Outside Bend

I agree issues like these can (and are) sometimes blown out of proportion, but the website says 44% of the 1500 birds examined were suffering from lead poisoning. That's not nothin', and as anglers, as the folks who are putting the lead in the system, IMO we have to own it. I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Researchers tend to study what they're interested in- someone curious about loons will study loons, someone curious about brown trout will study brown trout, someone curious about diabetes will study diabetes. If a researcher is curious about the relationship between loons and lead tackle, and studies the issue- what's dubious about that? I'd like to believe my fishing gear doesn't impact other wildlife- but the data shows otherwise.

Got mine this afternoon- nothing bad about these bugs! Thanks guys, and especially mic for doing the cat herding

Good vibes headed your way fellas, let us know if there's anything we can do. By the by, does anyone know if there was any damage in the shell knob/viola area?

I understand the sentiment, but I don't think complicated regs would be a major hurdle. I just dug up Wisconsin's trout booklet, 30+ pages of maps and regulations broken down by county and stream. Wyoming has a similar publication. Other states make it work with few issues, I don't see why it couldn't work here. Lots of factors influence angler recruitment- access to public areas, concerns about safety, gas prices, job requirements/time constraints, a cultural emphasis on instant gratification. I've done a lot of fishing clinics, and one of the things you quickly realize is that a lot of the parents were never taken fishing. They can't pass on skills they never acquired. The upside is it isn't tough to get a kid interest, and where their interests go, the parents' generally folows.

Trout- Here. Dries- Caddis pattern (X-Caddis, Elk Hair, Dancing Caddis, whatever), & Parachute Adams. Nymphs- Soft Hackle (no specific pattern), rubberlegs Streamer- Blonde mohair leech Warmwater- Dries- Sneaky Pete, deer-hair slider Subsurface- clouser minnow, near-nuff crayfish, wooly bugger Trout- out west Dries- Elk Hair Caddis, Madame X Nymphs- PMD emerger, zug bug Streamer- Bow River Bugger, brown/yellow But a lot of my fun stems from trying new stuff- I know the old standbys work, that's why their my confidence patterns.

Pretty slick. Do the hen hackle job in olive, and you should have everything covered!

Are you doing the body in a dubbing loop?

I think the 70% figure is very positive, and I definitely believe it's a good thing to bring up to MDC as these discussions evolve. But IMO there's a difference between 70% of anglers supporting new regs when asked by MDC, and 70% of anglers banging on MDC's door asking for new regs. I support conservation of all sorts of species- quail, waterfowl, walleye- even though I don't spend much time pursuing them. If asked whether I support new regs for those species I'd likely say yes, even though it's not a major priority when it comes to my outdoor recreation.

I was outta town for work. Glad to see you guys were able to get this all figured out and squared away. Dan- I've seen several of the MSA signs around fishing accesses, they're a great way of helping get smallmouth conservation into angler's minds. One thought I had- I know Johnny Morris/Bass Pro has been working closely with MDC to improve the fisheries on Table Rock and Taneycomo. Have MSA/other groups approached those folks to see if they'd be interested in helping promote stream smallmouth conservation? Sorta along the lines of what Chief (I think) was saying- publicity at local shops, and I think Bass Pro would have the network of shops/dealers that that route could really benefit the effort. Al- Gigged fish suck, and I sure understand your frustration- it's illegal, it's obvious, and it wouldn't take much to curtail. I'd suggest forwarding your results to Traveler and some of the other regional outdoor magazines- maybe more publicity of the issue would spur MDC into action.

What a way to get into the sport!

I like the ideas along this vein. If the main argument for harvest is a shore lunch/tradition Ozark meal, what would you guys think about setting the daily and possession limit at the same value? IMO a half-dozen fish per person would be plenty to put those issues to rest- without having a bunch of folks stuffing freezers full of smallies. Also- was the original design of the SMA's for them to function as refuges? My thought is if you had intensively (trophy) managed 20-30 mile reaches smallmouth production could outstrip habitat, the excess fish then augmenting shorter harvest reaches. I dunno if that's what the current management regime is designed to accomplish, if it's working, or if it could be tweaked to work that way- and it could well become a regulatory nightmare. But it's something else to mull over, and I'd like to see this thread get to ten pages

Yeah...I mostly agree with you guys as far as policy goes, I just don't see how demonizing the other side as a bunch of ignorant, selfish, backwards inbred hicks really services the cause. Local catch and keep guys don't have the market cornered on ignorance- there's plenty of C&R guys who think that because they release fish, they have no impact on the resource. I just think you guys are overestimating the true number of ignorant arseholes in the Ozarks- and yes, those folks exist. But most I've met are decent enough, they just suffer from the same delusions of those C&R guys- they don't realize they're impacting the fishery. That doesn't make them evil, and I promise if you walk into a meeting telling them how dumb they are, you won't get a positive response. What I was trying to get at a few posts back was we can manage smallmouth two ways- regulation and education. We can make it illegal for folks to harvest 12 inch smallies, or we can convince them harvesting 12 inch smallies isn't the best use of the resource. I think both routes have their place, and I really don't see why we should minimize the education component. Let's not pretend it's about the time component- with ten years of smallmouth research, three years since the release of the White Paper, we're all still at our computers ruminating smallie regs with practically nothing to show for it. I'd humbly submit the legislative process isn't breaking any land-speed records. And even if regs were passed tomorrow, the effect on the fish population probably wouldn't be visible for a few years. If time hasn't been an impediment to the legislative side, we can't complain about it being an impediment on the education side. And yeah, there's some folks who aren't going to change their opinion for anyone. I agree we'll never reach those folks, so there's no use in trying. I just don't think that demographic is everyone in the Ozarks, or even the overwhelming majority. Eric didn't like my muskie example, so I'll pick another one- MDC education efforts helped bring about the end of open range in the Ozarks, and the reforestation of the region. Many of the outdoor opportunities we have today exist because those stupid selfish locals learned some of their practices weren't in the best interest of the resource. We can claim it's impossible, but it's been done before. I like the idea of stiffer regs, I just don't think they're the silver bullet some claim. And given the leaps and bounds we haven't made in smallmouth management over the past fourteen years, I think re-evaluating the position, perhaps taking a broader approach, is at least worth examining. I mean, if we keep propose the same reg changes every year, and MDC ignores those reg changes every year...isn't it possible there's something we're missing?

I haven't bitten yet, but I like the looks of Flysmallie's baby rainbow bug. May have to try that...

Eric- 90+% of the state's muskie are released unharmed- not because MDC requires C&R, but because anglers realized that's what it takes to maintain those trophy fisheries. I'm not saying it's easy. Just that it does happen.

You're right that it's hyperbole, I was just trying to illustrate that anglers may have to deal with irate locals a couple times a year, MDC guys have to deal with them every day, from the Circle K clerk to their kids' teachers. They don't get to leave, and we ought to at least be cognizant that we're not the ones who would have to deal with the brunt of the fallout. It's not that I'm against the regs, I'm just wary of the unintended consequences. I don't want to see MDC burn so many bridges that it impacts many of their other goals. With 98% of the state in private hands, MDC needs to maintain a rapport with landowners and the public as a whole- even the rednecks. If harvest was unsustainable I'd be right there with you Eric, but my understanding is numbers is acceptable, just not the size structure we want. It's not a bad goal, and I like the idea, I'd just want to avoid as much of the heartburn as possible.

So the next time an MDC employee is stranded after a 14 hour day in the field because someone removed his valve stems, y'all are gonna drop everything and drive down from St. Louis to deliver four more, right? Or the next time one of those rednecks decides he's gonna show MDC how he feels about smallies, and torches a thousand acres. You guys'll take off work to be part of the bucket brigade, correct? Cause I'd like to make sure we have that in writing It's easy to say "no big deal," when you're not the guy dealing with the fallout.

Precisely. For some folks keeping a stringer of smallies is a form of political speech- a way of stickin' it to the man. Tighter regulations aren't going to alter that mindset. Shoving these regulations down locals throats may make for better fishing, but it just reinforces the locals' anger and resentment towards both government and out of towners. If stricter smallie regs lead to more instances of pissed-off locals performing vandalism, dumping, forest arson, etc- I'm not sure how much we've really won. I'd love to have more quality smallmouth too, but if I don't feel comfortable leaving my car unattended at the access, stricter regs doesn't do me much good. Unless I go buy a gun..... Like it or not, MDC isn't going to jump for new regs if there isn't local support. The way to forward this agenda isn't burning bridges with other smallmouth anglers, it's trying to bring them into the fold.

They don't want to alienate constituents. It's tough having a conversation on smallmouth regs when one party views any change as an assault on their personal liberties. It's not monolithic, but there's a lot of folks in the Ozarks who feel they're entitled to use the resource however they see fit. Influencing mindsets is a lot tougher than adding verbiage to the wildlife code. But if more restrictive regs are going to go in place, MDC is going to need support from the locals. Otherwise it just feeds into the "Big Jeff-City Gubment Hot-Shots coming in and telling us folk what we can and can't do on the river a mile from our house."

x3- I think MDC really underestimates winter harvest. I've watched a half-dozen folks limit out on smallies around some Ozark springs, and they'll do it three or four days a week. IMO they're just as vulnerable in winter as they are during spawning, and if we're going to protect them during that time of year, we ought to consider extending the no-kill stream closure to colder months of the year as well.

Mic- The brookies worked for biological control, just not as well as MDC had hoped. I believe they're planning to stock higher densities in order to better remove the parasite from the system.

No more than the idea Oneshot's ol' lady is gonna get hauled off for making a phone call in the parking lot If the park concessionaire should be restricted to using Park property, why shouldn't NRO be restricted to using NRO property? You have to apply the rule equally. In most cases, yes- if Bennett opened a burger joint in Lebanon I'd be ticked. But while the Niangua isn't entirely within the park, it is a navigable river, open for public recreation. Everyone has a right to use the river, whether they own property on it or not, whether that person is you, me, NRO, or the Bennett concessionaire. Why should every other livery be able to utilize this public resource, except for the one located within the public recreation park?

The 1.5 million dollar book deal is bogus. I checked. Contrary to Mr. Dablemont's position, there is public oversight of MDC, and they are routinely audited- one of the most audited agencies in the state. http://www.auditor.m...ss/2011-120.htm And it says : "MDC agreed to pay a retired former employee at least $155,000 to write a book about Missouri rivers and streams. The MDC did not solicit bids or document its reasons for this sole source procurement." I doubt newspapers pass on Dablemont's articles because they're critical of MDC. More likely, they pass on them because they're not accurate. If Dablemont wants to go after the MDC it's his right- but he should get his facts straight, first.

I understand the sentiment, Ron. I agree that MO doesn't have it as tough as many other states, and I do wish MDC was a little more openly appreciative of the sporting public. But there's a lot of MDC folks who feel they're putting their career on the line every time they open their mouth, that if they get too cozy with conservation groups, folks like the Farm Bureau will use it to polarize opinion against them (MDC). But I think if folks build a rapport with their regional MDC folks it really helps to grease the wheels. Get involved with groups like SMA, TU/FFF, Quail/Ducks Unlimited, NWTF, Conservation Federation, and the rest. See if their are volunteer opportunities- helping with fieldwork, habitat improvements, public outreach. Talk to them at fairs, be present at meetings and events. If they know you're an ally, they'll generally open up.

It's a service provided for the benefit of park users- what's the problem with that? Should Bennett shut down its cabins, campgrounds, camp store, and restaurant because those services are provided by the private sector? Should drinking fountains be turned off in hopes you'll buy a bottled water? If a state agency has no business going into competition with the private sector, we need to quit stocking the spring branch, too- after all, there are pay-for-play trout ranches throughout the Ozarks which may be negatively impacted. Bennett's not requiring visitors to use their services, just providing them as an amenity.

I agree to a point Ron, but it's a two-way street. Lots of folks in this state are hostile to MDC, and the agency fights a battle of many fronts- protecting resources, educating the public, and dismissing the misinformation sowed by legislators, the Farm Bureau, property rights nuts, etc. It's got to be draining- and if you walk into a meeting full of angry folks who don't understand your position or intentions, I can understand how you'd come across as distant or aloof. It's also part of the agency's culture. Employees don't know which landowners have what connections, or who's hanging out at the gas station or coffee shop when they drop in. They're encouraged to be a little guarded, because you never know who's listening. It's probably a bit paranoid, but with folks like Mr. Dablemont around, waiting to swoop in every time MDC makes a misstep, it's probably understandable.