White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[Gavin]

The trout didnt PUSH any smallmouth out of the White River System......Dam construction took the smallmouth habitat away...its not suitable now or they would be there....plain & simple. Not sure about other streams, but I bet they compete...still catch plenty of smallies on "trout" water though...Rarely a memorable one though because the water is too cold. Cheers.

[FishinCricket]

You sure those big ol mean trout didn't beat the wimpy little smallies up and ran em off?

lol

[drew03cmc]

The trout didnt PUSH any smallmouth out of the White River System......Dam construction took the smallmouth habitat away...its not suitable now or they would be there....plain & simple. Not sure about other streams, but I bet they compete...still catch plenty of smallies on "trout" water though...Rarely a memorable one though because the water is too cold. Cheers.

Nobody insinuated they did on the White. Man's stupidity did that all by itself. On the other streams where there are trout in smallmouth streams, the trout have occupied water that smallmouths occupied historically.

You all act like our water consists of Rocky Mountain runoff, the streams flow at 58-62 degrees all year from the springs and heat up as they flow. The first mile or so would be pretty inhospitable for smallmouth in all but the hottest or coldest time of year, but the smallmouth evolved in these streams for a reason.

[jdmidwest]

The trout didnt PUSH any smallmouth out of the White River System......Dam construction took the smallmouth habitat away...its not suitable now or they would be there....plain & simple. Not sure about other streams, but I bet they compete...still catch plenty of smallies on "trout" water though...Rarely a memorable one though because the water is too cold. Cheers.

As I stated, the dams lowered the temps of the water and changed the habitat to the point that smallies could not strive. This is not the case on the 11 pt and Spring Rivers, I have caught nice smallies on the entire length of each river. They actually move up into the cooler spring areas in the winter because it is warmer than the lower parts of the river away from the springs influence. Same goes for the Walleye and Google Eye. The increased pressure for food sources that they share with the non native trout keep their numbers and sizes down for the most part.

[Al Agnew]

Funny how we seem to be regurgitating the same points over and over again, with nobody listening, everybody just clapping their hands over their ears...or so it seems.

I don't know a whole lot about all the streams in the Ozarks, but I know the streams over much of the eastern half intimately. And I'll state categorically that stocking trout does NOT seriously affect smallmouth, period. I base this statement on what I've seen in the rivers I fish for both species. Let's summarize (again).

Meramec River--the trout section runs from Maramec Spring to Scotts Ford. That section is something like 9 miles or so. The trout water is mainly in the first five miles or so...fishing for trout declines a bit as you go farther downstream. That section also has a resident population of smallmouth, including some big ones...which actually few people fish for because they think the smallmouth fishing is better downstream and they don't like the part of the river that's crowded with trout guys. The smallmouth population isn't close to what it is both farther upstream and farther downstream, but the smallies are there. The reason they are there is that Dry Fork comes in just a mile or so into the trout water, and when it's flowing (it is aptly named), it warms the water a little and adds a lot of fertility. The reason they are not as numerous is not, in my opinion, due to the trout, but due to the water being just a little too cool for them to really thrive. I base this on:

Jacks Fork--Alley Spring is one of the largest springs in the state, and adds enough cold water to the Jacks Fork that I'm pretty sure that trout could thrive in a stretch about 5-7 miles at least below Alley...definitely from Alley to Eminence. But nobody ever stocked trout in the Jacks Fork. It's all native smallmouth water...BUT, there simply isn't a very good smallmouth population in the stretch between Alley and Eminence, and the smallies gradually get more numerous as you go downstream from Eminence. Which leads me to believe that the stretch that's cold enough for trout, and also infertile, is simply not good smallmouth habitat. Which is a lot like the situation on:

Current River--Excellent trout habitat from Montauk to Cedargrove, and a great trout fishery with occasional smallies caught, but nearly all of them small. Below Cedargrove, still stocked with trout, but if you wish to concentrate on smallmouth between Cedargrove and Welch Spring (which very few people do), you'll find a fairly decent smallmouth fishery...I've done it. Then Welch Spring adds another slug of cold water, and from there to Akers trout are stocked and smallmouth are rather scarce. But below Akers, especially from Akers to Pulltite, the water is still cold but it's not stocked with trout, and you'll see few trout down there. You'll also see relatively few smallies...it's just not warm enough NOR fertile enough for smallmouth. Stocking trout in the Akers area is a relatively new thing, but that stretch has always had a small resident population of trout which were escapees from Montauk and below, and a poor population of smallmouth. Which is somewhat similar to:

Eleven Point--Greer Spring is the second largest spring in MO, and it more than doubles the size of the Eleven Point. The stretch below Greer has never been good smallmouth water, but smallies gradually get more common as you go downstream. Always have.

Point is, smallmouth can survive in water cold enough for trout, but a lot depends upon the fertility and size of the river. There are small, heavily spring fed streams across the Ozarks that don't have trout...and don't have many smallies, either. Bigger streams are often fertile enough for the smallmouth to do okay, though they probably have to alter their spawning habits and timing enough to sustain themselves. In fact, spawning may be the major limiting factor here. The larger streams may not have a lot of successful resident spawners, but receive continual "re-stockings" from fish wandering into the cold water sections from upstream and downstream.

Trout are not really serious direct competitors with smallmouth. Except for the bigger brown trout, they don't concentrate on the same foods as adult smallies. Trout eat a lot more aquatic insects and a lot fewer minnows and crayfish than smallmouth, and you'll see no shortage of minnows and crayfish in trout sections of these streams.

And one other point...in the winter the tables are turned, and smallies from upstream and perhaps downstream sections move into the trout water for the thermal refuge. They seem to thrive during the winter right along with the trout.

Finally...how many people actually fish these trout sections specifically for smallmouth? I think that on the larger streams, many of you would be surprised at what you can catch if you forget about the trout flies and use smallmouth lures.

So in conclusion, I have no problems at all with stocking trout in the coldest sections of Ozark streams. I don't think it's hurting the smallmouth population in any significant fashion...and that's TOTALLY different from what spotted bass are doing in the streams where they are NOT native. They compete directly AND interbreed with the resident smallmouth, and in any habitat that's suitable for spotted bass in these streams, the smallie population has gone downhill and off a cliff.

[Greg]

Very well stated Al. I don't have near your experience but I've noticed some of the same things. I've fished the Jack's Fork around Alley Spring several times and my impression also was that the water was just too cold for smallmouth to thrive.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assertion that trout and smallmouth in general don't directly compete with each other. In general I think our MDC has done a fine job of balancing these 2 resources. Could it be made even better with some tweaking? Possibly.

Greg

[Outside Bend]

Are you honestly asking ME this question?

Yup.

Look at the native range of spotted bass. It INCLUDES the Ozarks, but most people on here think that spotted bass have been placed there.

The native range of spotted bass includes south-flowing Ozark streams. They're as native to north-flowing streams of the Ozarks as, say, rainbow trout. They have been placed there by private and public fisheries managers, and they're having an effect on native smallmouth.

I am not proposing we sit idly by and let spotted bass replace the smallmouth bass in streams that have good spot habitat, but come over the SW MO and SE KS, fish a couple drainages and look at the balance of smallmouth, spotted and largemouth bass. They are all present in good numbers.

Right. In streams where they co-evolved, they do fine. But once you start mashing up organisms from different ecological histories- be they trout or spotted bass- you can have ramifications. My point is that last year you were telling folks not to worry about non-native spotted bass invading and displacing native smallmouth. Now you say we ought to quit stocking trout because they invade and displace native smallmouth. Those two assertions seem to conflict, and I was wondering how you reconcile them. If you take a position, you ought to be able to defend it is all.

Non-native trout push smallmouth out of their native habitat, not to mention walleye and what not, but obviously, being a trout supporter is more noble than wanting to see native species in their native waters.

Where? Smallies and walleye are coolwater fish, trout are coldwater fish. Most of the spring streams the state stocks with trout are too cold for walleye or smallmouth to do well in the first place. Many of the smaller trout streams aren't great smallie/walleye habitat either, even discounting spring flows- neither species is particularly common in headwater streams, and you'd be hard-pressed to find walleye and smallmouth in streams like Mill or Blue Springs even if trout weren't there.

If trout were really hammering smallmouth, you'd expect to find evidence of it in fisheries surveys- fewer smallmouth, poorer growth of smallmouth, etc. Instead most MO smallmouth streams have proportional stock densities (number of fish greater than legal length) which hover around 20-30%, regardless of whether trout are in the system. Black River, Gasconade, Courtois all have around 25%, Niangua has 22%, Big River has 30%, Huzzah has 14%, etc. Oddly enough, two of the streams where trout and smallmouth share habitat have some of the highest PSDs- the upper Meramec at 35% and the middle Current at 45%. As I said before, it's probably that some trout exclude some smallmouth from marginal habitat, but the idea that trout are overrunning smallie populations in anything more than a small proportion of stream miles doesn't reflect reality.

Trout have been present in the state for more than a century, yet I haven't seen evidence of dramatic range expansions- they're still outnumbered by natives in most if not all Ozark river systems which haven't been drastically altered. All I'm sayin' is that if trout are having a significant impact on native fish, there ought to be some evidence of it.

As much as you seem to want it to be, it's not about being a trout snob, it's about providing anglers with another fishing opportunity. If it's between having a trout fishery and having no fishery, I'm gonna go with trout. If it's between having a crappy smallmouth fishery and a good trout fishery, then yeah, I'm gonna go with trout.

but to stock trout and essentially throw the state's money down the drain rather than spending it conserving native species is a bad deal. If the state were to pledge half of the trout funds on smallmouth conservation, we might see something better than what the last White Paper said about many streams that deserve SMAs. The reason the state is so gung-ho about trout "conservation" is that it is a cash cow for them. They make $7 from every trout angler that wants to keep trout, plus, $3 a day in the trout parks, not to mention the out of state license sales at exorbitant fees. Add to that the sales of trout related tackle, baits, etc and you have a few million dollars that tells MDC to continue to waste money conserving an artificial fishery where it cannot sustain itself. Conservation of an artificial fishery is humorous.

The state's trout program is self-sustaining, no money is being diverted from smallmouth or other stream/fisheries projects in order to pay for trout. Nor does it work the other way around- the trout program monies aren't used to fund other stream/fisheries projects. Just to produce trout, pay hatchery workers, etc. Again, your assertion doesn't reflect reality.

The reason MDC produces trout isn't because its a cash cow, rather because it's a popular sportfish with many anglers, and those anglers want the opportunity to catch trout in the state. As for artificial fisheries- the state's wild trout water is just as artificial as the state's stocked trout water, yet you're willing to keep the wild stuff. Seems like another inconsistent argument.

$42 bucks for a year's fishing is pretty cheap compared to most states, even Kansas charges another fifty cents to out of state anglers. If it's too much for you, you're more than welcome to stay there

I am eagerly awaiting your response to this as I can already see that you are a trout supporter who would be happier wading an ankle deep stream catching non-native fish than to fish an Ozark spring creek teeming with hard fighting, beautifully marked smallmouth bass.

I don't give a rat's butt what you do to get your string pulled. This season I've spent far more time chasing smallies than trout, the year before was the opposite. I just took issue with your half baked idea that the state should quit stocking trout. You never did answer my questions- would marginal wild trout fisheries on streams like Capps and Hickory be able to support the level of use and harvest of a White Ribbon trout stream? How does stopping stocking benefit trout anglers? How does decreasing trout angling opportunities in Missouri increase trout angling opportunities in Missouri?

Your comment about 130 miles of trout water is a joke. That is all the state manages. You can catch trout elsewhere, but they are not advertised as being there.

You're right, I'm an idiot for thinking most trout anglers are going to fish for trout on areas the state manages for trout fishing. The vast majority of folks would rather spend their time knocking on doors or tracking down their neighbor's brother's chiropractor's great aunt's cousin twice removed who had a dog who really belonged to a miner down the street who's first wife's second cousin's neighbor's uncles college roomate knew a guy from Aurora whose milkman's brother-in law stocked some little creek with trout out of a milk pail once. Or maybe they were bluegill-he doesn't remember.

You're missing the point- there's hundreds of miles of trout water in the state compared to thousands of miles of smallmouth water in the state. Even if you doubled the number to 240 miles of trout streams, you're talking about something like .05% of the potential smallmouth habitat being occupied by trout. If you can have a few decent trout fisheries as well as keep 99.95% of native smallie habitat out there, I think that's a pretty fair compromise.

Smallmouth are NATIVE, that is why they have more miles of water to catch them in. If you cannot understand this, I cannot help you. Would you expect a native species to occupy the same amount of water that a non-native species occupies?

Of course water temperature has no bearing on the distribution of trout and smallmouth . And there's never been a situation where non-native organisms have quickly become established and ubiquitous- not common carp, or silver carp, or bighead carp, or gypsy moths, or rusty crayfish, or zebra mussels, or starlings, or cockroaches, or anything else. When you catch a trout on one cast and a smallmouth on the next, or when you see a longear or bluegill following a mudding carp, or when a starling and a cardinal are both at your bird feeder, or a coyote or fox eats a pheasant- yeah, there are situations where native and non-native species cohabitate.

[jdmidwest]

How can you justify a statement like "The stretch below Greer has never been good smallmouth water" when in our lifetime it has always been a stocked trout stream. Who can remember the time prior to when it was first stocked with trout and native species did not have to compete with the trout? One thing I have noticed is that with the cessation of monthly stocked trout in the upper sections from Greer to Turner, you can catch more smallies in that area now.

Trout and smallmouth compete for the same food sources in the wild, crayfish, minnows, hellgrammites and other large nymphs, terrestrials, etc. And both occupy the same rocks, structures, and riffles together in the stream. One of the reasons I like to fish for both are they are so similar in so many ways.

In some areas you will find trout sipping a Trico spinner or a caddis, but for the most part, in MO, they are meat eaters. You will seldom see rising trout on the 11 pt.

[eric1978]

How can you justify a statement like "The stretch below Greer has never been good smallmouth water" when in our lifetime it has always been a stocked trout stream.

The same way you justify a statement like, "...there simply isn't a very good smallmouth population in the stretch between Alley and Eminence [which has not been stocked with trout], and the smallies gradually get more numerous as you go downstream from Eminence. Which leads me to believe that the stretch that's cold enough for trout, and also infertile, is simply not good smallmouth habitat."

He was making the very clear, logical and evidence-based argument that low smallmouth populations have more to do with water temperature and fertility in heavily spring-fed sections of streams than competition with trout. Makes sense to me, and I've yet to see a rationale argument to support the contrary.

[Outside Bend]

If the water temperatures are too low for smallmouth to thrive, it's going to be a poor smallmouth fishery regardless of whether or not trout are there. It's really that simple, and it doesn't matter whether people remember it before it had trout or not.