White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[Greg]

Wow. I guess I really just don't understand the anti-trout stance of a few on this board. Just because trout are not native to MO? Trout are always going to be limited to certain pretty small areas of our streams. There are many dedicated trout fisherman in MO. Given that trout are obviously not going to expand their range it seems pretty reasonable to keep the current trout waters status quo.

Greg

[drew03cmc]

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.

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.

It does scare me that spotted bass are evicting smallmouth, but in a hundred years, they could reach equilibrium just as these species have in the western Ozarks. It isn't happening outside of a half dozen drainages, however, the other half of the Missouri Ozarks either has spots naturally or the streams create an impasse that the spots cannot ascend. The ridiculous thing about all of this is the amount spent on trout "conservation", when they could be finding a way to eradicate the spotted bass by electrofishing the offending drainages and killing the spots to reestablish the smallmouth in its native locales.

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.

I find it hard to imagine that smallmouth don't really occupy the colder portions of Ozark streams, however, there are smallmouth present in Bennett Spring Branch all year long as well as in Maramec Spring Branch all year long, so the cold waters might just slow them down a bit, but they are in those streams all year long.

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?

Neither is an equilibrium, but we don't truly know to what extent the smallmouth existed above their current locations pre-trout, so that cannot really be determined. The spot situation has to be addressed in a manner that is brutal and perhaps irreversible, IMO.

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.

Really, channel catfish that are abundant in nearly every body of water in the state? Smallmouth aren't that populous. Bluegill are and carp are non-native. The most precious natural resource is, IMO, smallmouth bass in their native streams. Darters and what not are preventing additional smallmouth regulations on some streams in the state, so it is a win (for the darters) lose (for the bass) type of situation.

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.

Al, your argument is sound. I think, due to the trout park streams smallmouth colonies, the water temperature issue is a good talking point, but it might not be the end all be all of this type of discussion. They might not spawn successfully in those locations, but they can inhabit them all year long as is evidenced by their presence.

[Outside Bend]

It does scare me that spotted bass are evicting smallmouth, but in a hundred years, they could reach equilibrium just as these species have in the western Ozarks.

That sounds like one hell of a gamble. If you're wrong- spotted bass would eliminate smallmouth from a large portion of their native range. If you're right- spotted bass have still eliminated smallmouth from a pretty significant portion of their native range.

The ridiculous thing about all of this is the amount spent on trout "conservation", when they could be finding a way to eradicate the spotted bass by electrofishing the offending drainages and killing the spots to reestablish the smallmouth in its native locales.

I still don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp: the trout program is self-funding. If you divert trout funds for smallmouth, there's no trout program. If there's no trout program, people won't buy trout tags. If people don't buy trout tags, there's no trout funds to divert to smallmouth. It's a half-baked, unsustainable idea.

I find it hard to imagine that smallmouth don't really occupy the colder portions of Ozark streams, however, there are smallmouth present in Bennett Spring Branch all year long as well as in Maramec Spring Branch all year long, so the cold waters might just slow them down a bit, but they are in those streams all year long.

What evidence do you have that there would be more smallmouth in those spring branches if trout weren't present, if we don't know what the system looked like when trout weren't present? There's no reference point to say whether trout really are keeping smallmouth out of coldwater habitat. Like I said, for trout to kick smallmouth out, there had to have been smallmouth there in the first place- and we can't answer that question.

And doesn't the presences of smallies in those spring branches year-round prove your "trout outcompete smallmouth," hypothesis bunk? If trout really do push smallmouth out, you wouldn't expect to see them in the same area, although your own observations indicate otherwise. If stocking trout shut smallmouth out of some habitats, you wouldn't expect to see them on trout streams which have been stocked, every day, for the past 80 years.

Neither is an equilibrium

Ok. If you can't see the difference between a system where two fisheries don't have much impact on one another, and another system where one fishery is in the process of destroying another...as you said before, "I can't help you."

If you have concrete proof trout push smallmouth out of their historically occupied habitat, or that smallmouth populations are lower now in coldwater stream sections than some historical benchmark, I'll listen. But this "trout outcompete smallmouth," assumption is just that- an assumption- based on data that doesn't exist. Frankly, I'm bored/tired of discussing this with a party who makes unsubstantiated claims with flimsy or no evidence. If competition between smallmouth and trout is as big an issue as you want to believe, it shouldn't be tough to find unequivocal evidence to support your claim.

[drew03cmc]

That sounds like one hell of a gamble. If you're wrong- spotted bass would eliminate smallmouth from a large portion of their native range. If you're right- spotted bass have still eliminated smallmouth from a pretty significant portion of their native range.

Big gamble indeed, but is it a gamble worth making? Also, what methods could be used other than euthanizing every spotted bass in the river with coordinated shocking trips?

I still don't understand why this concept is so difficult for you to grasp: the trout program is self-funding. If you divert trout funds for smallmouth, there's no trout program. If there's no trout program, people won't buy trout tags. If people don't buy trout tags, there's no trout funds to divert to smallmouth. It's a half-baked, unsustainable idea.

A self-sustaining program is a fallacy. It might pay for itself, but with the fishing license sales down for the last decade, how are they able to financially produce the same amount of trout and still profit? The simple answer is that they have to be dipping into other MDC funds, or so it would appear. I don't balance the books there so I wouldn't know.

What evidence do you have that there would be more smallmouth in those spring branches if trout weren't present, if we don't know what the system looked like when trout weren't present? There's no reference point to say whether trout really are keeping smallmouth out of coldwater habitat. Like I said, for trout to kick smallmouth out, there had to have been smallmouth there in the first place- and we can't answer that question.

There had to have been smallmouth there in the first place. That is the statement that nobody in the world right now can answer for most of America's streams. When these streams were first stocked around the turn of the century, nobody alive now, and very few records I can find make a comment about these specific waters.

And doesn't the presences of smallies in those spring branches year-round prove your "trout outcompete smallmouth," hypothesis bunk? If trout really do push smallmouth out, you wouldn't expect to see them in the same area, although your own observations indicate otherwise. If stocking trout shut smallmouth out of some habitats, you wouldn't expect to see them on trout streams which have been stocked, every day, for the past 80 years.

It does not prove that theory, it does not disprove that theory. They exist in specific holes in these streams, but they are not in great numbers. These holes are often bait fished for trout and might have the trout fished out for the most part of the year. The trout and the bass certainly CAN coexist, but is it best for our native bass? Was this considered when the state decided to stock many of our streams? The flows right at the springs might not be very hospitable for smallmouth, but even at Bennett, you can catch nice bass above the dam once in awhile.

What you asked was which of the two was at an equilibrium. The answer is neither. The trout population fluctuates wildly with harvest where the bass population is fished catch and release a lot of the time so I hesitate to declare that an equilibrium. Smallmouth are not a food fish and reportedly "taste like sewage". Possibly the spots and smallmouth situation might reach an equilibrium eventually, but as of now, they are not at an equilibrium.

If you were asking which is the worst situation right now, I would answer the spotted bass man-made immigration.

[Chief Grey Bear]

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...

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.

Well, that ain't exactly true either. Hickory used to have a good population of brownies. Very few are left in the stock zone. That being the stretch of water where trout are stocked. But I can take you similar waters in the area that you can catch brownies until your arms fall off. I have fished Shoal within a mile of where it comes out of the ground and caught numerous brownies and even a lot of largemouth.

So Andy may not be able to prove it but, anytime you would like to stop by down here, I would more than happy too.

[Mark]

I am just a "bait chucker" as I've been called on this thread and not near as high and almighty as you egomaniacal flyfishermen who somehow think us "bait chuckers" are a lower class of outdoorsmen than your self-glorifying nobility. My friends and I fish almost exclusively the white ribbon section of the Eleven Point River 4-5 times a year. We all travel several hours because we love the river and want to catch fish to eat. There are plenty of smallmouth streams alot closer to home if we want to catch smallmouth. We spend a lot of money in the Alton area, as well as recommend the area to friends and family, who in turn spend their money in the area. If the regulations changed, or the river wasn't stocked as heavily as it is now, I am popsitive we wouldn't come to the area as much as we do now. And this is an area that needs the revenue from tourism. But then again, we are just lowlife "bait chuckers" that are raping the river.

[ness]

I am just a "bait chucker" as I've been called on this thread and not near as high and almighty as you egomaniacal flyfishermen who somehow think us "bait chuckers" are a lower class of outdoorsmen than your self-glorifying nobility. My friends and I fish almost exclusively the white ribbon section of the Eleven Point River 4-5 times a year. We all travel several hours because we love the river and want to catch fish to eat. There are plenty of smallmouth streams alot closer to home if we want to catch smallmouth. We spend a lot of money in the Alton area, as well as recommend the area to friends and family, who in turn spend their money in the area. If the regulations changed, or the river wasn't stocked as heavily as it is now, I am popsitive we wouldn't come to the area as much as we do now. And this is an area that needs the revenue from tourism. But then again, we are just lowlife "bait chuckers" that are raping the river.

Nope. If you're doing what you're doing within the rules, which I assume you are, you're fine in my book. And you're fine in anybody's book whose opinion should matter to you. Tackle doesn't mean squat.

It's really a pretty darn good deal we've got here. Pretty much everybody has easy and inexpensive access to the outdoors to fish for a variety of species in a bunch of different ways. If you want to fish dries upstream or sling Powerbait, in a crowd or all by yourself, there's a place for you. There's room for all of us out there.

[Gavin]

Mark, I'm glad your out having fun...I've got no concerns about white ribbon trout areas...They provide a good option for those who want to fish bait in less crowded surrounding..maybe float a bit..have a gravel bar fish fry..You cant float & expect enough legal fish for dinner in the Blue & Red trout managment areas, and you cant always do it in the SMA's...Better bring some food just in case....Some of the smaller ones White ribbons would benefit from more restrictive regulations, but thats isnt what its all about.

We have plenty of trophy trout fisheries with very restrictive regulations...Its nice to have options. Want to go catch big Brown Trout...head to Taney, the Current, or the Red Ribbon's on the Meramec or NFoW...Want some to float and eat some stockers...head to the White Ribbons on the 11pt, Current, Niangua, or Taney below Fall Creek. We dont have allot of suitable trout water in Missouri, so its great to see that what little we have is managed for a wide range of fishing opportunaties and experiences... Allot of thought went into the Blue, Red, & White regulation structure, and is allot better than what we had in place before that. Plus there is a still a place for everyone right now. I like that..

Heck, my 3 year old loves to fish, and she fishes with bait. I cant wait to take her on her first float next year and I'll probably take her an unrestricted section of water to do it so she can dunk worms & minnows...It takes time to develop the skill set needed to lure or fly fish successfully...and its great to have places were that doesnt matter so much w/o a buch of trout park slobs trying to crowd you out. Cheers.

[ozark trout fisher]

I am just a "bait chucker" as I've been called on this thread and not near as high and almighty as you egomaniacal flyfishermen who somehow think us "bait chuckers" are a lower class of outdoorsmen than your self-glorifying nobility. My friends and I fish almost exclusively the white ribbon section of the Eleven Point River 4-5 times a year. We all travel several hours because we love the river and want to catch fish to eat. There are plenty of smallmouth streams alot closer to home if we want to catch smallmouth. We spend a lot of money in the Alton area, as well as recommend the area to friends and family, who in turn spend their money in the area. If the regulations changed, or the river wasn't stocked as heavily as it is now, I am popsitive we wouldn't come to the area as much as we do now. And this is an area that needs the revenue from tourism. But then again, we are just lowlife "bait chuckers" that are raping the river.

I don't look down upon bait fisherman, and I think it's important to have stretches of river where you guys can fish. Bait fishing is a lot of fun in some circumstnaces and a perfectly legitimate way to fish. And I think the White Ribbon stretch of the Eleven Point is probably big enough where it can sustain bait fishing pressure and some fish kept. The big rivers aren't really the streams I'm thinking of when I'm talking about scaling back bait use and catch and keep pressure. It's the small streams that can really be devastated by a lot of folks taking their limit. I don't need to drag out all the statistics about catch and release survival rates from bait vs. artificials. I don't have anything against bait fisherman and it really would be a shame to scale back their opportunities on the smaller streams I'm talking about. But the science of fish management does have to come into the equation somewhere.

[troutfiend1985]

I think what OTF and I are trying to say is that there is nothing wrong with bait fishing. Big rivers can handle more pressure than small creeks, and there is no secret in that at all. Bait fisherman should be allowed to fish in small streams, but there should be a small C&R zone for streams who can support resident trout. That's it, no criticism of bait methods, no looking down in disgust, none of that "holier than thou" attitude or excluding a person because of bait.