White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[Buzz]

So basically it is, for all intents and purposes, already a C&R area, you just want more fish put in it to pump your numbers? You are right about how wooly it is. Short of building access to the area, I don't think there is any way the trout truck could get to it. Which brings up another point. After Coldwater stated that the blue red and white ribbon areas were picked based on habitat, I then thought of the area from the new bridge to Shoal and there is no reason this is not Blue Ribbon territory. You can't find better habitat quality water for trout. That is just text book water for trout! In fact it is so darn wild the locals will only hit it near the two access points.

And you know, the more I think about it, how about a White Ribbon section from the mill dam to the new bridge and Red Ribbon from the new bridge to Shoal????? Bet you never thought I would post that did ya! Is there any other areas that have to color codes back to back??? Maybe this could be an experimental area??? We could still have good stockings near the mill and get some roamers down stream. And red ribbon still gets a few stockings per year. And that would be better in my book than blue ribbon.

Of course I want to pump up my numbers!!!!!!!!!

Your'e right I am a little surprised.

The rest of your post explains exactly what I am talking about. It would not effect the bait fishermen at all. The few Fly/spin fishermen that do take fish out of that section would just have to enjoy the fight and put them back. So I would go along with your idea.

Of course it wouldn't need as many stockings as the White Ribbon sections would need. And there is plenty of water above and below for the fish to spread out if they desired to do so.

[eric1978]

Is there any other areas that have to color codes back to back??? Maybe this could be an experimental area??? We could still have good stockings near the mill and get some roamers down stream.

Current and Little Piney both have Blue running into White.

[Al Agnew]

Just wondering you eastern Missouri boys... What could have been done to prevent the spots from "invading" your waters? And whom do you fault for this travesty? Was it the MDC for lack of foresight? Do you believe they've done enough to start any eradication at all of spots? Such as liberal limits and such. And do you believe that's helping? Are you content with the funds MDC has spent to fix the Meremac or any other stream over there that have been "decimated" by spots?

Trout were put here and ain't goin' nowhere... correct? Cash crop period. Times have changed and this is the way it is.

Spots made there way to our eastern watersheds. But if not on there own, why wasn't anything done to keep them from here? And why is there not a more aggressive program in place to get rid of them? Outside of guys on forums having all the answers...

By the way, I've caught lots of spots on TR that are at least 16" from time to time. But... were they there before the White was dammed? I have no idea... and I realize lake fish grow bigger than river fish.

We've gone over the whole subject several times, but spots invaded the Meramec River system in one of three ways. MDC stocked them back in the 1960s in some streams just north of the Missouri River and flowing into the Missouri, which is probably how they got into the Gasconade River system, since one of the rivers enters the Missouri very near the mouth of the Gasconade. There was a stocking of unknown origin back in the 1940s in the Osage River system, which allowed them to populate the lower Osage as well as Lake of the Ozarks, Sac, and Pomme de Terre River (as well as the lower Niangua and all the other Osage tributaries). The Gasconade spotted bass could have come from this source as well, as it isn't too many miles down the Missouri from the mouth of the Osage to the mouth of the Gasconade. But I think the most likely way they got into the Meramec (and the direct tributaries of the Mississippi below the mouth of the Meramec) is from the Diversion Channel just south of Cape Girardeau. They are native to the streams that flow into the Diversion Channel, but before the Diversion Channel was built in the early 1900s, those streams flowed far down into Arkansas before entering the Mississippi. The Diversion Channel gave them a shortcut, but the polluted state of the Mississippi below St. Louis and the tremendous loads of silt dumped into it by the Missouri kept them from moving up the Mississippi...until the Clean Water Act in the late 1960s started cleaning up the Mississippi, and the dams up in the Dakotas on the Missouri greatly diluted its silt load. So by 1970 the Mississippi was clean and clear enough for the spots to move up it, and it was in the 1970s that they started showing up in the direct tributaries of the Mississippi, and by the late 1980s they were in the lower Meramec.

So it was, one way or another, human actions that allowed them to spread into the Meramec system as well as the other northern Ozark streams. But the only blame you could attach to MDC would be if they came from the stockings north of the Missouri River. It was, no matter what the source, an unforeseen development. And who would have thought they would become the problem they have, since in the streams in which they are native, they get along quite well with smallmouth, either by segregating according to habitat, or by the two species being in equilibrium. But in the north Ozark streams, the smallmouths simply hadn't evolved to co-exist with spotted bass, and for some reason the spots have quickly become the dominant species anywhere the habitat suits them.

No, I don't think the liberal regulations MDC put on spotted bass in these streams go far enough. If I had my way, I'd make it mandatory to kill every one you catch, and mandatory that MDC kill every one they electroshock and capture. Problem with that is, a lot of them are practically inedible due to the large numbers of yellow grub parasites in them, so mandatory harvest of them would result in a lot of wasted fish. I eat all of them I can, and keep a limit (12, no length limit) every time I fish in these waters, but I usually end up throwing most of them away due to the grubs.

[troutfiend1985]

I'm sinning and I know it because I'm going away from my own topic, but eradicate those SOBs like Yellowstone is doing with lake trout. In yellowstone, you cannot put a lake trout back in the water alive. If you don't want to keep it, you must puncture the air bladder. Inhumane? Yes, but effective, seems so.

[Trout Commander]

I'd rather have a Boulevard than a Budweiser.

+50 points for this

[ollie]

Come on Buzz, you know you want Capps all C&R!

[exiledguide]

No, I don't think the liberal regulations MDC put on spotted bass in these streams go far enough. If I had my way, I'd make it mandatory to kill every one you catch, and mandatory that MDC kill every one they electroshock and capture. Problem with that is, a lot of them are practically inedible due to the large numbers of yellow grub parasites in them, so mandatory harvest of them would result in a lot of wasted fish. I eat all of them I can, and keep a limit (12, no length limit) every time I fish in these waters, but I usually end up throwing most of them away due to the grubs.

I agree, Also nothing is wasted in nature, any dead or dying fish you put back in the stream is used as food. It may be apples to oranges but in the early 90 I had a lot in a development with a heck of a problem with under 12" bass. The MDC suggestion was no release of under 12 " bass and only one fish over 19". It turned the lake around in a short time and I learned to appreciate 11' filets, so much so that when I get on a lake that has a 12' to whatever limit for Largemouth I have no problem keeping a limit under 12" and releasing any over the whatever.

[ozark trout fisher]

I agree with Al Agnew 100%, and only have one point to add.

Meramec system spotted bass taste great alongside fried potatoes. I make that claim from a great deal of personal experience, as well as from highly scientific data...

[Chief Grey Bear]

We've gone over the whole subject several times, but spots invaded the Meramec River system in one of three ways. But I think the most likely way they got into the Meramec (and the direct tributaries of the Mississippi below the mouth of the Meramec) is from the Diversion Channel just south of Cape Girardeau. They are native to the streams that flow into the Diversion Channel, but before the Diversion Channel was built in the early 1900s, those streams flowed far down into Arkansas before entering the Mississippi. The Diversion Channel gave them a shortcut, but the polluted state of the Mississippi below St. Louis and the tremendous loads of silt dumped into it by the Missouri kept them from moving up the Mississippi...until the Clean Water Act in the late 1960s started cleaning up the Mississippi, and the dams up in the Dakotas on the Missouri greatly diluted its silt load. So by 1970 the Mississippi was clean and clear enough for the spots to move up it, and it was in the 1970s that they started showing up in the direct tributaries of the Mississippi, and by the late 1980s they were in the lower Meramec.

So it was, one way or another, human actions that allowed them to spread into the Meramec system as well as the other northern Ozark streams.

Actually there is a fourth possibility. It is not a very popular one but, one that is just as credible as any other three theories presented.

Since Spots are native to the Mississippi River it is very possible that just as you stated, once the water in the Mississippi began to clear, they began to move north. I don't know that there is any way to assert weather they came from the Diversion Channel or naturally from a river from which they are native. I would say a likely possibility is both.

So I don't know that we can clearly say that "one way or another, human actions" were the cause. Unless you want to allow the building of the dams and the Clean Water Act as a part ot the that.

Which brings me to some other spot questions. Why did the Mississippi Spots appear to move up stream but, the Missouri River spots only moved down? Why haven't they moved up towards KC and beyond? Why don't more south flowing tribs of the Missouri have spots? It is my understanding that the spots that were stocked into the Grand River actually moved north to Iowa?

It is also my understanding that spots were stocked into the Sac River in the early 40's. At least 5 years after Truman dam was completed. And that is the only stocking that I can find of any Osage River water shed. And that certainly does not mean that there were not others, I just haven't located any evidence of such.

I don't know that any one of the 4 scenarios can be pinpointed as being the one. And it certainly could be a combination of any or all. They seem to certainly all have possiblilites.

[ozark trout fisher]

Okay, let's just say you're right. Let's say that the Mississippi River fish moved up the Mississippi to the Meramec. Still, it is almost certain that even given that scenario, the dams on the Missouri River was the determining factor that allowed the migration. I believe you mentioned that in your last post. Dams are man-made. Therefore, if a dam being built on the upper Missouri River allowed spotted bass to move into the Meramec River, then spotted bass are in the river for man-made reasons. That (at least in my opinion) would make them a non-native species. And certainly the MDC believes they are non-native and a problem.

"Why are you so hell bent on changing the rules on a stream that you won't ever fish? Or at best you may fish it once every couple of years."

This is a quote from you earlier in this thread Chief. Apparently you are of the opinion that those who don't fish a water much shouldn't have much say in it's management. But you don't feel that way when it comes to the Meramec or the Bourbeuse, which I doubt you spend a lot of time fishing. I think it's kind of a double standard.