Meanwhile back at the ranch

[Hog Wally]

24 minutes ago, BilletHead said:

  I like the passion you guys have fro your brown bass. Tell me is there a lack of them in the river or a lack of big ones? Now to the walleye. Is there more brown bass than walleye? I am betting that may be the case.  If so why not catch and release for them and the flathead?                                                                                                                                                                                    BilletHead

Only a select few of us release a walleye, numbers are good on brown bass( could always be better) flatheads, numbers are okay but giants are far and few between.  I caught a 42 lb near my house.  Have never seen or heard of one that big below 30 bridge from a reliable source.  

[Flyguide7]

There are plenty of smallmouth in the river, I must have caught 30 of them on Sunday. River smallmouth are a different fish than lake fish I catch in Michigan. Smallmouth in either environment take a long time to grow. I caught a tagged fish in Michigan. It was  16" long and was 16 years old. I did weigh three pounds.

i would venture to guess that a typical Meramec River smallie was a similar growth rate in terms of length. The weights would be different since it is harder in river current to pack on the pounds. I say that to say this. The smallmouth are there but if we want larger fish the bag limit should be changed to be based on a slot length, or a no kill regulation. But if the regulations are not enforced then all the regulations in the world would be of no effect.

[Al Agnew]

Yep, if you want more big fish no matter what species, you have to protect the big fish you have, and the ones approaching big fish size.  If you want more fish, period, you have to protect the fish you have.  Stocking more fish isn't the answer, unless and until you are sure of the genetics of the fish that are already there, and can reproduce fish with the same genetics.  Stocking of walleye got us into messes that ended up in screwing up the superior genetics of the fish we had.  I've mentioned this before, but in streams that had native Ozark strain walleye that were dammed, such as Stockton and Greers Ferry, fisheries managers thought they needed to stock walleye to boost the reservoir populations.  But the walleye they stocked were from up north, where the genetics were different, and the stockers diluted the genetics of the native fish, with the result that the numbers of big fish and maximum size of the fish dropped.  There was a time when everybody was convinced the next world record would come from an Ozark lake (or actually the streams above the lakes) and state records fell as the native river fish found improved forage in the big lakes and grew very large.  But soon, the spawning runs up the rivers above the lakes slowed to a trickle, and the big fish disappeared.  The stockers were lake spawners, and outcompeted the native fish in the reservoirs.

MDC learned their lesson, and when they decided to stock fish in the St. Francis River, where there had once been a good population of native walleye that had disappeared over the years, they captured native walleye from the next river over, the Black, and grew their stockers from those fish.

As for Meramec walleye, they may have different genetics from the walleye farther south and west, because they don't seem to ever reach that 15 pound plus size that the native walleye of the south-flowing streams can reach.  But still, any stocking must be fish of the same genetics, unless you really want to gamble and stock those native walleye of the south-flowing streams in an attempt to IMPROVE genetics.  That's usually frowned upon by fisheries managers these days.

Hog Wally knows far more about Meramec walleye that anybody I know.  Even talking to him has really opened my eyes about the walleye fishery on the Meramec; I can still count on the fingers of both hands the number of Meramec walleye I've accidentally caught over the years (and still have a finger or two left over).  Yet he shows that it's possible to target these fish and be successful, so there is certainly a viable population in the river.  It just takes a lot of knowledge to find them and catch them.  I'm glad he doesn't give away all his walleye secrets.

The thing is that walleye have never been really numerous on Ozark streams.  Population densities have always been low for as long as there have been records kept, with a few notable exceptions, like the explosion of walleye that happened around the dam at Osceola soon after Lake of the Ozarks filled.  One year, massive numbers of walleye looking to spawn in the river above the lake (which were the offspring of fish that had spawned in the river before the lake filled) stacked up below the low dam at Osceola, where they were caught by the boxcar loads.

Anyway, it's doubtful that the numbers of native river fish could really be multiplied by stocking, since apparently the habitat limits those numbers.  But catch and release needs to catch on when it comes to walleye, if you want bigger fish, along with regulations protecting the bigger fish.  The walleye is a great food fish up north, but here, in my opinion, it should be managed not for eating but for producing the kind of fish that the genetics could make possible--fish over 15 pounds, fish up to 25 pounds or more....true trophies, not skillet fare. 

[fishinwrench]

8 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

 

MDC learned their lesson

No they didn't, or they wouldn't still be stocking hybrid stripers into lakes that have a native White Bass population.  

Once you jack up the gene pool of native fish there's no fixing it.  

[fishinwrench]

13 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

 One year, massive numbers of walleye looking to spawn in the river above the lake (which were the offspring of fish that had spawned in the river before the lake filled) stacked up below the low dam at Osceola, where they were caught by the boxcar loads.

Does anybody here know about the Truman "back pump disaster" back in the '70's?  I don't, but I've heard about it from the old-timers.  Apparently they did some kinda back pump thing to help clear debris at the dam during the walleye migration and ended up hauling out dead fish by the dump truck loads.  Lots and LOTS of Walleye.  People were outraged and all the old timers HATE Truman dam (and the lake) after that.    

[fishinwrench]

I don't think C&R of walleye will ever become a thing.   I know that I myself only get excited about a good sized walleye in the sense of...."Oh, this one is gonna taste GOOD !"

If I did much C&R of walleye I probably wouldn't have any fingers left.  It's a good thing that I don't catch very many.

[Flyguide7]

6 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Yep, if you want more big fish no matter what species, you have to protect the big fish you have, and the ones approaching big fish size.  If you want more fish, period, you have to protect the fish you have.  Stocking more fish isn't the answer, unless and until you are sure of the genetics of the fish that are already there, and can reproduce fish with the same genetics.  Stocking of walleye got us into messes that ended up in screwing up the superior genetics of the fish we had.  I've mentioned this before, but in streams that had native Ozark strain walleye that were dammed, such as Stockton and Greers Ferry, fisheries managers thought they needed to stock walleye to boost the reservoir populations.  But the walleye they stocked were from up north, where the genetics were different, and the stockers diluted the genetics of the native fish, with the result that the numbers of big fish and maximum size of the fish dropped.  There was a time when everybody was convinced the next world record would come from an Ozark lake (or actually the streams above the lakes) and state records fell as the native river fish found improved forage in the big lakes and grew very large.  But soon, the spawning runs up the rivers above the lakes slowed to a trickle, and the big fish disappeared.  The stockers were lake spawners, and outcompeted the native fish in the reservoirs.

MDC learned their lesson, and when they decided to stock fish in the St. Francis River, where there had once been a good population of native walleye that had disappeared over the years, they captured native walleye from the next river over, the Black, and grew their stockers from those fish.

As for Meramec walleye, they may have different genetics from the walleye farther south and west, because they don't seem to ever reach that 15 pound plus size that the native walleye of the south-flowing streams can reach.  But still, any stocking must be fish of the same genetics, unless you really want to gamble and stock those native walleye of the south-flowing streams in an attempt to IMPROVE genetics.  That's usually frowned upon by fisheries managers these days.

Hog Wally knows far more about Meramec walleye that anybody I know.  Even talking to him has really opened my eyes about the walleye fishery on the Meramec; I can still count on the fingers of both hands the number of Meramec walleye I've accidentally caught over the years (and still have a finger or two left over).  Yet he shows that it's possible to target these fish and be successful, so there is certainly a viable population in the river.  It just takes a lot of knowledge to find them and catch them.  I'm glad he doesn't give away all his walleye secrets.

The thing is that walleye have never been really numerous on Ozark streams.  Population densities have always been low for as long as there have been records kept, with a few notable exceptions, like the explosion of walleye that happened around the dam at Osceola soon after Lake of the Ozarks filled.  One year, massive numbers of walleye looking to spawn in the river above the lake (which were the offspring of fish that had spawned in the river before the lake filled) stacked up below the low dam at Osceola, where they were caught by the boxcar loads.

Anyway, it's doubtful that the numbers of native river fish could really be multiplied by stocking, since apparently the habitat limits those numbers.  But catch and release needs to catch on when it comes to walleye, if you want bigger fish, along with regulations protecting the bigger fish.  The walleye is a great food fish up north, but here, in my opinion, it should be managed not for eating but for producing the kind of fish that the genetics could make possible--fish over 15 pounds, fish up to 25 pounds or more....true trophies, not skillet fare. 

Well said Al. Thanks.

[Greasy B]

Words of wisdom from Wally, Al and Wench. This notion that hatcheries and stocking exotic species will improve fishing quality needs to be abandoned by fishermen. That fact that it hasn't already be abandoned by managers is an embarrassment to the profession. 

[BilletHead]

50 minutes ago, Greasy B said:

and getWords of wisdom from Wally, Al and Wench. This notion that hatcheries and stocking exotic species will improve fishing quality needs to be abandoned by fishermen. That fact that it hasn't already be abandoned by managers is an embarrassment to the profession. 

         Ok some of you have not probably caught numbers of Hybrid's on the fly or you may change your mind. I would like to know how they have messed up the numerous white bass fisheries. Boys you cannot have it all your way. You may wish but if we are going to do it lets do it right. Get rid of trout, muskies, stripers and since man has messed up the native spoonbill spawning run in places let the stocked ones die out. Anything not meant to be here like MoCarps carp kill them all. I know everyone has their passion but it cannot be one way as some would like. Hatcheries you say? Exotics you say? No more trout! Be very careful what you wish for I have said in the past,

BilletHead

   PS Sorry Greasy you were the lucky one to post my rebuttal.

[Greasy B]

I love it. Nobody listens to me at home, nobody listens to me at work, I don't hang around in bars anymore. This is about the only place i can spout off my half bassed opinions.