Bull Shoals Conservation Pool

[Wayne SW/MO]

I see that SW Power is showing 661 for the Bull now. Have they added the 5' to the lake?

[Jerry Rapp]

http://www.swl-wc.usace.army.mil/pages/reports/remote/lakfcst.htm

I bet 661.6 is summer pool, and winter pool is 5 ft. lower to help catch spring rains.

[Dutch]

I know it is in the works but haven't heard of its taking effect yet. That is probably going to change a lot of things down there. A whole new world may open up for fishermen.

[Wayne SW/MO]

http://www.swl-wc.usace.army.mil/pages/reports/remote/lakfcst.htm

I bet 661.6 is summer pool, and winter pool is 5 ft. lower to help catch spring rains.

Don't believe so. It was 654 for most of its history, then they moved it to 656 for some reason. I thought maybe they had decided that 2' would be enough to make the trout happy after 60 years of suffering. When I checked the level yesterday I noticed the pool was listed as 661, 5' above the 656 that had been listed and 7' feet above the original.

[Sam]

I always figured around 653/654 was "normal", then several years ago there was talk that a decision had been made to bring the permanent lake level up about 8 feet, which is where we are now. With that in mind, I couldn't figure why improvements were made afterward that would go underwater with the new plan.

At the Highway K launch area potholes were fixed and both the "low road" and the "high road" were paved, half the parking lot was paved, and before that a courtesy dock was added. All those except the high road are now underwater and will stay that way while the lake is 661 and above. Makes me wonder if the left hand knew what the right hand was doing when they were spending money on improvements there.

[Forsythian]

It was always my understanding that the new "normal" was going to be 654 ft + 5 ft = 659 ft to achieve the minimum flow.

K dock access, along with Slough Hollow Road and several other areas were improved with 659 ft in mind. What a cluster.

[Wayne SW/MO]

It was always my understanding that the new "normal" was going to be 654 ft + 5 ft = 659 ft to achieve the minimum flow.

That was my understanding also, but then they quietly raised the listed conservation pool to 656, I believe it was.

I still think the trade off, the loss of crop land, bank fishing opportunities, loss of campgrounds more often and the expense of moving some infrastructure, to overcome a problem for a non native fish that has survived for 60+ years and produce world records has to questionable. Makes one wonder if it is in fact the real goal?

[Sam]

I thought maybe they had decided that 2' would be enough to make the trout happy after 60 years of suffering.

Trout? You mean they changed the level of Bull Shoals for TROUT?

I always thought Taneycomo was for trout. Dump the stockers in from a truck, let the tourists catch 4 of the little tame things with Powerbait in between Branson shows (good times, woo-hoo), and the ones that wash over the dam into Bull Shoals are for fattening walleyes and stripers. Works for me.

Shows what I know, huh?

[Wayne SW/MO]

Not what I heard Sam, apparently the trout in the White below BS have been barely hanging on for the last 60+ years. I haven't heard that Norfolk will be raised so the ones below Norfolk are doing fine, apparently.

[Sam]

Not what I heard Sam, apparently the trout in the White below BS have been barely hanging on for the last 60+ years.

Oh, OK. I understand now - I thought you meant those trout that get washed over Powersite Dam and hang around the mouth of Swan Creek.

I know that's quite a trout fishery in the White below B.S. Dam. I guess by storing extra water in Bull Shoals they'll be able to release more into the White River in dry times when it's needed to keep the river from dropping too much. That makes sense, I guess.

For the rest of Bull Shoals, I actually like the lake level where it is now at 661' or so. It doesn't hurt that I've fished the upper part so much when the level was low and far below 653' that now I know what's down there that can't be seen.