Report 4-5-15

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

Heres the problem: the Meramec is simply not a good trout stream for any classification of angler in its present state. Why should the "trophy hunters" who are a significant minority, have the possible best stream in the state managed for them exclusively, while the rest of us get marginal water to fish? Not choosing to target the biggest fish in the river all the time does not make one a "novice." It's just that everyone tends to go about things differently, and value different aspects of a fishery.

Wouldn't it be better to compromise with such a fishery in a way that produces good numbers AND a high percentage over 18 inches? I don't like the idea of either camp having a lock on a fishery that should be managed for more than one type of angler.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "it's too delicate of an ecosystem not to manage it this way." Why is having a few very large trout inherently more valuable than producing high quality fishing for the rest of us? Right now, there are a whole lot of people that think that this fishery is very valuable, and is being managed in a way that is working very well for us. I think a lot of those people are ones that target pig browns. I just don't see a lack of big fish (unless, again, you have White Riveresque dreams dancing around your head) being a problem at all. I may not catch them, but I do see them, especially when I'm not fishing and just carefully observing (something I find myself doing almost as much as the fishing lately.) They are there, and in as good of numbers as you could reasonably expect.

[mister]

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

The large number of minnows in the river seems to indicate there's plenty of "larger food particles" for the existing population of trout, so I don't understand why you insist on saying that reducing the trout population will cause the remaining fish to grow bigger than they otherwise would, resulting in a fishery with more large fish.

[ozark trout fisher]

By the way, I just want to say I've thoroughly enjoyed this thread. Ideally this is what all conservation-related threads would be....civil debates with the arguments of both sides based at least loosely on solid scientific information. After so many of the gigging/C&R/spotted bass threads have devolved into I-don't-know-what (as much through my fault as any) this is really nice.

[BruteFish83]

Heres the problem: the Meramec is simply not a good trout stream for any classification of angler in its present state. Why should the "trophy hunters" who are a significant minority, have the possible best stream in the state managed for them exclusively, while the rest of us get marginal water to fish? Not choosing to target the biggest fish in the river all the time does not make one a "novice." It's just that everyone tends to go about things differently, and value different aspects of a fishery.

Wouldn't it be better to compromise with such a fishery in a way that produces good numbers AND a high percentage over 18 inches? I don't like the idea of either camp having a lock on a fishery that should be managed for more than one type of angler.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "it's too delicate of an ecosystem not to manage it this way." Why is having a few very large trout inherently more valuable than producing high quality fishing for the rest of us? Right now, there are a whole lot of people that think that this fishery is very valuable, and is being managed in a way that is working very well for us. I think a lot of those people are ones that target pig browns. I just don't see a lack of big fish (unless, again, you have White Riveresque dreams dancing around your head) being a problem at all. I may not catch them, but I do see them, especially when I'm not fishing and just carefully observing (something I find myself doing almost as much as the fishing lately.) They are there, and in as good of numbers as you could reasonably expect.

I think we can both agree that the largest concentration of browns is in the stretch above baptist. That's most likely because of the incredible food source and the stream bed composition. When I say "too delicate of an ecosystem", I just think that the amount anglers I see wading down that little stretch, kicking up rocks and sediment and crowfoot [habitat], cannot be good for the health of that stream. It's a section of stream that gets floated down seldom, and trudged down often. Not that this would ever happen, but limiting the amount of anglers per day would be the only way to remedy this. Subsequently,I think there would be a greater food source for trout.

You're right though, the river shouldn't be managed to accommodate one kind of angler. I do think, however, that a feasible solution to growing more large trout could be as simple as making the limit an 18-20" slot. I've read about other conservation departments using this method to grow larger fish. You say that a shortage of 20+ fish is not an issue, but if you watch a fairly recent fish survey from that stretch by the MDC, a shortage is mentioned - so this does have a tendency to be an issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jeOv2WbCQ.

Again, I'm not disappointed or ungrateful, I'm just very curious and hopeful as to the size of fish that this creek could potentially support if some tweaks in management were made. I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to accommodate all types of anglers. I don't think the UC should be comparable to the White, but rather Depuy, Nelson's and Silver creeks while still remaining a public fishery.

[joeD]

NO NO NO. Limiting anglers on a public stream is pretentious at best, dangerous at worst.

PLEASE. Look at the Current, Brute. It is an absolute spectacular trout stream in the middle of Missouri that, year in, year out, fishing pressure out the wazoo, droughts, floods, you name it, still produces quality fish. I can't say enough for the MDC and others who have managed this fickle and difficult and beguiling and rewarding stream. It is an unequivocal gem of trout fishing that most trout fishermen in the US know nothing about. I would say that 5-8-10 pound brownies are generally the max. On this stream, one could not ask for more. So don't.

[ozark trout fisher]

I think we can both agree that the largest concentration of browns is in the stretch above baptist. That's most likely because of the incredible food source and the stream bed composition. When I say "too delicate of an ecosystem", I just think that the amount anglers I see wading down that little stretch, kicking up rocks and sediment and crowfoot [habitat], cannot be good for the health of that stream. It's a section of stream that gets floated down seldom, and trudged down often. Not that this would ever happen, but limiting the amount of anglers per day would be the only way to remedy this. Subsequently,I think there would be a greater food source for trout.

You're right though, the river shouldn't be managed to accommodate one kind of angler. I do think, however, that a feasible solution to growing more large trout could be as simple as making the limit an 18-20" slot. I've read about other conservation departments using this method to grow larger fish. You say that a shortage of 20+ fish is not an issue, but if you watch a fairly recent fish survey from that stretch by the MDC, a shortage is mentioned - so this does have a tendency to be an issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jeOv2WbCQ.

Again, I'm not disappointed or ungrateful, I'm just very curious and hopeful as to the size of fish that this creek could potentially support if some tweaks in management were made. I see no reason why it wouldn't continue to accommodate all types of anglers. I don't think the UC should be comparable to the White, but rather Depuy, Nelson's and Silver creeks while still remaining a public fishery.

I appreciate what you're getting at. It's just...I can't agree. In many ways, those three spring-creeks you listed as examples (and especially the first two) represent what is wrong with fly fishing. When you think of those creeks you think exclusivity, you think about "experts" with plenty of money and split-cane rods presenting dry-flies only to rising trout. Nothing wrong with that kind of angling, and nothing wrong with shooting for that on a private stream. But the Current represents the epitome of a public river, starting in a state park, spending the rest of its life in a national park. This is the river that so many (including myself) have gone to learn how to fly fish for trout, to decide to head down there on a moment's notice, pitch a tent, and spend a couple days on the river tossing egg patterns to stupid rainbows. Not to put too fine a point on it, but for everyone that is targeting huge browns and wants a "highly technical" experience, there are a whole bunch of us who are just there to enjoy a beautiful river and hopefully catch a few trout.

If you try to limit anglers and begin to manage this like a Paradise Valley spring creek, you're going to have a lot of very disappointed anglers at best, and some people simply refusing to go along with it at worst.

[Jeff Tief]

Started fishing Montauk and the upper Current a long time ago and have caught a lot of browns over 18" in both. First stumbled into the big bunches of browns coming into the park in high temp and lower water conditions in 1995. Having started fishing that park in the later 60's, don't know how how I missed finding these fish.I Was talked to Darrell one day when he used to work at Reed's Cabins and they still had their monthly tournament.They gave out a trophy to the biggest fish turned in each month along with pictures of all the entries.Some of the lads were taking limits of browns 18" up on a regular basis. Didn't find many browns in the park during those times even though the water conditions were similar.