White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[drew03cmc]

Yup.

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.

Are they native to the state? Yes. End of story. They were NOT put there by fisheries managers, rather, they migrated there via man-made locks and dams on the Mississippi.

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.

My point, as I said then, was to get used to the spots being there as they are not going anywhere without fisheries managers eradicating them through chemical means. The trout will meet a natural demise as they do not reproduce in appreciable numbers. Talk about apples to apples here.

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.

Where have they been present in numbers? Mostly the small streams where they still exist to this day. They have been stocked by MDC in other places, and managed in certain spring branches to provide a tourist attraction like Bennett or Roaring River.

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.

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.

Why can't the monies spent on trout "conservation" be used on smallmouth conservation where it is truly conserving a NATURAL resource? There is that waste of money I am talking about. MDC also supplied Texas with its trout last year or the year before. There is wasted money from an MDC standpoint.

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 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?

I don't really give a darn about increasing trout angling opportunities in Missouri. Let's focus on the native species and conserve them as best we can, rather than diverting our attention elsewhere.

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.

Why compromise on the finite resource of smallmouth bass? There is no compromise necessary. They are the fish that made the Ozarks famous for fishing, not trout.

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.

Never said that water temperature has no bearing on it, but obviously, you want to make a big deal about this.

[troutfiend1985]

"I don't really give a darn about increasing trout angling opportunities in Missouri. Let's focus on the native species and conserve them as best we can, rather than diverting our attention elsewhere."

Then go start your own thread.

[eric1978]

Are they native to the state? Yes. End of story.

And trout are native to the country, so what's your point? Native-range boundaries for species of fish are dictated by watershed, not by imaginary lines on a map. Man is just as responsible for the migration and invasion of spotted bass in non-native streams as we are for intentionally stocking trout. There is no difference, except the spotted bass are actually harmful to the native fishes, and trout are not. OB has you nailed on this one...you may as well relent.

[Outside Bend]

Are they native to the state? Yes. End of story. They were NOT put there by fisheries managers, rather, they migrated there via man-made locks and dams on the Mississippi.

You think the fish know where the state line is? It should be obvious that saying "X species are native to the state," and "X species are native to this particular watershed/stream," Are two very different things. Shovelnose sturgeon are native to the state, but not to Mill Creek. Ozark cavefish are native to the state, but you won't find them swimming in a farm pond outside Kirksville. Spotted bass are native to the state, but not to north-flowing rivers of the Ozarks, which was my point. An organism that wasn't historically present in a river cannot, by definition, be considered native, and arguing about it is idiocy. They were stocked (we've been over this before), and are not a native part of those stream's fauna.

My point, as I said then, was to get used to the spots being there as they are not going anywhere without fisheries managers eradicating them through chemical means. The trout will meet a natural demise as they do not reproduce in appreciable numbers. Talk about apples to apples here.

You're saying to tolerate one non-native species which impacts native smallmouth, but to eliminate another non-native species which impacts smallmouth. I just want to know how you can hold two conflicting positions.

Moreover, I'd argue non-native spots have done more to alter and damage native smallmouth fisheries in the past 20-30 years than non-native trout have in more than a century. While it's possible that trout pushed smallies out of coldwater sections of the Meramec, it's undeniable that spots have pushed smallmouth out of much of their prime habitat in the middle and lower portions of that river, as well as the Bourbeuse, Big River, Gasconade, Maries, and others- far more stream miles than trout have impacted. If your genuinely interested in conserving native smallmouth, wouldn't it make more sense to attack giants as opposed to windmills?

Why can't the monies spent on trout "conservation" be used on smallmouth conservation where it is truly conserving a NATURAL resource? There is that waste of money I am talking about. MDC also supplied Texas with its trout last year or the year before. There is wasted money from an MDC standpoint.

I don't know how many ways I can say it, but the trout program is self-sustaining- dependent on funds generated primarily through licenses and tags. Most folks aren't going to buy trout licenses and tags if there's no trout to catch. You could defund the program and reallocate those monies to smallmouth or other native fisheries, and they'd be flush for cash for a season or two. But without folks buying trout stamps, trout tags, and trout tackle, that money would quickly dry up. I don't see how that scenario benefits native smallmouth programs long-term, or anglers.

Texas paid MDC for those fish. How is that a waste of money?

Why compromise on the finite resource of smallmouth bass? There is no compromise necessary. They are the fish that made the Ozarks famous for fishing, not trout.

Because trout have no impact on the VAST majority of smallmouth water. You're ready to hit the mattresses because trout are present in a fraction of a percent of all the Ozark's streams, all I'm saying is that's ridiculous. We're not talking about the imminent, widespread loss of smallmouth fisheries due to the presence of trout, we're not even talking about trout excluding smallies- you see both in the same stream reaches. You're genuinely discontent that 99.95% of the streams get to remain native smallmouth fisheries, while .05% contain predominately trout (though still with some smallies present)? That just seems infantile to me.

What fisheries made the Ozarks famous is both debatable and irrelevant- the White River tailwaters get an awful lot of press, and the NFoW has been listed as one of the top 100 trout streams in the nation. But that has no bearing on how the state's waters should be managed.

[ozark trout fisher]

I honestly think Drew has a point when he says that trout divert attention from the management of native species. It's a fair point (which given my screen name, I obviously disagree with) and in the final analysis he may have the only truly clear-cut, uncompromising position anyone has taken on the issue. As much as I disagree, maybe we shouldn't attack him for having a viewpoint that is different from ours.

[eric1978]

I honestly think Drew has a point when he says that trout divert attention from the management of native species. It's a fair point (which given my screen name, I obviously disagree with) and in the final analysis he may have the only truly clear-cut, uncompromising position anyone has taken on the issue. As much as I disagree, maybe we shouldn't attack him for having a viewpoint that is different from ours.

If it wasn't such a contradictory position I might take it more seriously (i.e. spotted bass are okay but trout aren't). Until he can square that circle, he's not gaining much ground with me.

[Outside Bend]

I honestly think Drew has a point when he says that trout divert attention from the management of native species. It's a fair point (which given my screen name, I obviously disagree with) and in the final analysis he may have the only truly clear-cut, uncompromising position anyone has taken on the issue. As much as I disagree, maybe we shouldn't attack him for having a viewpoint that is different from ours.

I'd agree to a point OTF, but I also think there's an issue of scale. Fisheries where thousands of people are using hundreds of miles of stream are going to require more intensive management than fisheries where thousands of anglers are using thousands of miles of streams- there's more pressure on the resource in the former scenario, and it just takes more effort to provide a decent fishery while keeping as many people happy as possible. For what it's worth, I've also noticed some fisheries biologists are just more interested in managing reservoir or trout fisheries than stream smallmouth- that's where their interests lie, so that's what gets the focus. Regardless, I would like to see some more effort being put into managing the state's smallmouth stream smallmouth resources.

I guess I don't really see it as attacking someone- drew's entitled to his viewpoint, and like any good theory I think it shouldn't be accepted at face value, but rather exposed to scrutiny. If it holds up, all the better. If it doesn't, back to the drawing board.

[drew03cmc]

I'd agree to a point OTF, but I also think there's an issue of scale. Fisheries where thousands of people are using hundreds of miles of stream are going to require more intensive management than fisheries where thousands of anglers are using thousands of miles of streams- there's more pressure on the resource in the former scenario, and it just takes more effort to provide a decent fishery while keeping as many people happy as possible.

I guess I don't really see it as attacking someone- drew's entitled to his viewpoint, I just think it ought to be able to withstand scrutiny.

OTF, we agree to a point? I am dumbfounded, but to answer Eric's point. I think that the trout in question were placed in the streams directly by man rather than indirectly by man via dams and locks. Spotted bass are doing to smallmouth in a short amount of time what trout have done in some streams over the last hundred thirty years. The people banging the spotted bass drum are those that have seen the changes first-hand. When the trout were dumped, they often were not done with native species in mind. I have no issue with spotted bass being in streams, however, I am not in support of the issues facing the smallmouth populations. The trout have been here so long people think of them as native fish, however, the species of trout we are catching in Missouri are native to either the west coast or Europe. One timeline of smallmouth neglect has taken over a century to get to the point where everyone feels the species are in equilibrium whereas the other has happened over the past three decades.

The state could better serve itself and its natural resources to spend more time and dollars on conserving its most precious natural resource.

For the record, I lived in Missouri for 22 years and moved to Kansas in 2007 to appease my wife and get closer to her family.

[Outside Bend]

Let's stick to the facts- while spotted bass may have reached north-flowing streams via natural routes, it's at best an armchair theory. On the other hand there are documented reports of spotted bass being stocked in those streams. You have trout which were stocked outside their native range. You have spotted bass that were stocked outside their native range.

Spotted bass are doing to smallmouth in a short amount of time what trout have done in some streams over the last hundred thirty years.

You do understand the difference in magnitude between trout evicting smallies from a dozen miles of coldwater stream and spots evicting smallies from entire watersheds, right? Shouldn't it scare you that spots are evicting smallmouth so rapidly, over such a broad area? Shouldn't it alarm you that spots are are doing what trout never have- rapidly eliminating native smallmouth from large portions of their native range? Yet while spotted bass take over watersheds and genuinely do push native smallmouth out of large parts of their native range, you want to bicker about trout and effects they have on half a percent of the region's aquatic habitat. Seems ridiculous to me.

The people banging the spotted bass drum are those that have seen the changes first-hand. When the trout were dumped, they often were not done with native species in mind.

You like to argue that we don't know what a pristine Ozark smallie stream looked like. You also like to argue that non-native trout push smallmouth out of their habitat. But it can't be both. While it's possible smallies were ubiquitous throughout their drainages, its also plausible that they didn't occupy habitats where water temperatures were too cold for them to thrive. We don't know.

Either we don't know what Ozark streams looked like before trout, and therefore can't say whether coldwater habitats were vacant or occupied, and therefore can't say whether trout out-competed smallmouth or simply exploited a vacant niche...or we do know what Ozark streams looked like before trout, and we can say with certainty that the places now occupied by trout were formerly occupied by smallmouth. You can't argue both, and as you've said- you'd be hard-pressed to find some one who remembers Ozark streams before trout came along.

One timeline of smallmouth neglect has taken over a century to get to the point where everyone feels the species are in equilibrium whereas the other has happened over the past three decades.

Trout populations and ranges aren't expanding at the expense of smallmouth, smallmouth populations and ranges aren't declining as a result of trout.

Spotted bass populations ARE expanding at the expense of smallmouth, and smallmouth populations ARE declining as a result of spots.

Which scenario represents equilibrium?

The state could better serve itself and its natural resources to spend more time and dollars on conserving its most precious natural resource.

That's a pretty subjective statement. Maybe the most precious natural resource is stream smallmouth. Maybe it's channel catfish, carp, and bluegill-they're pretty ubiquitous throughout the state. Maybe it's just the trout parks- they see more angling pressure than many fisheries. Maybe it's the reservoirs- they can handle more people and a wider variety of uses. Maybe the real secret is quality bowfin and gar management. Maybe we ought to quit the sport fisheries entirely and focus on Niangua and bluestripe darters, Ozark minnows, spothanded crayfish, pink planarias and other organisms that are endemic, and found nowhere else on the planet except for within our arbitrary state lines.

[Al Agnew]

Drew, you're going to have to prove that trout have actually displaced smallmouth in significant numbers...and I don't think you'll be able to. If you ask me to prove that they haven't, I'll attempt to prove it by some basic biology...

Smallmouth need water temps in the low 60s for successful spawning, although they will attempt to spawn in water temps in the upper 50s IF that is all the warmer the water is by the full moon in May. Chances are they don't succeed very well in that case, because the eggs need those temps in the 60s to hatch.

Water temps in the areas below the big springs probably do not get into the 60s until late June or early July most years. It depends upon a lot of factors, including how strongly the springs are flowing, how strongly the rivers above the springs are flowing, and how hot the weather gets in April and May. But you can pretty well figure that in the first 5 miles, maybe more, below Greer Spring on the Eleven Point, Maramec Spring on the Meramec, Bennett Spring on the Niangua, and Rainbow and Double Springs on the North Fork, smallies will seldom if ever pull off a successful spawn. And in the next 5 miles below those springs, it will be hit and miss depending upon the factors I mentioned.

In smaller streams, those that basically START with a good sized spring or group of springs--Little Piney, upper Current, Crane, Hickory, etc. there is no chance of the water being warm enough for successful smallmouth spawning, because there is too little warmer water coming in to dilute the cold water of the springs. You can probably figure that these smaller streams, and the upper Current which isn't all that small, simply never had decent smallmouth populations. Smallies don't ordinarily move up into smaller creeks from the bigger rivers they flow into AFTER the spring spawn, except in some instances where a few may move into them in the winter for the thermal refuge. In the bigger rivers with good smallmouth habitat above the big springs, there will be more movement from either upstream or downstream of smallies of various sizes during the year. So the bigger streams have migrant smallies in them, the smaller ones probably do not and never have.

So, if you have little or no successful spawning taking place in those sections, then the smallmouth populations will never be all that great, trout or not.

As for competition, rainbow trout don't eat a whole lot of minnows, nor do they really key on crayfish, the two biggest foods of adult smallies. Browns do eat a lot of both. But just wade down any section of trout water and you'll see just as many minnows as you will in non-trout water...plenty of minnows to go around. And turn over some rocks and you'll see just as many crayfish. The only possible way that trout really compete with smallies is due to trout eating a lot of aquatic insects as do young of the year smallmouth. But that brings us back to the lack of spawning success of smallmouth in the trout waters...not many young of the year smallies in there anyway.

Having said all that...I can't prove that there wouldn't be at least a few more smallmouth in the trout sections of the larger streams if the trout weren't there, although I'd bet a lot of money that there wouldn't be any more smallmouth in the smaller trout streams. But...even on the larger streams, as I think proven by the Jacks Fork and the Current below Akers, the smallmouth fishery would be mediocre at best. I don't see the logic of trading a pretty good trout fishery--that also soaks up a lot of pressure from people who might otherwise be pounding the smallmouth water--for a mediocre at best smallmouth fishery, when we're talking about the relatively few miles of water we are here.

As everybody knows, I love smallmouth and smallmouth streams. The biggest crime against nature ever perpetrated in the Ozarks was the ruination of the White River and the lower North Fork by the big dams. If I could wave a magic wand and make Table Rock and Bull Shoals and Beaver and Norfork disappear, I would in a heartbeat. But I don't sweat the stocking of trout in what's left of the White or in the trout stream sections in the rest of Missouri and Arkansas, because I'm pretty sure those sections will never produce real quality smallmouth fishing.