What Do You Think

[FishinCricket]

Oh, look.. Captain Obvious (and his sidekick, the Tresspass Kid) strike again!! lol

[drew03cmc]

Interesting. I made two posts and not 4 pages of them. This wasn't a debate it was a civil discussion and a clarification of the regulations and a possible illegal harvest. You many not agree with the proposed regulations, but that does not make your opinion any less self serving than any other.

This instance is unsettling because it is close to the Blue Ribbon stretch. I do think that some brown's move up into the park...especially in this heat and certainly during spawning time. Maybe not all the way from Baptist, but it does happen. It seems counterproductive to have it managed this way when brown's move back and forth between the two areas. Safe in one area and white jig in the stomach in another. It seems inconsistent to me.

We are all aware what trout parks are for...and rainbows in those parks are stocked to catch and eat. I think that is fine for those that want to do that. Brown's are not managed or stocked that way in any area.

I would disagree that all regulations would need to be changed as it seems to me that Montauk and the Current are unique enough in both the setup and potential to be managed differently than a blanket regulation. Taney is if my understanding is correct. I think it could simply be better...for everyone. This would included better management of those smallie streams that may be overpopulated in your area.

All trout stocked in Missouri are stocked with the intention of being a sport fish for someone to fry up. Quit putting these invasive species on a pedestal. Why couldn't the state have stocked something that at least belongs in this hemisphere? Brown trout do not belong here and should not be treated as sacred cows.

[laker67]

As I had suspected all along (being a highly skilled white jig park fisherman myself, I was completely taken aback by all the accusations on here... If I was stringing fish I would have had one or two days like that myself!)... But it does make me wonder... I've never met a highly skilled trophy trout fisherman that actually kept the lunkers... Wonder why he's keeping them?

Quite a few of these skilled spin rodders are derby oriented. By that, I mean they actually travel from park to park for the derbys. Some even have their sons doing the kids derby. They are good at what they do, and most all, keep "all" fish. They use a variety of offerings, including bait. A dough bait made from trout food and cream cheese is highly effective for them. They use jigs, but seldom use white. White is mainly for the intentional snaggers. That comment is not directed to you FC. Merely a statement. As far as tropy hunters keeping fish, we do on occasion. I use to trade lunkers to Bob Ellsworth taxidermy shop for free mounts. He would use the fish I gave him to advertise his business. Over the years, I haved kept 27 lunkers for one reason or another. That is about a 2 to 3% kill rate.

[laker67]

To stlfisher and Kayser, I am certainly not opposed to changing and modifying some regs. But in all fairness to the park fisherman it is not likely to happen. Same thing could apply to rainbows moving out of the trophy area. Isn't there a length limit on them as well? I am in favor of a statewide limit of one brown per day, and a statewide lenth limit as well. I just can't see it ever happening though. The parks generate enough MDC monies to maintain the streams.

[stlfisher]

To stlfisher and Kayser, I am certainly not opposed to changing and modifying some regs. But in all fairness to the park fisherman it is not likely to happen. Same thing could apply to rainbows moving out of the trophy area. Isn't there a length limit on them as well? I am in favor of a statewide limit of one brown per day, and a statewide lenth limit as well. I just can't see it ever happening though. The parks generate enough MDC monies to maintain the streams.

I agree I doubt we will see any changes and the trout parks are managed as put and take...lot's of anglers enjoy that. There are plenty of fish and fisherman should be able to harvest some trout. It just seems a little inconsistent to me in the Montauk/Current area regarding the browns which seem to create more interest and excitement among anglers. Rainbows are managed as one fish over 18 in the blue ribbon stretch so yes they are managed the same way as browns in the Blue Ribbon stretch. The main difference between the two would be rainbows don't have any length limits inside of the park and there are vastly more of them. I think the spread in the Blue Ribbon Stretch is 70% rainbows above Baptist and 30% brown trout mostly below Baptist although they migrate quite a bit. Anyway, good luck fishing.

[stlfisher]

All trout stocked in Missouri are stocked with the intention of being a sport fish for someone to fry up. Quit putting these invasive species on a pedestal. Why couldn't the state have stocked something that at least belongs in this hemisphere? Brown trout do not belong here and should not be treated as sacred cows.

Your views on trout in Missouri are well documented. Keep making the same argument if you wish. Keep trying to steer the thread in the direction you want it to go. I don't care to go down that road again. You are right each night I crawl into my trout shaped bed and pray to the trout buddha before dreaming up ways to ruin smallmouth fishing in Missouri.

[troutfiend1985]

All trout stocked in Missouri are stocked with the intention of being a sport fish for someone to fry up. Quit putting these invasive species on a pedestal. Why couldn't the state have stocked something that at least belongs in this hemisphere? Brown trout do not belong here and should not be treated as sacred cows.

Glad that opinion of fish didn't overtake Crane in the 1880's, Drew, or we would be missing out on a real jewel. Also, I think Lilley might be singing a different tune if the roles were reversed, and Taney had a fabulous trout stream, but big browns in a "put and take" area next to the outlets. What I cannot get here is how we are missing on the idea of conservation, for Christ’s sake it's in the MDC's freaking name. Look, less stocking and more regulations for C&R with an appropriate amount of enforcement equals less cost on MDC. Somehow that idea either offends Missouri tax payers, or we put this "exotic/non-native" stamp on them and ignore the fact that people do buy out of state tags for trout, not so much for smallmouth or largemouth, but for trout, either stocked or wild. I do, and I know a few friends who specifically buy out of state permits only for trout in streams that are either in the Blue ribbons or red ribbon areas. Trout are a breadwinner for the MDC in the fishing department, and brown trout are a real treat, get over it as it does not mean other species are less worthy of protection. For some reason guys on here act like we can't set rules that make sense for all species without sacrificing their favorite species or honey hole, it can be done, but it takes some changes. IT's like the difference between a gas guzzling SUV and a Chevy Cruz, one may not be so cool to drive but the idea of driving one makes a heck of a lot more sense than driving the other. I've been a big critic of the MDC, especially with their management of the white ribbon areas, but to see the white ribbon regulations effect a blue ribbon stream is a freaking disgrace and waste of taxpayer money.

[eric1978]

All trout stocked in Missouri are stocked with the intention of being a sport fish for someone to fry up. Quit putting these invasive species on a pedestal. Why couldn't the state have stocked something that at least belongs in this hemisphere? Brown trout do not belong here and should not be treated as sacred cows.

Funny how you're okay with some invasive species, but vehemently opposed to others. So let me get it straight...invasives are fine as long as they're not dumped directly into the river by a truck or through hatchery gates? Invasions caused by indirect or unintentional human intervention don't count? Or is it a matter of geography? Invasives are okay if they naturally occupy streams a hundred miles away but not a thousand miles away? Native is native and non-native is non-native. You can't be against one and not another, unless you have a good reason...like I do. And here's that reason...

Trout are far less "invasive" than spotted bass, considering trout can't reproduce in the vast majority of river miles in MO...especially browns. The spots spread like Bubonic Plague and occupy river habitat that is already in use by other game species. Trout populations pose far less of a threat to native species than spotted bass, since in most cases they occupy generally gamefish-vacant sections of river, and additionally, if we ever see they're causing a problem, we can just stop stocking them and they'll all but disappear over time.

I'm happy we have the trout. They give us something to do during the winter and they don't substantially compete with native gamefish. Win win.

Let these guys have their debate. We know the trout aren't going anywhere, the question is how do we manage them to maximize the fun we get out of it, same as the smallmouth debate.

[FishinCricket]

But, Eric.. The spring water that the trout occupy is the same spring water that the Smallmouth use as sanctuary during the cold months... This HAS to have an impact on a smallies habitat/ability to feed/etc...

(just pokin, don't mind me... Let's go feeshin boys! )

[Trout Commander]

But, Eric.. The spring water that the trout occupy is the same spring water that the Smallmouth use as sanctuary during the cold months... This HAS to have an impact on a smallies ability to feed

(just pokin, don't mind me... Let's go feeshin boys! )

I'm sure your Niangua smallies enjoy eating trout just the same as all of those smallies you guys stuck on the NFOW on rainbow colored Rapalas.