Jump to content
OzarkAnglers.Com Forum

SpoonDog

Fishing Buddy
  • Content count

    355
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SpoonDog

  • Rank
    Grass Pickerel

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,874 profile views
  1. What Factors influence the Smallmouth population

    ...triploid fish are sterile. Their genetic advantage is they never have to allocate energy towards eggs and milt, which means that genetic advantage will never be conferred to their offspring. They're Eunuchs. Dump a bunch of sterile fish into a stream hoping they'll mate with the natives to produce better fishing through superior genetics, and you'll be sorely disappointed. What's more- you'll have fast growing fish which can't spawn competing with slower-growing native fish which CAN spawn- depressing the entire population overall. You're not just doing nothing, you're putting considerable effort into making things worse. That's why it's so important the people understand genetics before leaping to it as a cure-all.
  2. What Factors influence the Smallmouth population

    ...that isn't the way natural selection works. You don't go from a 12" fish to a 20" fish, you go from a 12" fish to a 12.2" fish. It's incremental, but many in the general public mistakenly look at genetics as some sort of silver bullet. It isn't. South Koreans are eight inches taller (on average) than they were a century ago. Guatemalans are five inches taller, on average. Their genetics haven't changed drastically in three generations- what has changed is their access to food, shelter, and healthcare. There's a link between genetics and growth- but it's dwarfed by the link between food and growth, or habitat and growth, or health and growth. Even if it wasn't the case- there's no reason to think "genetics" that confer advantages in one habitat would confer advantages in all habitats. I can drop a sumo wrestler in the Sahara- that doesn't mean when I come back five years later there'll be scores of little sumo wrestlers running around. 15,000 years ago everything north of the Missouri River was covered in a mile of ice- every smallmouth in Minnesota or Michigan or Wisconsin was a popsicle. They were all dead- every single one of them. The only places smallmouth could've survive were places like Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee. When the ice retreated the smallmouth colonizing those states carried a subset of genetic material from here. It's entirely likely Ozark smallmouth are more genetically diverse than those in states further north- not less. If it's a question of genetics, they're probably already present in Ozark smallmouth. But it probably isn't genetics. The relationship between fish growth and temperature isn't linear. Most species have an optimal window above which growth either slows or stops- all their energy is going into homeostasis instead of growth. The number of days in the growing season is irrelevant- what matters is the number of days in that window where smallmouth bass grow. Smallmouth don't grow much above 80 degrees- which means in the Ozarks, you can throw out a good chunk of the summer. Farther north, water temperatures may only rarely get above 80. The growing season's shorter- but the number of days they can grow is longer. Genetics isn't magic, and its impact on something like growth is minor compared to other factors. But dumping a truckload of Minnesota smallmouth into the Meramec is easier than convincing farmers not to run cows or backhoes or ATVs in their stream. But it's only a shortcut if it leads somewhere- otherwise, it's just a dead end.
  3. FAMOUS LAST WORDS (Trophy Carp Regs)

    If they're eating mid-water, on daphnia, they're almost certainly competing with native planktivores. So much for being benign. If they're scavenging the carcasses of sportfish, they're even more toxic than we thought. Last stop on the food chain.
  4. FAMOUS LAST WORDS (Trophy Carp Regs)

    A lot. Because the rods,the reels, the little slingshot deal, the rod holders, the bite alarms, the net, the sling, and the mini trampoline job are effectively one-time purchases. The hooks, the line, the weights, the High Nutrient Boilies...you're purchasing them once every few trips. You're purchasing the $15, $50, $100+ ticket every trip. Gar aren't carp, trout aren't carp, trout and carp don't often live in the same places, that there's no causal relationship between carp harvest and population declines or between carp fishing and trophy bass angling. But I'm not interested in re-litigating old topics. I'm not interested in the regurgitated talking points that carp have been around for 140 years (as though that means they're native, or that they've had no impact) or that carp are more nutritious than trout (as though bass have the option in most places). It doesn't matter. It didn't matter the first time you said it, it doesn't matter the tenth time you say it, it won't matter the hundredth time. If you don't understand that, it isn't my problem. If you don't understand the disservice you're doing to your cause, it isn't my problem. But if you're that intransigent, completely unwilling to look at the issue from anyone's perspective except your own...I have no idea why you're on a discussion forum.
  5. FAMOUS LAST WORDS (Trophy Carp Regs)

    $16.50 was the cheapest I saw for a carp ticket, going up to $100+ for the cherry spots. Trout/salmon went $45-$100+. I didn't see an option where you could still fish if you didn't want to pay, which I'm guessing means some significant percentage of that Six Billion Pound economic benefit is tied up in ticket costs. Tickets that wouldn't be sold here. Money that wouldn't be made here. This is going to come across as mean, and it isn't meant to be. Anyway, I apologize in advance. Dozens of people, on dozens of forums, for a decade or more, have had the same negative reaction to your posts and your behavior. That level of consistency doesn't happen by accident. The chances all of those people are wrong and you're right- it isn't likely. The problem isn't the message. People find the messenger an irritant. You could have used any one of those instances as a learning experience- after all, a good salesman caters his pitch to his audience. Instead, you just move forums- posting the same drivel to a different audience, yielding the same results, all the while kidding yourself you're doing anyone any favors. Somehow you've got it in your head that if you burn 20 bridges and recruit five new potential carp anglers, that's the same thing as victory. Maybe that's why progress in recognizing carp as a game species can be best described as...incremental. You're your own worst enemy, MOCarp. I can open a fishing magazine or log onto Facebook, Instagram and find people doing what you're trying to do- just better. No cut/paste and light on the poorly edited YouTube videos, no justifying carp fishing through harebrained analyses of economic or ecological impact, or misinformed comparisons to other species. No belittling of others- two adults disagreeing just means they disagree, it doesn't mean one is a clandestine bowfishing agent or that they gleefully huck carp onto the bank. That someone doesn't agree lockstep with your position- especially if that position is predicated on BS- doesn't make them an enemy. That someone is willing to call you out on BS doesn't make them an enemy, and I'm sorry you see the world that way. That leads us to my last point. I'm not ignoring you because, quite frankly, a lot of the things you say about carp (their ecological importance, economic importance, etc) is just simply BS. If it were just BS I wouldn't have an issue- but if you're able to convince a significant number of anglers your BS is true, that BS will have measurable consequences on state agencies and the management of other fisheries, not just carp. Because whether it's non-native trout anywhere, bass in Maine, pike in California, walleye in Wyoming...once a non-native sportfish has a constituency, it's much tougher to remove them, even when it's to protect native biodiversity. If you're the poster boy for North American carp fishing, I have absolutely zero faith that when the time comes carp anglers will distinguish between the fisheries where they're doing damage and the fisheries where they're benign. When there's a charlatan priming an audience, it's much more difficult for folks to talk reasonably, intelligently about an issue. That's why I'm not going to hit ignore. Dozens of people, from dozens of forums, for a decade or more, have reacted negatively to your behavior. Your solution is for everyone else to modify their behavior- ignore you- because you either can't or won't modify yours. Do I have that right?
  6. FAMOUS LAST WORDS (Trophy Carp Regs)

    I have. And you can't swing a sack of dead kittens out west without hitting a Brit, a German, a Dane, a Frenchman, or someone else from The Continent fishing for wild trout- doing something they can't do at home. There's carp in Colorado, in Wyoming, in Montana- and European tourists aren't knocking down doors to get at them. Perhaps that tells us something. But maybe you're right. Maybe tomorrow or next week or next year every single Texas resident will not only take up fishing, but will buy the rods,the reels, the hooks, the High Nutrient Boilies, the little slingshot deal, the rod holders, the bite alarms, the net, the sling, and the mini trampoline job to go fish for carp, thereby swamping expenditures for all other sportfish species. It sounds like magical thinking to me, but maybe you're right. Best of luck.
  7. Grand Isle LA

    Looks nice, I've always been curious about the DIY opportunities in that part of the world. Thanks for sharing!
  8. Possible Strike 3.

    Take care, JD.
  9. FAMOUS LAST WORDS (Trophy Carp Regs)

    Of course it bears mentioning most folks in the UK don't have the opportunity to fish for trout, salmon, pike, bass, etc. If they had the options available in the states, they may make a different decision. That makes a direct comparison between the economic benefit there and the economic benefit here is kinda meaningless. Carry on...
  10. Just google "MOCarp fishing forum." The guy's been on dozens of them- Nebraska, Iowa, Texas, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Mississippi. Banned from a couple of them. Nothing if not dedicated.
  11. Man. I started watching that video and had to quit a couple seconds in- that platform. All that removed bankside vegetation. The bare earth. The digging and fill dirt and log installation, and not a silt fence in sight. A twenty, fifty pound fish thrashing in a few inches of water right next to shore. I wonder how much bank erosion is caused by carp anglers and their quarry?
  12. Poaching Story

    We've had this discussion before Wrench, and you still don't seem to grasp that your feelings are worth precisely as much as everyone else's. But just for funsies, let's say we convinced the state fish and game agency to pull the plug on walleye and paddlefish- two species that wouldn't persist without stocking. The state agency in charge of protecting fish and wildlife has now taken the position that it's alright to allow populations of native sportfish species to decline, even disappear, within large portions of their native range. You've just eliminated any justification for restrictive smallmouth regs. If zero's an acceptable population size for walleye, and an acceptable population size for paddlefish, it's an acceptable population size for smallies. No need for creel limits, for size limits, no reason to manage otters or giggers. We've set a precedent that sportfish will be fine, even if they're no longer present. MDC isn't perfect, but they're legally obligated to protect fish, forests and game. Eliminating that obligation doesn't strengthen it.
  13. WHY DO WE NEED ORGANIZATIONS?

    Look at a distribution map of rainbow trout in Missouri. Look at a distribution map of brown trout in Missouri. Look at a distribution map of common carp in Missouri. One of these things is not like the other. I'll let you tell me which one it is.
  14. Poaching Story

    Only if you don't fish for walleye, you don't fish for paddlefish, you have no interest in elk, if you dont read the magazine, and if you don't stroke out in the back end of a conservation area where the only guy around is in a little Jeep Liberty- and he can't get to you. It's real easy to say MDC should cut the programs we don't like to pay for the programs we do like. I think it's deeply, profoundly stupid that MDC spends ANY amount of money on quail- when every Dick and John in the county plants corn and soybeans from one fencerow to the next, when they spray said field with enough Roundup to make certain there's nothing alive for quail to eat, slapping a bumper sticker and heading to the Quail Forever meeting to lament the bird's plight and share how, in the olden days, they used to go out every day of the season and shoot a limit, or pert near. I don't know how many times I've heard a line to that effect, spoken sincerely, as though it's never dawned on them the relationship between killing every quail you see and then having none left. It's the only thing anyone's ever said that made me understand why passenger pigeons and Carolina parakeets are no longer around. There's probably some dude up near Kirksville who loves catfish and crappie but has never seen a live smallmouth, never fished for smallmouth, no interest in smallmouth, thinks spending any money on smallmouth is stupid and a waste of money. It doesn't matter, because it isn't an a la' carte menu. I pay taxes for schools I'll never attend and for roads I'll never drive on, it's part of basic citizenship. There's nothing unreasonable about paying conservation sales taxes, even if it means funding projects you receive no direct benefit from. If you've driven many roads in the state I know you know they're not outstanding. Education's middle of the road. Missouri isn't at the top of most lists when it comes to government services...under no circumstances should we be looking to most of them as a model of government efficiency or constituent services. The author of the article isn't discriminating between cost and value. Other state agencies are good because they're cheap- even it means someone can't access healthcare. MDC's bad because they're expensive- they purchased 50 properties for me to hunt and fish on, when they said they'd only buy five. It's that convoluted, bean counter-y logic that's got us among the worst roads in the country, mediocre education, etc. You get what you pay for. The priorities don't change with less money, you just have less money. Eliminating that much of MDC's budget doesn't reshuffle the priorities, it means the low priorities get cut. And MDC can very easily do less for smallmouth management in the state. Even if management biologists wanted to redo a study or revisit regs, they couldn't- Missouri's smallmouth anglers would have taken that option off the table. The next big political fight and MDC's not going to rock the legislator's boat when it comes to gravel mining or stream access, leaving anglers to struggle with a legislature heavily influenced by ag and private property rights. It's easy to get mad, to stomp your feet, to cut off your nose to spite your face. But it may have unintended consequences.
  15. ...$35 for a basic membership, $80 for a special membership, $75 for a hoodie AND you guys STILL have fundraisers?! You'd think with that kinda dough there'd be more in the way of....you know. Results.
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.