White Ribbon Conservation Issue

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

And niether did the MDC. But you are using that as a base for your argument.

I have answered your previous question. And so have quite a few others that have posted to this proposal. Because White Ribbon fisheries are managed for put/take. Anything else is not a White Ribbon magagement system. Why are you so hell bent on changing the rules on a stream that you won't ever fish? Or at best you may fish it once every couple of years.

[ozark trout fisher]

And niether did the MDC. But you are using that as a base for your argument.

I have answered your previous question. And so have quite a few others that have posted to this proposal. Because White Ribbon fisheries are managed for put/take.

Okay, but why not have a small portion of the stream that is managed differently? What would it hurt to have a short area that has a more stable trout population? You just can't tell me what it would possibly hurt, and until you can answer that question I'm gonna have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.

"Why are you so hell bent on changing the rules on a stream that you won't ever fish? Or at best you may fish it once every couple of years."

This is not just about Capp's Creek. If that's the way I made it sound, then I didn't make myself clear enough. Mainly, I was just using the shocking data from that stream to show how White Ribbon management might be effecting other waters-maybe not quite the scientific method, but without any shocking data I can find on other small White Ribbon streams, it's the only thing I can go off of. I also have in mind other White Ribbon streams that I fish on a regular basis that could really be helped by a short C&R stretch. Roubidoux Creek comes to mind...I know it has Red Ribbon water, but the thermal conditions in that section are marginal at best for year-round trout survival.

[drew03cmc]

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?

Obviously you don't get it. I enjoy fishing Capps Creek for the reason of being away from the bunch of putzes armwrestling over the outlets at Taney, fighting over the hatchery dump at Bennett or crowding the best water at RR. I am not against catching trout, but what really gets me going is catching fish where they BELONG. I want to catch Neosho smallmouth in Shoal Creek, northern smallmouth in the Little Niangua, largemouth bass in their native stream habitat and trout where they belong, the mountains. I like having the opportunity to chase trout in Missouri, my home state, but given a choice between smallmouth and trout, the choice is an easy one. I would prefer Missouri focus on preserving their native smallmouth rather than on supporting artificial fisheries. That is my take, as well as others, but it is invalidated by those who feel trout are the superior species, or their pursuit is more noble.

The reason I am against a C&R section on ANY white ribbon area is precisely what Chief said, the white ribbon areas are put and take. There are fish there when the trucks leave, get out and find them. The fish that survive a few weeks to a few years in Capps, Hickory or the Niangua to name a few are indeed resident trout. They deserve the same respect we give the 8" silver bullets. Crane Creek is a streams with perhaps the third or fourth rarest form of trout in the country (following possibly Gila, Apache and Greenback) in a self sustaining state in a creek that is only a few miles from origin to mouth. This stream deserves C&R regulations where Hickory is purely put and take as is evidenced by the nightcrawler containers providing shoreline cover.

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?

You are correct, I mis-labeled native and preferred. My issue is the time, money and effort wasted on supporting species that cannot self sustain. If the populations are self sustaining, they should be preserved. The thing about native species is that they should be preserved in their native range rather than having other species that compete for the same food sources and habitat stocked on top of them. This is similar to the cutthroat trout of the Rockies having browns, bows and brookies stocked on top of them and displacing them. Granted, here, the displacement is only presumably occurring in the stream stretches with water temperatures which are conducive to holding both species, but it is a similar type of situation in those stretches of stream.

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.

Thanks OTF, we agree again...

[eric1978]

My issue is the time, money and effort wasted on supporting species that cannot self sustain.

Drew, buddy...I've held my tongue half a dozen times now and no longer can. It's been explained every which-way I could imagine, but I'll try once more to see if I can get through.

The trout themselves may not be self-sustaining in most streams, but the trout programs ARE. The revenue from trout stamps and daily park fees pays for the hatcheries and the other aspects of the programs. MDC does not siphon off funds that would ordinarily be going toward management of any other species, native or not. It is an entity unto itself. Without trout stamps, there would be no trout; without trout, there would be no trout stamps. Ya know?

And since you got me talking, I'll add this...you know that I'm passionate about smallmouth...if I thought that the trout caused any kind of real impediment to smallmouth populations, I'd be an absolute opponent. But c'mon, if there is some encroachment taking place, it's in such trace amounts and in such a small percentage of total Ozark stream miles that it really is insignificant.

The trout aren't going anywhere...they're here to stay, barring some unforeseen government meltdown. So I suggest you embrace them, study the angles, and go after them. They're a cool species to learn and fish for, especially if you go at it with the long stick...it really is gratifying, and I was a hold-out, too.

And if you're really that concerned with returning Ozark streams to their natural state, I'd start petitioning for the demolition of the White River dams, which have posed a much greater detriment to excellent smallmouth habitat than a hundred miles or so of trout stocking has posed to marginal smallmouth habitat scattered throughout the state.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Okay, but why not have a small portion of the stream that is managed differently? What would it hurt to have a short area that has a more stable trout population? You just can't tell me what it would possibly hurt, and until you can answer that question I'm gonna have a hard time understanding where you're coming from.

There are resident trout year round in Hickory and Capps and as well as other White Ribbon streams. Are they easy to catch? Not in the least. And that is the challange. Don't you like a little challange???

I don't guess it would hurt anything to have a C&R section.

Of course it is not hurting anything by not having one either. Except adding to someone's daily trout count.

And since you got me talking, I'll add this...you know that I'm passionate about smallmouth...if I thought that the trout caused any kind of real impediment to smallmouth populations, I'd be an absolute opponent. But c'mon, if there is some encroachment taking place, it's in such trace amounts and in such a small percentage of total Ozark stream miles that it really is insignificant.

The trout aren't going anywhere...they're here to stay, barring some unforeseen government meltdown. So I suggest you embrace them, study the angles, and go after them. They're a cool species to learn and fish for, especially if you go at it with the long stick...it really is gratifying, and I was a hold-out, too.

The exact same can be said of the Spotted Bass. Sorry brother.

I will agree, I would love to see all the White River dams come down. But what would Babbler do????

[eric1978]

The exact same can be said of the Spotted Bass.

No it can't, you know it, and you know why. The encroachment of spotted bass is not insignificant...they are taking over entire river systems instead of being biologically confined to certain sections. Spots directly compete with smallmouth in prime smallmouth habitat. Any fisheries biologist would tell you the same, would they not? Otherwise your beloved MDC has made some strange decisions to stock trout but remove the limits on spots in non-native streams...explain that one.

[Outside Bend]

C'mon Chief...how can you reasonably say that?

How many miles of Missouri streams have gone from exclusively smallmouth to exclusively trout?

How many times have you seen trout and smallies spawning in the same time, at the same place?

If you quit stocking trout, most of the trout would go bye-bye. No one's stocking spots anymore.

How many smallmouth bass X trout hybrids have you seen finning in Ozark streams?

One the one hand, you have a species rapidly expanding its range and pushing out native smallmouth. On the other hand you have a species whose range is pretty static, and which, even if it did push out smallmouth, out-competed those native fish in a habitat which wasn't conducive for them in the first place. Those are vastly different scenarios.

[ozark trout fisher]

I will agree, I would love to see all the White River dams come down.

There. At least we agree on that, and I think that's as close as our opinions are going to get...

I guess I understand where you coming from now, I just disagree.That's fine though.

[Chief Grey Bear]

No it can't, you know it, and you know why. The encroachment of spotted bass is not insignificant...they are taking over entire river systems instead of being biologically confined to certain sections. Spots directly compete with smallmouth in prime smallmouth habitat. Any fisheries biologist would tell you the same, would they not? Otherwise your beloved MDC has made some strange decisions to stock trout but remove the limits on spots in non-native streams...explain that one.

It can. There is not one waterway in the State of Missouri that has been taken over by spots. Spots, while they do compete for the same food as smallmouth, are not as hard on the food source for the young fry as a trout. Trout eat a ton of microorganisms that are also what your beloved smallmouth fry eat.

All predator fish, bass, trout, crappie,.... all eat minnows, crawdads and perch, the most common source of forage in creeks. They all compete equally. If spotted bass ate so much, how come they don't get as big as brownies?

Trout were stocked in this state long before the MDC came into existence. They are just keeping with the tradition. And we are all enjoying it. I can't explain why the department would favor a non-native species over a native species. But that is just the mentality of those easterners.

[eric1978]

Trout eat a ton of microorganisms that are also what your beloved smallmouth fry eat.

Microorganisms? They don't have baleens.

Yes, the trout eat what my beloved smallmouth fry eat in the relatively few miles of water the trout inhabit. Whoop-dee-do. I'm not worried about that cold, infertile spring creek anyway...the smallies don't grow that big there.

I can't explain why the department would favor a non-native species over a native species. But that is just the mentality of those easterners.

Okay.

Sounds like you keep forgetting that spots are not native to every stream in MO. Maybe you should scroll back up and check out the lesson Drew was given on the difference between geography and geology.

Hey Brother, I'm just following MDC's lead...they seem to think smallmouth can handle competition with trout, but not competition with invasive spots, so if you're saying they're wrong, I guess we've found ourselves a first. I can just see the headline now..."Chief slams MDC for being run by a bunch of Eastern MO idiots!"