White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[Chief Grey Bear]

I think the hand of man has been instrumental in the northward migration of the armadillo too. They can make much better time using the highway system, though it is significantly riskier.

Oh yeah, I know that is right. I see them thumbing their way north all the time. And being the good samaritain I am, I alway give them a ride. Unless I see one of those signs warning me they could be escaped convicts.

[awhuber]

Oh yeah, I know that is right. I see them thumbing their way north all the time. And being the good samaritain I am, I alway give them a ride. Unless I see one of those signs warning me they could be escaped convicts.

Possums are recent arrivals in these parts,too.

There were no possums here when Lewis and Clark made their way through here.

[ozark trout fisher]

I am not hell bent on changing any rules. In fact, I have never addressed the issue of the rules. No double standard at all.

Nice try on the spin. I won't deduct points for running out of bounds while claiming to have scored.

Is the armadillo native to Missouri?

Okay, whatever. I think I am going to be done with this one. It appears to be just at the point where it could go south real quick, and there's no need for that.

If you're ever in this neck of the woods, we can have this conversation on the water-I'll put you in the front of my canoe and I bet it'd be a lot more civil and honest-it's easy to go out other people on a forum, I'm just as guilty about that as others.

[Outside Bend]

While we're completely off topic, I'll go ahead and say I don't see how the "spots are naturally moving up the Mississippi," theory can hold much water

If so, you'd expect spots to colonize the Meramec before the Osage. But they were found below Bagnell 15 years before they were found in the Meramec.

If they can work their way up the Mississippi and Missouri and colonize their tributary streams, I see no reason why they couldn't continue working up the Mississippi and colonize tribs like the Cuivre. It's pretty good black bass habitat, and there's no river control structures blocking fish passage. Yet MDC hasn't collected spots in that system.

If they can use the Mississippi to colonize Missouri streams, I don't see why they wouldn't use the Mississippi to colonize Illinois streams. Yet they don't appear to be doing so. That seems pretty unnatural to me.

[drew03cmc]

While we're completely off topic, I'll go ahead and say I don't see how the "spots are naturally moving up the Mississippi," theory can hold much water

If so, you'd expect spots to colonize the Meramec before the Osage. But they were found below Bagnell 15 years before they were found in the Meramec.

If they can work their way up the Mississippi and Missouri and colonize their tributary streams, I see no reason why they couldn't continue working up the Mississippi and colonize tribs like the Cuivre. It's pretty good black bass habitat, and there's no river control structures blocking fish passage. Yet MDC hasn't collected spots in that system.

If they can use the Mississippi to colonize Missouri streams, I don't see why they wouldn't use the Mississippi to colonize Illinois streams. Yet they don't appear to be doing so. That seems pretty unnatural to me.

In reference to your first bolded statement, the spotted bass were stocked into the Osage system by the MDC.

To your second, explain that to Al.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Okay, whatever. I think I am going to be done with this one. It appears to be just at the point where it could go south real quick, and there's no need for that.

If you're ever in this neck of the woods, we can have this conversation on the water-I'll put you in the front of my canoe and I bet it'd be a lot more civil and honest-it's easy to go out other people on a forum, I'm just as guilty about that as others.

Who is going after who here? You stated I was talking out both sides of my mouth. I simply pointed out that I have never made any statment about the regulations regarding the Spotted Bass. I have spoke about the theories of their movements. You on the other hand would like to change the regulations on water you may or may not ever fish. Can you see the difference??

Remember this, there is no guilt in expressing the thoughts and ideas you have about your interest and passion.

[Chief Grey Bear]

While we're completely off topic, I'll go ahead and say I don't see how the "spots are naturally moving up the Mississippi," theory can hold much water

If so, you'd expect spots to colonize the Meramec before the Osage. But they were found below Bagnell 15 years before they were found in the Meramec.

If they can work their way up the Mississippi and Missouri and colonize their tributary streams, I see no reason why they couldn't continue working up the Mississippi and colonize tribs like the Cuivre. It's pretty good black bass habitat, and there's no river control structures blocking fish passage. Yet MDC hasn't collected spots in that system.

If they can use the Mississippi to colonize Missouri streams, I don't see why they wouldn't use the Mississippi to colonize Illinois streams. Yet they don't appear to be doing so. That seems pretty unnatural to me.

I have to agree. Something does not seem right. Why did the Spots pick the Meramec and seeminly go on by other similar waterways??? Why did they only swim DOWN the Missouri and UP Mississippi and only UP the Meramec and certain tribs of? There are definitely alot of questions.

[Al Agnew]

While we're completely off topic, I'll go ahead and say I don't see how the "spots are naturally moving up the Mississippi," theory can hold much water

If so, you'd expect spots to colonize the Meramec before the Osage. But they were found below Bagnell 15 years before they were found in the Meramec.

If they can work their way up the Mississippi and Missouri and colonize their tributary streams, I see no reason why they couldn't continue working up the Mississippi and colonize tribs like the Cuivre. It's pretty good black bass habitat, and there's no river control structures blocking fish passage. Yet MDC hasn't collected spots in that system.

If they can use the Mississippi to colonize Missouri streams, I don't see why they wouldn't use the Mississippi to colonize Illinois streams. Yet they don't appear to be doing so. That seems pretty unnatural to me.

You're right, there are definitely questions remaining about their spread. But if you read my theories above, the Osage river system fish apparently came from an undocumented stocking in that system way back in the 1940s, while the Meramec river system fish came from downstream on the Mississippi. The Gasconade River fish is the biggest mystery, with any of three scenarios about equally possible: Downstream on the Missouri out of the Osage, across the Missouri from an MDC stocking of the Loutre River in the 1960s, or upstream as a continuation of the same source fish as the Meramec.

The reason I think the Osage system fish all came from the unknown stocking in that system is just common sense, because the lakes and all the streams, including the Osage itself, are perfect spotted bass habitat, so the spread would be natural. Bill Pflieger, who wrote the book "Fishes of Missouri", said all that in the book.

The reason why I think the Meramec River fish came from downstream on the Mississippi is due to the history on the Mississippi tributaries downstream of the Meramec between there and the Diversion Channel. None of those streams had native spots. But they were in Apple Creek, the farthest downstream tributary, but the early 1970s. They didn't show up in Saline Creek, the next good sized tributary going upstream, until the late 1970s. They didn't show up in Establish Creek, the next trib upstream, until a little later yet. Joachim Creek is the next and last upstream tributary before you get to the Meramec, and I didn't fish it during all those years so I don't know when they appeared in it. But they didn't get to the Meramec, farthest upstream, until the early to mid 1980s in any numbers. So it simply makes sense that they spread from downstream on the Mississippi.

Like I said, the Gasconade is the biggest question mark. I'm not sure when they got into that system, but they definitely were not in it when Pflieger's book first came out in the 1970s.

I don't know one way or another whether they are in the Illinois tribs of the Mississippi, across from the Missouri tribs, such as the Big Muddy and Kaskaskia, but if they aren't, perhaps it's because the habitat in those streams doesn't suit them as well, or it could be that they will not willingly cross the rather inhospitable main channel of the Mississippi--their "explorations" up the Mississippi could simply be a matter of hugging the bank they came from originally until they find a hospitable tributary. (This, if true, would mean the Gasconade fish came from the Osage, instead of crossing the Missouri from the Loutre.) As to why they haven't made it up to the Quivre and points north, it could be that the locks and dams on the Mississippi form a barrier of sorts, or it could be that they simply will not move up into that latitude on their own. But who knows?

[drew03cmc]

You're right, there are definitely questions remaining about their spread. But if you read my theories above, the Osage river system fish apparently came from an undocumented stocking in that system way back in the 1940s, while the Meramec river system fish came from downstream on the Mississippi. The Gasconade River fish is the biggest mystery, with any of three scenarios about equally possible: Downstream on the Missouri out of the Osage, across the Missouri from an MDC stocking of the Loutre River in the 1960s, or upstream as a continuation of the same source fish as the Meramec.

The reason I think the Osage system fish all came from the unknown stocking in that system is just common sense, because the lakes and all the streams, including the Osage itself, are perfect spotted bass habitat, so the spread would be natural. Bill Pflieger, who wrote the book "Fishes of Missouri", said all that in the book.

The reason why I think the Meramec River fish came from downstream on the Mississippi is due to the history on the Mississippi tributaries downstream of the Meramec between there and the Diversion Channel. None of those streams had native spots. But they were in Apple Creek, the farthest downstream tributary, but the early 1970s. They didn't show up in Saline Creek, the next good sized tributary going upstream, until the late 1970s. They didn't show up in Establish Creek, the next trib upstream, until a little later yet. Joachim Creek is the next and last upstream tributary before you get to the Meramec, and I didn't fish it during all those years so I don't know when they appeared in it. But they didn't get to the Meramec, farthest upstream, until the early to mid 1980s in any numbers. So it simply makes sense that they spread from downstream on the Mississippi.

Like I said, the Gasconade is the biggest question mark. I'm not sure when they got into that system, but they definitely were not in it when Pflieger's book first came out in the 1970s.

I don't know one way or another whether they are in the Illinois tribs of the Mississippi, across from the Missouri tribs, such as the Big Muddy and Kaskaskia, but if they aren't, perhaps it's because the habitat in those streams doesn't suit them as well, or it could be that they will not willingly cross the rather inhospitable main channel of the Mississippi--their "explorations" up the Mississippi could simply be a matter of hugging the bank they came from originally until they find a hospitable tributary. (This, if true, would mean the Gasconade fish came from the Osage, instead of crossing the Missouri from the Loutre.) As to why they haven't made it up to the Quivre and points north, it could be that the locks and dams on the Mississippi form a barrier of sorts, or it could be that they simply will not move up into that latitude on their own. But who knows?

Al, I have to say you are wrong. Spotted bass were collected during 1974 in the Gasconade, which would mean their arrival occurred before that. USGS has this record on their site and it can be seen here:

http://nas2.er.usgs.gov/viewer/omap.aspx?SpeciesID=397

Pflieger's book was copyrighted in 1975, so your statement about them "definitely" not being there when Pflieger's book was written is absolutely incorrect.

You continue to proclaim your "theories" as gospel and people drink it up. I would like to see any scientific data you might have regarding the migration of spotted bass up the Mississippi and down the Missouri. Is it possible that these fish migrated there naturally, without the hand of man, and became well established in recent years? I would believe it could be extremely possible, as climates shift and things warm up a touch, the creeks they are in now may have become more hospitable to the spotted bass. Show me some science to back up your theories. My "theories" are primarily conjecture, on spotted bass anyway, and I do not claim to be an expert on them.

[Outside Bend]

The reason why I think the Meramec River fish came from downstream on the Mississippi is due to the history on the Mississippi tributaries downstream of the Meramec between there and the Diversion Channel. None of those streams had native spots. But they were in Apple Creek, the farthest downstream tributary, but the early 1970s. They didn't show up in Saline Creek, the next good sized tributary going upstream, until the late 1970s. They didn't show up in Establish Creek, the next trib upstream, until a little later yet. Joachim Creek is the next and last upstream tributary before you get to the Meramec, and I didn't fish it during all those years so I don't know when they appeared in it. But they didn't get to the Meramec, farthest upstream, until the early to mid 1980s in any numbers. So it simply makes sense that they spread from downstream on the Mississippi.

Sorry Al, my initial post wasn't too specific- I was looking at the same phenomena from the other end. The fish appeared in the Osage through stocking, and seem to have colonized downstream tributaries of the Missouri in subsequent years. Maybe one. Maybe the other. Maybe both. I'll let the academics figure it out.

It's something to wonder about, but to me its irrelevant to the management of the fisheries in question. What's important is managing to limit the impact of spots outside their historic distribution.