Report 4-5-15

[Kayser]

While I don't think the upper Current is a "giant factory" like the tailwaters, I have seen a brown that would have pushed the 20lb mark, hard. I've had my hands on one over 15lbs before for comparison, and also saw a 17lb up close and personal (different river, etc). Been a while, and I haven't been that way in a few years, but there were always a few double-digit fish in a certain stretch. Saw one or two every year, but never got them in. I blame my stubbornness.

I repeat- the issue is NOT food abundance or overcrowding. It's harvest. Protect the browns, and you'll see a lot more real trophy-sized fish. I fish other places, and you'll never find a keeper near an access- they just aren't there. Similar looking water, or even worse looking, but further away? Nice fish. Easier access = less fish.

Hell, I might make my last trip this spring to Parker, just to throw big nasties and see what an area with little wading pressure looks like. If it's hot enough, maybe even the dive mask and a gopro!

[ozark trout fisher]

There is not an overpopulation of trout on the Current. Given known fishing pressure, catch and release is working. Taking a 16 -20 inch fish legally out this PARTICULAR fishery would do massive harm. Plus, there is no guarantee that the Current could even grow a 20 lb fish. In general, aquatic environment dictates size, regardless of human intervention.

I understand what you are saying, and where "you are coming from." I just don't think it is sensible for the upper Current.

Yep. I don't see the Current as a fishery that has potential to be a record-book factory. It's basically a good-sized spring creek...good for holding decent numbers of trout, and plenty of good ones. But let's not pretend we're talking about the White River here. The amount of holding water is pretty darned limited at low summer/fall flows, and some sections can get a little warmish. It's a very good trout stream all things considered, but it generally doesn't possess many of the qualities you'd expect to produce a hog-factory.

There might be some management tweaks that would be helpful (figuring out a way to offer some protection for the browns that migrate into the park due to warm water comes to mind) but in all I think the numbers indicate that the fishery is pretty close to its ceiling. The only way we're going to see huge improvements to size/numbers is if we can string together a couple of cool, wet summers.

[BruteFish83]

Yep. I don't see the Current as a fishery that has potential to be a record-book factory. It's basically a good-sized spring creek...good for holding decent numbers of trout, and plenty of good ones. But let's not pretend we're talking about the White River here. The amount of holding water is pretty darned limited at low summer/fall flows, and some sections can get a little warmish. It's a very good trout stream all things considered, but it generally doesn't possess many of the qualities you'd expect to produce a hog-factory.

I have to disagree totally with you here. It's not just a good size spring creek. I've been to a fair number of spring creeks supporting trout across the country and fished all of them in Missouri. The UC is the most fertile and geologically unique, hands down. It has the most optimal growing conditions for brown trout, which is ironic considering it can't sustain natural reproduction. It's also a fact that growth rates for browns are highest in spring creeks rather than in rivers, lakes or non-spring fed streams. I'm certainly not faulting our conservation department, but I think the stream is managed more so for revenue purposes rather than to grow larger trout, even though it easily could be.

[BruteFish83]

This has a been a very amicable and interesting discussion. There's one last point that I need to bring up. The majority of the anglers on this post seem to be pleased with how the UC is fishing. If we go way back to the beginning of this post, it was mentioned how an 18" fish was seen being taken. I'd be willing to bet that it wasn't this person's first harvest either, so evidently, anglers are in fact taking legal fish. Couldn't we attribute this to the good quality of the fishing?

[ozark trout fisher]

BruteFish

I can't say I disagree with anything in your last post. What I still don't quite understand is how removing 18-20 inch trout would help.

What you're saying is that the Current River is extremely fertile, and thus has the potential for fast growth of brown trout. I don't think anyone is going to argue with on that point. But doesn't that kind of contradict the idea that the population needs to be managed at relatively low levels in order to produce large fish? I guess my question is, exactly what resource do you think competition is currently limiting right now that reduces the growth rates/survival of fish in the "trophy" size classes?

I think there is one real limiting factor in the Current River in terms of producing huge browns. I think the biggest factor would be the limited amount of holding water that is adequate for truly large fish at the dead-low water levels we often see August-October. There just aren't that many places suitable for these 25-30 inch browns we're talking about at this time of year. So when I say the Current will never be a "trophy factory" that's what I mean. It's capable of producing a very small number of huge trout, or a decent number of very nice trout (18 inches-mid 20s) but I don't think we can have both.

You have to think about this from the MDC's perspective, and the management objectives they have to weigh. You can certainly manage the Current for huge trout, but because of size it will never be the White River, where the numbers are enough to build a whole fishing culture around big brown trout. Right now, you have a stream with about 20% of the brown trout above 18 inches, and that's a very strong number by any standard. I also am confident that the vast majority of the anglers on the Current River are going to be excited as hell with anything in the 18-20 inch range, and certainly aren't going to be asking where all the 25 inchers are. I think what the MDC is doing right now is managing the river for the anglers who like catching good numbers of smallish rainbows, as well as having a constant and very real opportunity of hooking into a brown trout that may not be a hang-it-on-the-wall trophy, but is nonetheless a trip-maker for 95% of fisherman who use the river. We're balancing that against sacrificing a number of the "good trout" to have a few more honest to goodness pigs to be targeted by a small percentage of anglers. From a pleasing the most people perspective (which is the only perspective that counts when you are talking about a non-native fishery), it doesn't look like a particularly hard choice.

As to your last point on how harvesting could be a positive impact on the fishery...I don't think there's any evidence to say that. I also think, that compared to almost any non-C&R fishery anywhere, harvest is extremely low on the Current, even as a % of legal trout. I've seen a lot of legal sized trout taken on the Current (alas, usually by someone else) and I can't immediately recall any of them getting strung up. It happens, but I don't think legal harvest right now is enough to have a huge impact (positive or negative) on the population dynamics. I'm open to being proven wrong.

[BruteFish83]

What I still don't quite understand is how removing 18-20 inch trout would help.

What you're saying is that the Current River is extremely fertile, and thus has the potential for fast growth of brown trout. I don't think anyone is going to argue with on that point. But doesn't that kind of contradict the idea that the population needs to be managed at relatively low levels in order to produce large fish? I guess my question is, exactly what resource do you think competition is currently limiting right now that reduces the growth rates/survival of fish in the "trophy" size classes?

To answer your question, "as the brown trout grows it needs to exploit larger food particles in greater quantity." Jenkins & Burkhead, 1993.th. (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Klemetsen, et al., 2003)Jenki th. (Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993; Klemetsen, et al., 2003)JenkJenjjjjddlJI'mJJe

There's only so many large food items in that section of stream - which is what a big fish needs to get bigger. It can't get bigger if that 82% class takes that resource.

IO

[BruteFish83]

We're balancing that against sacrificing a number of the "good trout" to have a few more honest to goodness pigs to be targeted by a small percentage of anglers. From a pleasing the most people perspective (which is the only perspective that counts when you are talking about a non-native fishery), it doesn't look like a particularly hard choice.

I totally agree with this. Why not manage the Upper Meramec then, which is also unique and prolific, as a designated fishery for the more novice angler whose not necessarily trying to hunt a trophy? Manage the section of the Current outside the park like you would a triple black diamond ski slope. I think it's too delicate of an ecosystem to not manage it this way.

[Alex Heitman]

Just so you guys know the current River used to hold the state record trout many times. Not anymore but it once did.

[Gavin]

Appreciate what you have. That creak produces lots of 5-8lb brown trout and you have total access to it. No guide or boat needed. It's as good as you will find anywhere. If it disappoints you, change your game. The better fish are not easy.

[BruteFish83]

Appreciate what you have. That creak produces lots of 5-8lb brown trout and you have total access to it. No guide or boat needed. It's as good as you will find anywhere. If it disappoints you, change your game. The better fish are not easy.

I never said I was I disappointed and didn't appreciate what I have - don't put words in my mouth. We're simply having a discussion here about whether or not targeting the 18-19" class for harvest purposes would potentially yield bigger fish.