What Factors influence the Smallmouth population

[bfishn]

2 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

...As for all the other ills of urbanization, it's not like spotted bass are more tolerant of pollution than smallmouth. All that chemical laced run off from urban areas is probably bad for both.  And maybe detailed chemical analysis would show things I can't eyeball, but I see little difference in the water quality of these rivers over the years, and actually the difference I've seen has been some improvement with better sewage treatment in the smaller towns farther up the rivers.  (More later, I'm tired of typing on my phone😁

I agree the treatment/monitoring seems to have been effective... for the stuff they're looking for; phosphates, nitrates, etc. What about the stuff they don't look for? Urban discharge is full of human and veterinarian drugs, from our own waste, and what gets flushed for disposal. Here's an interesting look at some of the effects of drugs in wastewater on fish;

https://www.insidescience.org/news/psychiatric-drugs-changing-fish-behavior

Maybe there's way more big fish than we think... they're just high...

[Trout Addict]

19 minutes ago, bfishn said:

I agree the treatment/monitoring seems to have been effective... for the stuff they're looking for; phosphates, nitrates, etc. What about the stuff they don't look for? Urban discharge is full of human and veterinarian drugs, from our own waste, and what gets flushed for disposal. Here's an interesting look at some of the effects of drugs in wastewater on fish;

https://www.insidescience.org/news/psychiatric-drugs-changing-fish-behavior

Maybe there's way more big fish than we think... they're just high...

Great point. I was just getting ready to address similar topic. Antibiotics, growth hormone, estrogen, testosterone, psychotherapy drugs are passing thru humans and animals from large confinement operation into our rivers. It has some scientist questioning the future effects on humans.

Here's an article I was reading and found it interesting.

https://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/growing-smallmouth.html

[Chief Grey Bear]

But the water is the same color.

29 minutes ago, bfishn said:

I agree the treatment/monitoring seems to have been effective... for the stuff they're looking for; phosphates, nitrates, etc. What about the stuff they don't look for? Urban discharge is full of human and veterinarian drugs, from our own waste, and what gets flushed for disposal. Here's an interesting look at some of the effects of drugs in wastewater on fish;

https://www.insidescience.org/news/psychiatric-drugs-changing-fish-behavior

Maybe there's way more big fish than we think... they're just high...

 

10 minutes ago, Trout Addict said:

Great point. I was just getting ready to address similar topic. Antibiotics, growth hormone, estrogen, testosterone, psychotherapy drugs are passing thru humans and animals from large confinement operation into our rivers. It has some scientist questioning the future effects on humans.

Here's an article I was reading and found it interesting.

https://www.bassresource.com/fish_biology/growing-smallmouth.html

But the water is the same color.

[MoCarp]

3 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Of course, this isn't scientific but anecdotal, but I have not observed these streams getting more murky over the many years I've fished them, with the exception of more silt being stirred up by jet boat wakes on the middle Meramec on warm weather weekends.  Remember that jet boats didn't get popular enough to be significant until the mid to late 1980s...which is also when spotted bass were appearing. Coincidence? In my opinion, jet boats did adversely affect smallmouth numbers, but I noticed that in stretches farther up the Meramec where spots had not yet reached. 

As for all the other ills of urbanization, it's not like spotted bass are more tolerant of pollution than smallmouth. All that chemical laced run off from urban areas is probably bad for both.  And maybe detailed chemical analysis would show things I can't eyeball, but I see little difference in the water quality of these rivers over the years, and actually the difference I've seen has been some improvement with better sewage treatment in the smaller towns farther up the rivers.  (More later, I'm tired of typing on my phone😁

interesting observation...boats have been documented in bank erosion, ....the ability to release fish you don't want to keep becomes an issue with jet boats..as well as fish pathogens.....IMHO spotted bass are more prolific than SMB....

2 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

I don't think anyone is claiming it is a cesspool of poison.  But water quality  has obviously changed.    To deny that is being disingenuous. Did it change to favor the smallmouth?  Or did it change to favor the spotted bass?  We all know what the results say.

water quality nationally got better because of new laws from the 60's nearly 70's..I know the explosives plant in Carthage dumped NG water right into center creek and below it the fish populations changed dramatically..canoeing once there was a pipe blasting water into the creek..my canoe buddy and I got extremely sick...pounding headaches, classic symptoms of working in the "powder" the upper reaches of center creek... above the powder plant is smallmouth water,  below spotted bass....at one time we had another powder plan near Carl Junction so for over 100 years we have had that changing the dynamics of center creek...not the least was mining waste water issues..many documented fish kills etc ...zinc is a big time anti biological yet downstream from the areas in center creek is dominated by spotted bass...Center Creek would benefit from native SM bass reintroductions to mediate 100 years of habitat degradation..interestingly the warmer water streams feeding the spring river basin have few spots mostly LMB (dry fork) but North Fork is a more turbid stream and it has more spots...and they are some of the most heavily farmed areas in Jasper Co

as a side note all the water used in the bulk of Jasper Co is well water...that has a huge impact on the aquifers that feed the streams, anyone has seen how wet weather makes springs run stronger.. and springs stabilize water temperatures.

1 hour ago, Johnsfolly said:

Does anyone on this thread know if smallmouth bass are more susceptible than spotted bass to intersex development (development of both testicular and ovarian tissues within the same gonad; also know as ovatestis) due to endocrine active substances or endocrine disruptive compounds (EDC's)? I have not done a whole lot of research and the only thing that I could quickly find was this statement in a recent study in Maryland by the US Fish and Wildlife. These statements seem to suggest that their may be potential differences between smallmouth and largemouth in terms of their susceptibility for male fish to develop intersexuality.

"The Results

We found female germ cells (oocytes) in the testes of 82% to 100% of the male smallmouth bass and in 23% of the males from the single largemouth bass collection near the Blue Plains Wastewater Plant in Washington, DC. The baseline prevalence of testicular oocytes in male smallmouth is uncertain but may be in the range of 14% to 22%; baseline for male largemouth may be closer to 0%."

With spotted and smallmouth bass considered by taxonomists to be more closely related to each other than in comparison to the largemouth wasn't sure if anything is really know about whether the two species respond differently to the presence of EDC's in the environment. It is likely for EDC's to increase due to urbanization (i.e., introduction of herbicides, pesticides, birth control hormones, etc.).

Al - what is the differences in growth rate or better yet maturation rate between smallmouth and spotted bass. One could theorize that if smallmouth reach sexual maturity at a later age, then they would be more likely to be affected by EDC's due to the length of their exposure. The higher incidence of intersex in the population will likely cause a decline in viable reproduction.

any sex chemicals should effect both spots and SMB the same...as far as growth rates SMB lose out to most all black basses

1 hour ago, MOPanfisher said:

Many things change over time, water flow, temps, chemistry, population make up.  If spotted bass are more adapted to some areas, and are more aggressive and are present then harvest or stocking isn't going to change much.  They are still going to be there and be numerous, certainly it won't hurt to harvest them but it's not going to bring back the golden days no matter what we would like.

I thing SMB seem more aggressive I think spots just put out more YOY giving their shape they would have bigger egg sacks and more eggs? tossing that out there

1 hour ago, timinmo said:

Well guys I guess I did not say it in so many words but I think water quality probably has improved since the sixties for several reasons.  The Clean Water Act being the biggest.

If you are looking to blame the influx of spots on something I don't thing you will find it water quality.  The habitat might have went down hill but if we had the data I would bet that in most cases the chemistry of the water has improved.

agreed...silt not with standing 

51 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

Johnsfolly, I wonder if the EDC problem is anywhere close to as big in these streams as it is in the streams studied in Maryland.  I know it's a huge problem in several eastern streams, but the human population throughout their watersheds is probably much denser than in the Ozarks, and thus there would be more endocrine disruptors getting into the waterway.  The fortunate thing the Meramec River system has going for it is that most of its urbanization is toward the lower ends of the streams, so it doesn't affect all of them.  The Bourbeuse is affected by agricultural chemicals and practices throughout its length, but the only major, growing town along it is Union, close to the downstream end.  Big River has a significant urbanized area on the upper portion, however, and a lot of scattered by extensive development in its lower watershed in Jefferson County.  The Meramec, of the three, probably has the healthiest watershed, with less row-cropping and grazing than the Bourbeuse, more intact timber than both the Bourbeuse and Big.

By the way, spotted bass appear to grow slightly faster than smallmouth in Ozark streams until they reach their fifth year, then grow more slowly from then on.  Top end size, of course, is significantly less than smallmouth.

We can argue all night about how the spots got there and why they got there when they did.  They are there.  They have had a huge effect on the smallmouth population.  Really, the only important questions are, CAN we do anything to help the smallmouth against the spots, SHOULD we do anything, and WHAT can or should we do?

If you want to study a very detailed investigation of the health of the streams of the Meramec Basin, search "Meramec River Conservation Action Plan".  You can download the whole thing.  It's a cooperative effort spearheaded by the Nature Conservancy, with participation by a whole bunch of educational and environmental institutions.  It makes for very interesting reading if you're a river geek like me. 

IMHO stocking more smallies and removing more spots is the long term solution..shock boats removing spots couple times a year ....

[Gavin]

Stocking fish is never good. Mixes up the native gene pool.

[Al Agnew]

Nope, stocking is unnecessary and as Gavin said, not good genetically.  

Regulations are the only way to accomplish anything, and they only work if most anglers buy into keeping spotted bass.  And unfortunately, a lot of spotted bass in these streams are chock full of yellow grubs and not very appetizing; I've had to throw away a lot of the ones I've kept.  It goes against the grain to "waste" them, but if we really wanted to get serious about it, the regs would REQUIRE keeping every one caught, coupled with protecting the smallmouth.  And then you run into the problem of people misidentifying largemouth as spots.

So the best we can do, in the real world, is to keep encouraging anglers to keep them up to the limit, while releasing all smallmouth.  MAYBE the current regulations are part of the reason why the ratio of spots to smallmouth seems to have stabilized in many stretches.  Or, maybe the population has simply reached equilibrium in those stretches.  

Or, maybe put MDC to work electroshocking the rivers a lot more and killing all the spots they shock up?  Get volunteers to clean them at the end of the day, at least those big enough to eat, and have a massive fish fry.

The last time I went on a shocking run was quite a few years ago, on Big River above Blackwell.  We shocked up a ton of little spotted bass, and very few smallmouth, even though that stretch still has more smallmouth than spots (barely).  Which shows that shocking is a very inexact science.

[MoCarp]

2 hours ago, Gavin said:

Stocking fish is never good. Mixes up the native gene pool.

ok heres the deal....you don't stock SMB nilly willie...you go to whatever river...you shock up brood stock....not just any brood stock..but the best examples you can get...spawn them..return the young to the stream mom n pop bass came from....in fact I know from my contacts at the MDC we are doing a DNA fin clip study its suggested we have several strains in SW Missouri...I can tell you the elk river SMB are different from spring river shoal creek..yet both are comparatively, different having the larger gape, with their maxillary bone (or jawline) extending back well behind the eye of the fish; the maxillary bone of the northern smallmouth bass only extends up to the eye, but not further...our "neosho strain" yet the elk river fish are typically longer and leaner that spring river drainage fish...I think when a push for a call from TN strain SMB to be stocked in Grand lake it lit a fire under state agencies....TN river strain SMB would do very well in Grand.....and those fish would most likely spread up both the elk river and spring river drainage..........how that would play out is anyones guess

2 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

Nope, stocking is unnecessary and as Gavin said, not good genetically.  

Regulations are the only way to accomplish anything, and they only work if most anglers buy into keeping spotted bass.  And unfortunately, a lot of spotted bass in these streams are chock full of yellow grubs and not very appetizing; I've had to throw away a lot of the ones I've kept.  It goes against the grain to "waste" them, but if we really wanted to get serious about it, the regs would REQUIRE keeping every one caught, coupled with protecting the smallmouth.  And then you run into the problem of people misidentifying largemouth as spots.

So the best we can do, in the real world, is to keep encouraging anglers to keep them up to the limit, while releasing all smallmouth.  MAYBE the current regulations are part of the reason why the ratio of spots to smallmouth seems to have stabilized in many stretches.  Or, maybe the population has simply reached equilibrium in those stretches.  

Or, maybe put MDC to work electroshocking the rivers a lot more and killing all the spots they shock up?  Get volunteers to clean them at the end of the day, at least those big enough to eat, and have a massive fish fry.

The last time I went on a shocking run was quite a few years ago, on Big River above Blackwell.  We shocked up a ton of little spotted bass, and very few smallmouth, even though that stretch still has more smallmouth than spots (barely).  Which shows that shocking is a very inexact science.

I think those are some good observations

[Jim Spriggs]

I want to thank everyone for their responses to my post. You all have interesting information and insight into this issue.

It would be awesome if some of the ideas we have been talking about get put into action.  I’m certainly going to change from blanket catch and release to harvesting spotted bass.  And, an education campaign, including signage, social media posts, and the like, isn’t too difficult to tackle.

I like Al’s idea of MDC shock boats hitting the river hard one day and having a big fish fry.  I wonder how politically/logistically difficult that one would be?  Who would we approach in MDC?

 It could be pitched as a study—do the typical creel study and count and measure all the SMB,LMB, and Spots; and keep and eat all the spotted bass from two or three of the creel study sites.  The next couple of creel studies  can then determine if the spotted bass population declined in the  sections of the river where the spotted bass were removed.   

It could take place on a day when a group like MSA is doing stream cleaning.  I think there would be good turnout for such an event. 

I wish I could go to the river and contemplate these issues today, but, like most of you, I gotta go to work...

[Hog Wally]

1 hour ago, Jim Spriggs said:

I want to thank everyone for their responses to my post. You all have interesting information and insight into this issue.

It would be awesome if some of the ideas we have been talking about get put into action.  I’m certainly going to change from blanket catch and release to harvesting spotted bass.  And, an education campaign, including signage, social media posts, and the like, isn’t too difficult to tackle.

I like Al’s idea of MDC shock boats hitting the river hard one day and having a big fish fry.  I wonder how politically/logistically difficult that one would be?  Who would we approach in MDC?

 It could be pitched as a study—do the typical creel study and count and measure all the SMB,LMB, and Spots; and keep and eat all the spotted bass from two or three of the creel study sites.  The next couple of creel studies  can then determine if the spotted bass population declined in the  sections of the river where the spotted bass were removed.   

It could take place on a day when a group like MSA is doing stream cleaning.  I think there would be good turnout for such an event. 

I wish I could go to the river and contemplate these issues today, but, like most of you, I gotta go to work...

 

Solution; Part 1. 

[MOPanfisher]

Perfect eating size right there.