 5 but he is holding a goggleye)

Anyone else keeping score?

Only 3...Ha, about the Goggle eye, I can change it to a smallmouth you can barely see in the picture if you, and everyone else, prefer. I have pictures to use, but I like the coloring on that shadow.

[ozark trout fisher]

Only 3...Ha, about the Goggle eye, I can change it to a smallmouth you can barely see in the picture if you, and everyone else, prefer. I have pictures to use, but I like the coloring on that shadow.

Keep the shadow bass. Coldwater has no room to talk in the avatar department

Coldwater, I can't argue with the score, except that I'd like to add another player. You're at -5, but you could be at 15 if you changed the avatar (you don't have any fish to show I guess, not even a washed out stockie .) For now I'll keep the washed out Busch Wildlife trout. Hopefully I'll get a better one to put up next weekend down at the Eleven Point.

[Outside Bend]

I've asked you many times to provide relevant evidence Chief, and yet you haven't. Call it what you'd like- if telling you to look up basic information on your own is a sign of a marked man, I'd hate to see what you say about the guy who makes unsubstantiated claims based on no evidence, who ignores requests to provide such evidence, who gives no indication such evidence exists, and who apparently can't indicate where one would go to find such evidence.

The evidence you're asking about is in the biology and natural history of smallmouth bass- the nuts and bolts life history data which has been extensively researched and established for decades. I'm not going into it here because, although it's basic information which isn't disputed in the scientific community, you'll likely ignore it, or it'll lead to eight more pages of Chief's-right-the-scientists-are-wrong diatribe. I see both scenarios as fruitless. If you'd like though, you can spend some time on google looking it up, you can pick up the phone or email an MDC biologist.

It's not that I'm hiding anything, Chief- the information is out there and it's easily accessible. Anyone can look it up and find out for themselves, they don't need me doing it for them. I'm just tired bored of playing this game.

[ness]

I got the score at

Chief - 7, plus or minus a couple, mostly minus because his evidence is weak and he seems a bit inflexible.

Outside Bend - 14, but could knock off a few if he becomes too verbose.

Ozark Trout Fisher - 3 ( could be 9 if he had changed his avatar)

Al Agnew - a spotless 100, the man has records and spreadsheets people, i'm not crappin you.

DrewMc - 3 (could be 5 but he is holding a goggleye)

Anyone else keeping score?

I've got OB at 17 -- he really picked up some momentum with the new avatar. Could have been better if it hadn't been only a head shot. Pretty well thought out arguments; made me go to the dictionary twice. Playing good defense.

I docked Chief a couple for the last post -- too many metaphors, and poor usage. Claiming to try to stop beating a dead horse a couple posts ago, in a new post, well you just can't do that. And the paddle thing? Since when do you beat dead horses with paddles? 5

I've got OTF and Andy at 10 each. But I weigh passion and good manners more heavily.

[laker67]

I've got OB at 17 -- he really picked up some momentum with the new avatar. Could have been better if it hadn't been only a head shot. Pretty well thought out arguments; made me go to the dictionary twice. Playing good defense.

I docked Chief a couple for the last post -- too many metaphors, and poor usage. Claiming to try to stop beating a dead horse a couple posts ago, in a new post, well you just can't do that. And the paddle thing? Since when do you beat dead horses with paddles? 5

I've got OTF and Andy at 10 each. But I weigh passion and good manners more heavily.

I've got TF1985 at a big "0" on responses to his original question.

[Gavin]

135 replies...and only 22 responses to the poll, and the poll is split 10 for happy and 12 for not. I'd call that a draw considering that most of the responses appear to be from C&R only fly fishers.

Gavin

[troutfiend1985]

I've got TF1985 at a big "0" on responses to his original question.

On what questions that I have been addressed and haven't answered?

[Chief Grey Bear]

I've asked you many times to provide relevant evidence Chief, and yet you haven't. Call it what you'd like- if telling you to look up basic information on your own is a sign of a marked man, I'd hate to see what you say about the guy who makes unsubstantiated claims based on no evidence, who ignores requests to provide such evidence, who gives no indication such evidence exists, and who apparently can't indicate where one would go to find such evidence.

The evidence you're asking about is in the biology and natural history of smallmouth bass- the nuts and bolts life history data which has been extensively researched and established for decades. I'm not going into it here because, although it's basic information which isn't disputed in the scientific community, you'll likely ignore it, or it'll lead to eight more pages of Chief's-right-the-scientists-are-wrong diatribe. I see both scenarios as fruitless. If you'd like though, you can spend some time on google looking it up, you can pick up the phone or email an MDC biologist.

It's not that I'm hiding anything, Chief- the information is out there and it's easily accessible. Anyone can look it up and find out for themselves, they don't need me doing it for them. I'm just tired bored of playing this game.

Quit stroking your ego. This is a public forum.

[oneshot]

Not everyone practice C&R some actually still fish for Food,I've always found Fresh Fish caught out of a Stream or Lake far better than coming from the Store.

Because of Health Issues I eat little of Lean Red Meat such a Deer and alot of Fish.I feel my Diet has turned my Health completely around.As far as White Ribbon Trout if I'm in need of Fish I enjoy the fact I can go by the House and catch Fresh Dinner in couple hours or less the same as I can get Whole Grains and fresh Vegatables most the year close to Home.Plus Trout is Good Baked or Grilled where other Fish just aren't Good fixed this way.

As far as Raising Fish in Open Waters for size to me its like Antler restrictions on Deer if Trophy Size becomes the Norm because there is so many don't it kind of take away from it all?

oneshot

[Al Agnew]

Oneshot, I think you have a pretty good point...when you stop to think about it, "trophy" size fish are supposed to be pretty rare. If they were common, they wouldn't be "trophies".

On the other hand, I think we all want for the streams to reach their maximum potential for growing big fish, while not compromising on the numbers of smaller but still "interesting to catch" fish.

With a put and take trout fishery, which is what the white ribbon streams basically are, it's hard to determine just what its potential is. Certainly a few fish survive the onslaught of the stocking truck followers and get bigger. But how many of them get to true trophy size? What IS true trophy size, in a stream that might not have optimal habitat for growing large trout?

More and more, I'm thinking that in trout as well as bass, we may be going about this all wrong. We should be cropping off reasonable numbers of the smaller fish that are still big enough for a few of them to provide a meal, while protecting those that are approaching real trophies. I'm more and more a fan of slot limits not only for bass but for trout. Out here where I am in Montana, I never paid any attention to what the limits were on trout on the Yellowstone and other rivers, because I didn't intend to keep any of them anyway. But I got curious the other day and found out that the limit on the Yellowstone is 4 rainbow and/or brown trout per day and in possession, but only one of them can be over 18 inches.

Things are different here than in many fisheries in MO, in that the fish are all naturally reproducing in sufficient numbers to make stocking entirely unnecessary. In MO, if you want a quality fishery on streams that are stocked, you have to allow the fish some time to grow, so a minimum length limit is necessary. But still, a regulation that protects those that get past the minimum length and are getting into the trophy range would seem to me to be a great idea.

I haven't given much thought to trout regs in MO, since I don't do a whole lot of trout fishing there. But maybe it would be better to change these classifications. Just thinking off the top of my head, here's what my idea would be...

Divide the streams into size AND potential to have self-sustaining fisheries.

You'd have small streams that have "wild" naturally reproducing trout. They are fairly rare, and should probably be pure catch and release.

Small streams that are less "perfect" trout habitat--they couldn't sustain themselves with natural reproduction and need stocking. Make the minimum length 14 inches. You can keep maybe 3 or 4 fish, but only one could be over 16 inches.

Large streams that have wild, naturally reproducing trout. Maybe they need some stocking, but have lots of stream bred fish...I'm thinking Eleven Point and North Fork here. 3 fish, 14 inch minimum, only one can be over 18 inches. Or maybe a slot limit with 3 under 15 and one over 20.

Large streams that need considerable stocking...Meramec, Niangua, etc. 3 or 4 fish over 14, only one can be over 20.

I don't pretend to know as much as some of you do about the various trout waters, so maybe somebody else has way different ideas. But seems to me that instead of the whole blue-red-white ribbon concept, which lumps streams of very different characteristics together, it would be better to lump them according to their characteristics.