White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[jdmidwest]

I did't mean trout would not compete with Smallmouth or even eat some of the same foods. I said they would not out compete them. I would consider bass a more dominant species than trout.

In this secanrio smallmouth are at a distinct disavantage because of the habitat....just as trout would be in smallmouth habitat. This why you don't see much intermingling and why those areas tend to fish poorely for both species. Yes, you will find some of each species in both stretches, but mostly they stick to the habitat that is best suited for them. The species in it's preferred habitat would clearly out perform the species that is not living in it's preferred habitat. There really is no way to measure it, as one species would always be at a disadvantage because of habitat issues. If all things were equal I would put my money on smallmouth coming out on top. I love catching and fighting trout and that is my preffered species but they aren't exactly the hardiest of creatures.

So to me the habitat seems to be the deciding factor not the competition between the two species.

But, if you artificially introduce alot of trout into a habitat by "stocking" them, do you not understand the unfair advantage they have over the native fish that inhabit that stream system?

Let me elaborate, you are a smallmouth bass in a hole of water with 300 minnows, 250 crayfish, and several other smallmouth buddies, some goggle eye buddies, and a few pickerel guys hanging out in the weeds and you are thinking about lunch. Along comes a MDC boat with a guy tossing in some new guy in large numbers that likes the same food as you, they have been in a truck for a while, and now they are looking for lunch too. What happens to the menu? The waitress starts running out of the daily special is what happens.

The only saving grace for you as a smallmouth is that the Alpha Predator is looking for the new guy and not coming after you. So you sit and wait till the new guy gets fished out.

[stlfisher]

That is assuming the area in which trout were stocked was a good smallmouth fishery. Just because there was a few smallmouth doesn't mean it was a quality fishery. I seriously doubt the MDC dumped trout in a quality smallmouth fishery. The areas in which trout have been stocked have either been because of habitat change due to dams etc or they have been stocked in waters that for the most part have been to cold to support a quality fishery of any other species. Basically, the habitat or change in habitat has been the deciding factor. The introduction of trout has come after that habitat change when the streams no longer would support smallmouth in quality numbers, or in cases in which the existing habitat was a poor fishery.

[Outside Bend]

But, if you artificially introduce alot of trout into a habitat by "stocking" them, do you not understand the unfair advantage they have over the native fish that inhabit that stream system?

Let me elaborate, you are a smallmouth bass in a hole of water with 300 minnows, 250 crayfish, and several other smallmouth buddies, some goggle eye buddies, and a few pickerel guys hanging out in the weeds and you are thinking about lunch. Along comes a MDC boat with a guy tossing in some new guy in large numbers that likes the same food as you, they have been in a truck for a while, and now they are looking for lunch too. What happens to the menu? The waitress starts running out of the daily special is what happens.

The only saving grace for you as a smallmouth is that the Alpha Predator is looking for the new guy and not coming after you. So you sit and wait till the new guy gets fished out.

Purely my opinion, but I think the more accurate scenario would be-

you are a smallmouth bass in a pool of a coldwater Ozark stream, with thousands of minnows, crayfish, and other food items available. You're lucky in that you don't have to share this habitat with many other smallmouth, but unlucky in the fact that the reason is it's crappy smallmouth habitat. Life's tough here- you could be a dozen years old and ten inches long, while a fish that age elsewhere would be trophy size. But biology's biology, are an ecological barrier for your species- most of them don't do constant cold very well, and the ones that do exhibit drastically slower growth. So it's you, a small handful of other smallies, the occasional longear or rock bass, a few pickeral, and all that food.

Along comes an MDC boat, and since they practice the flow-through stocking method as opposed to dumping 400 fish at a time, you now share your pool with a half dozen hatchery rainbows- stupid little buggers who have spent their entire short lives in the comfort of a concrete raceway. They're totally unprepared for what comes next.

They've just spent a couple hours in the back of a truck, crowded, and were then dumped in a cage on a boat or canoe into water with an entirely different temperature and chemistry. Talk about stress.

Now any smallie in the know would understand you don't hang out in the open, still water, right at the surface, and you don't hang out in the slow, weedy waters- those are the two places those hatchery dummies immediately head towards, until they get acclimated. They're the fish are exposed to all sorts of predators- kingfishers, herons, pickeral, turtles- even you can run in there and nail 'em- free, easy calories.

At first you may be worried about whether you'll all have enough food to survive, but look around- they're used to eating an artificial diet, and they'll spend the first few days eating pellet shaped sticks and rocks, which luckily aren't a big part of your diet. It'll take a while for them to figure out what's good to eat, and in the meantime they'll willingly inhale any Powerbait, glo-ball, worm, canned corn, spinner with which they're presented. Many wind up going home with anglers in a short amount of time, leaving you back by yourself.

The ones that survive will be eating a natural diet, but luckily they'll spend more time munching mayflies, caddis, midge larvae, stoneflies, and the occasional crayfish or sculpin, while your diet's chiefly the latter few organisms. A #4 crayfish pattern is effective for trout for the same reason a #4 crayfish pattern is effective for smallmouth- any organism will try to maximize the amount of calories it can consume with as little effort as possible. That a trout takes a crayfish pattern isn't proof the trout are preying on them as much as smallies, but instead that will go for the 72oz steak instead of the side salad when the opportunity arises.

It may discombobulate you for a while having new neighbors, but in all likelihood most of them will be gone in a few weeks, and there will be plenty of food for you plus the holdovers.

No biggie.

[troutfiend1985]

So Chief do you not understand that A. I don't have a problem with people keeping trout, or B. that the rate at which the trout in these streams are removed is unacceptable.

Again, we're getting back to semantics. I broke down that statement by the MDC on another forum and in order to show my interpretation of what they said. If you can't at least see what I am saying, then I'm sorry but we have to agree to disagree.

Drew, I guess that I just don't understand you man. And I don't mean any offense, but you criticize Missouri for having a non sustainable trout population, for stocking trout, then you say you enjoy fishing these areas(Capps), and then you're against a C&R zone where trout might have a chance for repopulation or at least to establish residency. Well. . . Which one is it man? You put stuff on here, show some logic or at least some consistency. Otherwise, why bother? The reason that you supply to support your theory is MDC doesn't have a C&R section already therefore a future C&R zone shouldn’t happen, however is a reason without merit. I won't change because I haven't changed before, great reasoning. I would love to see Crane as a C&R, but Crane's status does not dictate Hickory's status and vice versa. Show me how Crane dictates what should be done with Hickory?

[Chief Grey Bear]

That is assuming the area in which trout were stocked was a good smallmouth fishery. Just because there was a few smallmouth doesn't mean it was a quality fishery. I seriously doubt the MDC dumped trout in a quality smallmouth fishery. The areas in which trout have been stocked have either been because of habitat change due to dams etc or they have been stocked in waters that for the most part have been to cold to support a quality fishery of any other species. Basically, the habitat or change in habitat has been the deciding factor. The introduction of trout has come after that habitat change when the streams no longer would support smallmouth in quality numbers, or in cases in which the existing habitat was a poor fishery.

In the case of Hickory and Capps, which are the two streams in the spot light in this conversation, nothing could be further from the truth. In the case of Capp's it was set up as a park for families to enjoy by the family that owned the land and I am not sure if they began stocking the trout on a small basis or if they and the MDC began a partnership on the stocking. As for Hickory, that started soley because the city of Neosho had the brainstorm to create another Roaring River and bring in additional revenue for the city. Niether had anything to do with habitat changes.

then I'm sorry but we have to agree to disagree.

Now we agree.

[ozark trout fisher]

OTF, if you believe that only 9 trout were left in the whole stream, there is no way we are going to have any semblance of an intelligent conversation.

I never said that there were only 9 trout left in the whole stream. I understand that there are also browns in Capp's Creek, and I also understand that no surveying method is 100% effective. But the shock-up study does show pretty clearly (and the MDC says this in their own words) that the rainbows are being taken out very quickly after stocking. I honestly don't know Capp's, so I can't confirm this with personal experience, but I don't have any reason to believe the MDC isn't telling the truth.

And I asked you a question pretty clearly, and you chose not to answer. Here again- Why would you be opposed to having a short catch and release area within a long White Ribbon stretch? What harm could that cause? If you can answer me that question, then I'll be a lot closer to understanding your opinion.

" Why would you put C&R regulations to work on Capps or Hickory and NOT do it on Crane, Mill, Barren Fork, etc? If you can answer those questions, we might be able to talk."

Drew, in another thread awhile back I suggested we do exactly that. But that does seem like a topic for a different thread, not this one. And I want to be really clear that I'm not asking that the entire White Ribbon stretches become catch and release, just a 1/4 or 1/2 mile portion.

[Outside Bend]

Smallmouth are at a distinct disadvantage because of the habitat which they are native to? Sorry, the disadvantage is that there are 5-10 trout per smallmouth (my estimation) in the stream. That presents a major disadvantage when the holding water is all trout no bass. The rainbow trout's preferred habitat is in coastal streams west of the Rockies. The only trout that is native anywhere close to our region is the brook trout which is native to upper Michigan and throughout the northern Ohio Valley. If the trout are stocked at a rate that displaces smallmouth, we have an issue. They are stocked and then regulated to sustain an artificial population which in turn creates a majority of salmonids and a minority of natives.

You're confusing "preferred habitat," with "native range." If west coast streams were rainbow trout's only preferred habitat, you wouldn't have healthy rainbow trout populations in Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Alberta, South Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Tennessee, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Quebec, Great Britain, Spain, Italy, The Netherlands, Germany, Chile, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and all the rest. The west coast isn't rainbows preferred habitat, it's their native range.

Rather, they're preferred habitat is water temperatures between 50-65 degrees or so. That's why you can find them in all those other places outside their native range. The preferred habitat of smallmouth has a higher temperature, and you naturally wouldn't see many smallmouth bass in poor smallmouth bass habitat- that's just intuitively obvious. You wouldn't see many spotted owls in the Ozarks, or bull sharks in the Mississippi- the habitat isn't adequate to support large populations of those animals.

Again, your argument is "if trout are displacing smallmouth, we have a problem." But we don't know if trout are displacing smallmouth, and it's pretty likely smallmouth have low population densities in poor smallmouth habitat, the same as any species has low densities in unsuitable habitat. So how can you credibly say there's a problem, and where's the supporting evidence?

[Mark]

I will stick to the Catch and Release Area that is being discussed. I am opposed to it on the river of my choice, the Eleven Point River, simply because I think the Blue Ribbon Area essentially provides the same protection for the trout population as adding a Catch and Release Area would provide. From Greer to Turner Mill is a 5 mile stretch of Blue Ribbon area, and from Turner to Whitten is about a 15 mile stretch of White Ribbon area. I really can't see the advantage of a buffer area of Catch and Release in between the Blue Ribbon and White Ribbon.

A much bigger issue is the poaching that goes on on the Eleven Point. And who would patrol the Catch and Release areas?

[ozark trout fisher]

The preferred habitat of smallmouth has a higher temperature, and you naturally wouldn't see many smallmouth bass in poor smallmouth bass habitat- that's just intuitively obvious. You wouldn't see many spotted owls in the Ozarks, or bull sharks in the Mississippi- the habitat isn't adequate to support large populations of those animals.

I can tell you from experience that smallmouth bass can and do exist, and sometimes even thrive in trout water. Not everywhere, but in some streams. I have found decent numbers of smallmouth bass in streams throughout the Ozarks and elsewhere where you wouldn't expect them because of cold water, and young of the year fish too. Let me give you some examples...

1. I know of a pool on Blue Spring Creek where I can take you any day and we'd catch smallmouth bass in the fingerling to 7 inch range. This is on the upper reaches, and it's 100% spring water. It's 2 1/2 miles and two low water bridges up from the nearest water that should be able to have a smallmouth spawn based on what you guys are saying.

2. Little Piney Creek- I catch smallmouth bass often throughout the stream, sometimes right around Lane Spring. They are common enough to be worth targeting down in the Vida Slab area, part of the Blue Ribbon waters, and definitely still coldwater habitat.

3. West Branch of the Ausable River- A mountain river in the Adirondacks of New York. It comes straight out of the Adirondack High peaks, and during smallmouth spawning season most years, it is just coming down from spring snow-melt and the water temp is way below what they should be for a successful smallmouth spawn. And all of the tributaries are cold-water mountain streams. There aren't a lot of bass in there, but they are common enough that you're not too surprised when you catch one.

What I'm not saying is that trout have a significant enough impact on native species that we should quit stocking them. There just isn't any evidence to support that. But to say that, as a rule, there can't be a reproducing smallmouth population in a coldwater stream just isn't true. I don't know how bass spawn in these streams which are not their preferred habitat, but they do get the job done some way or another, at least in some cases.

[ozark trout fisher]

I will stick to the Catch and Release Area that is being discussed. I am opposed to it on the river of my choice, the Eleven Point River, simply because I think the Blue Ribbon Area essentially provides the same protection for the trout population as adding a Catch and Release Area would provide. From Greer to Turner Mill is a 5 mile stretch of Blue Ribbon area, and from Turner to Whitten is about a 15 mile stretch of White Ribbon area. I really can't see the advantage of a buffer area of Catch and Release in between the Blue Ribbon and White Ribbon.

A much bigger issue is the poaching that goes on on the Eleven Point. And who would patrol the Catch and Release areas?

Mark, I'm not sure anyone is calling for a catch and release area on the Eleven Point. I'm a lot more worried about the smaller streams that can't take the catch and keep pressure as well.

I think most fly/catch and release fisherman are satisfied with the situation down there, with already 5 miles of good water managed as Blue Ribbon.

I just can't make it clear enough that I don't have anything against bait fisherman, keeping fish, or whatever, within the law. This is not an us vs. them type thing.