Anyone made a trip this year?

[Flyfisher for men]

11 minutes ago, tjm said:

My guess is the same answer you would have in the trout parks- nothing for all those baby fish to eat and only baby trout for big fish to eat. For the trout parks to support a slot limit you would have to stop stocking on the daily basis and limit future stocking to equal the harvest numbers, they have limited space and as mentioned no food base. This is why I maintain that they are only good for put and take, of course some stay in the branch longer than 12 hours but they starve rather than grow. Any lunkers caught in the spring branches got fat in the rearing pools. They could support a slot limit and grow fish if they fed pellets a few times a day in the branch. Fish need to eat, and food doesn't grow well underground in the caves or deep under water.

I read that the Beaver out flow is virtually sterile because of depth, don't know that, but it sounds reasonable.

Turning stocked trout loose is a waste.

There's definitely a natural food base, though whether it's able to support a big trout I can't say. It naturally has sculpins, suckers, scuds, chironomids, and caddis.

 

[Devan S.]

1 hour ago, laker67 said:

It should be working by now. Got any ideas why not?

No clue. I know trout can be found from the dam down to beaver town but the upper most 7 miles is the better water. 

Certainly shad is in place and I would think other bait fish. Gates are open at Beaver enough since 2006 that there is certainly bait coming through the top too. I've been there and seen it.

Water may be pulled from too deep and be devoid but shouldn't that effect all the WRL tailwaters to some degree?

There's a few browns every year caught or shocked up that are big but nothing compared to the white or Taney for a heck of a lot less pressure. 

[fshndoug]

Laker ,I wouldn't want to take Wrench's lunch money. Sugar Britches finds out he would be in trouble.

 

 

[fshndoug]

SpoonDog thanks for the answer on my question of when you were at Bennet the last time. I knew from your posts that you knew nothing about the operation at Bennett regarding the downward spiral of the quality of fishing. You probably need to stick to your yoga classes and grocery stores if you want to see cute butts. Warning stay out of Walmart and emergency rooms .

[tjm]

1 hour ago, Flyfisher for men said:

There's definitely a natural food base, though whether it's able to support a big trout I can't say. It naturally has sculpins, suckers, scuds, chironomids, and caddis.

 

Studies show that stocked trout aren't very piscivorous nor  do they eat many gastropods, (holdovers may learn to eat fish and it seems natural to wild trout) this leaves the scuds and midges. Sheer numbers of trout would suggest insufficient biomass of these, but I don't know that. The studies I read did indicate stocked fish always loose weight, with (I think) 40% of stocked trout having empty stomachs weeks after dumping. 

The caddis I always associate with swift riffles and I don't recall those in the upper sections of Bennett, although it has been many years since I was there. I know that in RR they keep dredging out any gravel or rocks that could harbor food.

Do you see large hatches of insects in Zones 1 & 2 of Bennett? I've never seen a hatch of any size  anywhere in Mo. or one that lasted more than a few minutes, but it's possible I just missed them.

 

[Flyfisher for men]

28 minutes ago, tjm said:

Studies show that stocked trout aren't very piscivorous nor  do they eat many gastropods, (holdovers may learn to eat fish and it seems natural to wild trout) this leaves the scuds and midges. Sheer numbers of trout would suggest insufficient biomass of these, but I don't know that. The studies I read did indicate stocked fish always loose weight, with (I think) 40% of stocked trout having empty stomachs weeks after dumping. 

The caddis I always associate with swift riffles and I don't recall those in the upper sections of Bennett, although it has been many years since I was there. I know that in RR they keep dredging out any gravel or rocks that could harbor food.

Do you see large hatches of insects in Zones 1 & 2 of Bennett? I've never seen a hatch of any size  anywhere in Mo. or one that lasted more than a few minutes, but it's possible I just missed them.

 

Thanks for this. You're surely correct when you say "insufficient biomass" for all of those fish. 

If they ever put a fish cleaning station there, I would want to see those remains ground up and dispersed in the stream. I know they do that in the west where dams sometimes prevent salmon migrations that bring nutrients from the dying spawners. It's very good for various invertebrates and the fish that feed on them, including trout.  

You're seeing studies, so that carries real punch. The thing is, you can catch fish between the usual 12 inch stocker size and the lunker size fish they some times throw in. That suggests to me that a few are growing somehow  

I have not seen a caddis hatch, but have read of caddis there. I have seen midge hatches, which are, of course, common and even daily. 

 

[snagged in outlet 3]

2 hours ago, Flyfisher for men said:

If they ever put a fish cleaning station there, I would want to see those remains ground up and dispersed in the stream.

It's called trout chow and they feed it the fish in the hatchery...

[awhuber]

7 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

It's called trout chow and they feed it the fish in the hatchery...

The trout at Montauk are raised on a plant based diet now, no fish parts in the chow, mostly soy meal.

[snagged in outlet 3]

11 minutes ago, awhuber said:

The trout at Montauk are raised on a plant based diet now, no fish parts in the chow, mostly soy meal.

Is that true or are you joking?  Hopefully non GMO soy.  And soy is estrogenic so that's not good either.  😂

[tjm]

2 hours ago, Flyfisher for men said:

You're seeing studies,

I've been looking for and reading  studies of fish and wildlife since the '70s, and one thing they all seem to have in  common is  that they always find results that support the theory.  When setting up the protocol for a study you can avoid examining things that might not support your desired results. What you don't look at won't reflect in the results. You can also set the protocol up to highlight facts that you know will support your theory.  So, we should always be a tad skeptical about any study. As an example of why not accept a study as gospel ,  the 1989 Max Bothwell study that tied Didymo to felt soles was proven wrong by the same guy that wrote it in 2014, when he tied the spread of it to lack of phosphorus, likely caused by controlling of  phosphorus pollution  in detergents and agriculture.