Middle meramec report

[Al Agnew]

23 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

How did you determine this? I would like to read  the data on this.

This is a speculation theory. It can't be  corroborated. But we do know that climate change has expanded the original territory of many birds, plants, fish, animals. But it can't be totally dismissed either. 

What about the Walleye? Largemouth bass? Goggle eye? Catfish? They are all competitors. There is more than enough forage for all to enjoy.  

I think if you ask any of the MDC biologists who have studied the Meramec river system they would tell you the same thing about spots outcompeting and outbreeding smallmouths in these streams where the habitat is good for spots but they weren't previously there.

My theory of spread up the Mississippi to the Meramec is speculation based upon evidence.  The evidence is the timeline of when they invaded the streams flowing into the Mississippi between the Diversion Channel and the Meramec.  They invaded those streams in order from south to north, reaching the Meramec last.  The spots in the Osage came from an apparent stocking, but is undocumented.  Spots in the Gasconade PROBABLY came from MDC stocking of the Loutre River, which flows into the Missouri River almost opposite the mouth of the Gasconade, but could have come from Osage River fish.

If climate change was the driver, the timeline would probably be different.  Climate change in Missouri didn't really become noticeable until after the spots had reached the Meramec.  There is a possibility that a warming climate would favor spotted bass over smallmouth, no doubt. But the shortening of the pathway by which these fish could reach the Meramec with the construction of the Diversion Channel, making that pathway usable by shortstopping the extreme silt load the Mississippi once carried out of the Missouri River (with the dams on the upper Missouri), and further making the pathway usable by cleaning up the worst of the pollution of the Mississippi, makes more sense as the main driver.  And don't forget, spotted bass were in the Osage river system back in the 1950s and 1960s, well before climate change really started taking effect.  So even back then the northern rivers were hospitable to them, yet they didn't reach the Meramec until around 1980.

Walleye, largemouth, and catfish utilize different ecological niches than smallmouth.  But along with goggle-eye, they also have always been in these rivers.  The smallmouth evolved to compete with them.  They did not evolve to compete with spotted bass, which use the exact same ecological niche as smallmouth in these streams.  And if you assume a carrying capacity of X number of pounds of forage biomass feeding Y number of pounds of predator biomass, when a new predator shows up, it must take part of the forage biomass utilized by the native predators.  It will take it from the species it competes with most directly.  With spotted bass, that is smallmouth.  But by the way, a couple of biologists I have discussed this with mentioned that they suspect the spots have also slightly decreased the population of largemouth as well.  And it isn't only just forage, it's also habitat, whether it be spawning habitat, wintering habitat, or something else.

[Chief Grey Bear]

23 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

I think if you ask any of the MDC biologists who have studied the Meramec river system they would tell you the same thing about spots outcompeting and outbreeding smallmouths in these streams where the habitat is good for spots but they weren't previously there.

I don't think they would. What would the criteria be and how would you study it? It would be impossible to prove one way or the other. 

I think what they will tell you is that conditions of the river have changed to more favorable for the Spots. 

23 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

My theory of spread up the Mississippi to the Meramec is speculation based upon evidence.  The evidence is the timeline of when they invaded the streams flowing into the Mississippi between the Diversion Channel and the Meramec.  They invaded those streams in order from south to north, reaching the Meramec last.  The spots in the Osage came from an apparent stocking, but is undocumented.  Spots in the Gasconade PROBABLY came from MDC stocking of the Loutre River, which flows into the Missouri River almost opposite the mouth of the Gasconade, but could have come from Osage River fish.

This another that is impossible to prove  hypothesis. Spots are native to the Ohio river system and the middle and lower Mississippi River. We've been on a warming trend since the last ice age, except for that little ice age, not a good time to be in Napoleon's army, and it has really accelerated in the last 30 some years. So they had to already be on the move to show up by your timeline. 

23 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

If climate change was the driver, the timeline would probably be different.  Climate change in Missouri didn't really become noticeable until after the spots had reached the Meramec.  There is a possibility that a warming climate would favor spotted bass over smallmouth, no doubt. But the shortening of the pathway by which these fish could reach the Meramec with the construction of the Diversion Channel, making that pathway usable by shortstopping the extreme silt load the Mississippi once carried out of the Missouri River (with the dams on the upper Missouri), and further making the pathway usable by cleaning up the worst of the pollution of the Mississippi, makes more sense as the main driver.  And don't forget, spotted bass were in the Osage river system back in the 1950s and 1960s, well before climate change really started taking effect.  So even back then the northern rivers were hospitable to them, yet they didn't reach the Meramec until around 1980.

It's no doubt that dams have lowered the silt load on the Missouri River. Man has all but destroyed that river! So yeah I can buy into that version of man having somewhat of an effect on them. 

 

23 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

Walleye, largemouth, and catfish utilize different ecological niches than smallmouth.  But along with goggle-eye, they also have always been in these rivers.  The smallmouth evolved to compete with them.  They did not evolve to compete with spotted bass, which use the exact same ecological niche as smallmouth in these streams.  

They all feed on the same diet. And for the most part, except for the Walleye, basically inhibit the same areas. Largemouth and catfish will also inhibit logjams, large rocks, ledges..etc....whatever provides shelter. They will all prowl the same areas during feeding times after dark. 

Granted, Smallmouth and Spots will inhibit somewhat more turbid waters than the others in some areas. But they all overlap.

23 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

And if you assume a carrying capacity of X number of pounds of forage biomass feeding Y number of pounds of predator biomass, when a new predator shows up, it must take part of the forage biomass utilized by the native predators.  It will take it from the species it competes with most directly.  With spotted bass, that is smallmouth.  

I've never heard of a shortage of any type forage in our steams. All pedator fish in the river have diets high in crawdads, sunfish, and various minnow species. Non of which are in any short supply in any stream. 

I would easily bet that for every pound of pedator fish in the stream in any given area, there is 100 times that amount in forage. 

23 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

But by the way, a couple of biologists I have discussed this with mentioned that they suspect the spots have also slightly decreased the population of largemouth as well.  And it isn't only just forage, it's also habitat, whether it be spawning habitat, wintering habitat, or something else.

And what drives that thought? How have they determined that Spots have decreased the largemouth population?

How would Spots change the habitat? 

[Chief Grey Bear]

I don't want to say, even though it sounds like I did, climate change is a driving factor but more of a contributing factor. 

I think there are a number of factors here. 

[fishinwrench]

In taking a turn away from all this crap that has to be proven to everyone's satisfaction......If the goal is to either create a better smallmouth fishery, or to sustain one that is presently good enough, then how (and why) does a person intentionally argue against the common sense that says IF the spotted bass weren't in there then the smallmouth population would be much better off?   

The only reason for debating that point has to be just for the sake of having something to argue about.    I'd much rather debate whether Zebra mussels are beneficial or detrimental to a fishery. At least there you truly don't know the outcome.  

To me the smallmouth/spotted bass thing is just plain common sense.  You can only grow so many chickens in the pen. So which breed of chicken do you want the most of ?  Really, the science and debating can stop right there because the outcome is 100% predictable.   Chicken farmers don't have to be that smart.  The longer they take to decide which chicken they want, the longer they go without a quality chicken farm.  

So everyone needs to make up their minds and get busy....before we're all dead.  This is why nothing related to wildlife management ever shows progress....Too much discussion, never any action.

*Throw the spots up on the bank or eat them.... Your choice, but get rid of them.

*Kill every feral hog you see, and eat them if you want also. But even if you don't, kill them anyway.

*Harvest more deer until the population is once again healthy and back under control.

And start TODAY.  That's how things get done!   Geeze!

Too much time is being spent wondering if we are smart enough YET to make decisions.  Once all the "problems" are dealt with.... then if you wanna tinker with Elk and crap like that, then fine.  But until then some genuine focus (on the issues at hand) would be nice.

[Chief Grey Bear]

5 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

In taking a turn away from all this crap that has to be proven to everyone's satisfaction......If the goal is to either create a better smallmouth fishery, or to sustain one that is presently good enough, then how (and why) does a person intentionally argue against the common sense that says IF the spotted bass weren't in there then the smallmouth population would be much better off?   

The only reason for debating that point has to be just for the sake of having something to argue about.    I'd much rather debate whether Zebra mussels are beneficial or detrimental to a fishery. At least there you truly don't know the outcome.  

To me the smallmouth/spotted bass thing is just plain common sense.  You can only grow so many chickens in the pen. So which breed of chicken do you want the most of ?  Really, the science and debating can stop right there because the outcome is 100% predictable.   Chicken farmers don't have to be that smart.  The longer they take to decide which chicken they want, the longer they go without a quality chicken farm.  

So everyone needs to make up their minds and get busy....before we're all dead.  This is why nothing related to wildlife management ever shows progress....Too much discussion, never any action.

*Throw the spots up on the bank or eat them.... Your choice, but get rid of them.

*Kill every feral hog you see, and eat them if you want also. But even if you don't, kill them anyway.

*Harvest more deer until the population is once again healthy and back under control.

And start TODAY.  That's how things get done!   Geeze!

Too much time is being spent wondering if we are smart enough YET to make decisions.  Once all the "problems" are dealt with.... then if you wanna tinker with Elk and crap like that, then fine.  But until then some genuine focus (on the issues at hand) would be nice.

This why you are probably best to stick in your little garage tinkering.

 I think Al and I enjoy this little back and forth discussion. It keeps us entertained.

[fishinwrench]

You and Al huh?  

Al keeps coming up with different ways to say the same thing, and you keep coming up with ways to keep him doing it.   

[Chief Grey Bear]

I  literally laughed out loud at that.

That is pretty spot on. No pun intended. 

[XP 590]

5 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

I  literally laughed out loud at that.

That is pretty spot on. No pun intended. 

Dang, you guys all sound like you're actually buddies!?

[fishinwrench]

27 minutes ago, XP 590 said:

Dang, you guys all sound like you're actually buddies!?

More like brothers that can't stand each other.   He pops me upside the head when my back is turned, and when he isn't looking I spit in his beer.   

When the SHTF though we know where we need to be.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Exactly. 

 I just like riling him up every now and then. 

As for Al, I've been trying to get him to  accept my challenge to Indian leg wrestle on a gravel bar on the upper Turnback.