Neosho Bass?

[tjm]

I was remembering an older study, but when I found it, it does refer  to them as a subspecies, which I think dates back to the 1940s?  It wasn't until 2022 that Kim et al. elevated Micropterus dolomieu velox to species status and 2023 when that was accepted by  the American Fisheries Society. My apologies for my bad memory. 4 years. 

However if the state recognizes them as a species, even if as recently as last week,  and does not list them as game fish nor regulate them as such, don't they fall into the non-game fish status? How are they protected if not as smallmouth? 

[Al Agnew]

On 3/20/2026 at 12:47 PM, tjm said:

I was remembering an older study, but when I found it, it does refer  to them as a subspecies, which I think dates back to the 1940s?  It wasn't until 2022 that Kim et al. elevated Micropterus dolomieu velox to species status and 2023 when that was accepted by  the American Fisheries Society. My apologies for my bad memory. 4 years. 

However if the state recognizes them as a species, even if as recently as last week,  and does not list them as game fish nor regulate them as such, don't they fall into the non-game fish status? How are they protected if not as smallmouth? 

The state still just says rock bass in the regulations, too, even though we now know there are three different Ambloplites species in the Ozarks.  It's a matter of keeping the regs as simple as possible for all the anglers who don't have a clue about present species status.  If the regs singled out Neosho bass, 90% of the yahoos would be saying, "Neosho bass?  What the heck is that?"

[tjm]

@Al AgnewDo you think a citation would stand up in court if the fish is misidentified by species? 

I got the impression a few years ago that regulation was left as is because the state employees didn't know the difference, but that wasn't said in so many words. I also recall some past discussion indicating both existing in some streams, and if true that must be polluting the  streams with hybrids? If a stream is hybridized, at what point is the species extinct? 

[Al Agnew]

On 3/21/2026 at 8:18 PM, tjm said:

@Al AgnewDo you think a citation would stand up in court if the fish is misidentified by species? 

I got the impression a few years ago that regulation was left as is because the state employees didn't know the difference, but that wasn't said in so many words. I also recall some past discussion indicating both existing in some streams, and if true that must be polluting the  streams with hybrids? If a stream is hybridized, at what point is the species extinct? 

That's a good question.  It would be a technicality...I could imagine some doofus catching and keeping a 10 inch Neosho bass, getting a ticket for undersized bass, and fighting it because the regulations don't say anything about Neosho bass.  I suspect that fairly soon, the wording of the regs will change and say something like, "smallmouth bass, including Neosho bass".

There probably hasn't been enough DNA testing done to know whether the smallmouth in other streams across the Ozarks have some Neosho genetics, or are also genetically different from smallmouth in other parts of the country.  The Ozarks is somewhat isolated from the rest of the native range of smallmouth, so it's quite possible that the original Ozark smallmouth were ALL different genetically from, say, smallmouth in the Tennessee River basin.  It's a bit like the situation with redeye bass, which have now been divided into a bunch of new species, most of which are native to only one river system.  Of course, the Ozarks situation has been complicated by widespread stocking over the years up until the conservation departments decided stocking was useless.  It's also quite possible that the Neosho bass are all hybrids, but still distinct enough from the rest of the smallmouth that they still deserve species status, for this same reason...they were once REALLY genetically different, but the difference has been diluted by stocking of other smallmouth, but the hybrids are still genetically different ENOUGH.

Obviously, the whole thing is complicated!

[tjm]

I was thinking more along the lines of giggers taking a boat load of over 15" Neoshos because they aren't named nor regulated as a gamefish. Or spin/bait/fly fishermen keeping 6 Neosho bass because they aren't smallmouth. And since they are no longer a subspecies they can not be listed as "including", so my take on it is still that MDC simply does not recognize the change.  Elk River is managed as a special regulation area but only for Smallmouth Bass, which if the species division  is recognized by the state should not even exist there. 

But yeah, past stockings were pretty ill advised and indiscriminate. I believe Ar put several species into the Elk drainage from the White way back when.  

[Al Agnew]

8 hours ago, tjm said:

I was thinking more along the lines of giggers taking a boat load of over 15" Neoshos because they aren't named nor regulated as a gamefish. Or spin/bait/fly fishermen keeping 6 Neosho bass because they aren't smallmouth. And since they are no longer a subspecies they can not be listed as "including", so my take on it is still that MDC simply does not recognize the change.  Elk River is managed as a special regulation area but only for Smallmouth Bass, which if the species division  is recognized by the state should not even exist there. 

But yeah, past stockings were pretty ill advised and indiscriminate. I believe Ar put several species into the Elk drainage from the White way back when.  

I see what you're saying.  And yes, this may be an unintended consequence of all the splitting going on.  Like I said, it complicates things.  I know MDC biologists know about the change of status of Neoshos, but the biologists don't make the regulations, and the enforcement people HATE complicated regulations.  At some point they are going to have to come to grips with this.