Wayne SW/MO

Normally, but they just concluded a study of every smallmouth stream, the information should still be valid. The positive side of a 3 to 14 and 1 over 17 would be the reluctance by the biologist to "muddy" the water. The end result would probably mean that few streams would have exceptions. If we got that then maybe we could get some trophy areas, no fish over 14".

Didn't AR stock trout in BS at one time?

I would like to see something like 1# and then work from there. I see know reason why every stream can't have a SMA to retain a strong seed stock. The area could be bordered by private land and controlled by someone sympathetic to the cause. I would be a lot happier with a White Paper defending exceptions to the regulations on some streams. We've had special regulations concerning spring fishing for as long as I can remember. I know they aren't always adhered to, but they help and there is always a chance that a violator will learn the error of his ways.

And its anybody's guess as to when very many native Missourians started to identify them. Many can't today and I wouldn't assume that the lack of identification by fishermen meant they didn't exist. As for Smallmouth and their range, I don';t see how anyone can assume they got here by railroad when they had perfectly good rivers to travel in. The Ohio is connected to the Ozarks after all.

Most voltmeters have a 12V amp reader on them. Disconnect the negative and bridge the gap with the DC amp meter probes. It will tell you what the draw is, and if you disconnect as Wrench said it will tell you which, if any, are heavy.

I pretty much agree with what you say gypsy, although I'm not sure the Jack Salmon runs were that much better than now or how much they are worth overall. The paddlefish program is a mitigation for wiping out the spawning grounds and severely deteriorating their feeding grounds. The trout for the most part are put where our natives don't go, at least not in large numbers. The only class that's left as far as special requirements is the smallmouth, at least as a game fish. It also seems to be a fish that resists mans help in anything artificial. There's little doubt that while it might be tough, its very particular and simply will not live anywhere like its sunfish cousins. I have yet to see an believable argument that the needs anymore than protection form habitat destruction, a competitive invasion, and over harvesting. Biologist say that unlike the LM's and spots, they will spawn again if their first try is unsuccessful. I suppose if this is true it would account for yearly classes being present in spite of floods. We all know there will never be enough enforcement to adequately enforce rule in remote places, places that make up most of Missouri. The thing is these rules and regulations do have a positive effect. I still contend the MDC should hope they don't have to explain why a SMA didn't work, rather than not take a chance at all. I think the White Paper should have been an explanation of the criteria used to create an SMA on virtually every stream. They could have even used it to prepare the groundwork for a failure explanation later, who cares, at least they would have tried. They could use SMA's on many streams to experiment with various regulations to find those that work best on like streams. They would have a program for all streams with native smallmouth populations, not just a few chosen because they feel they guarantee success. There is no gamble in the attempt.

Native as in long term residents, I agree. I don't have my The Fishes of Missouri handy, but it seems to me the author mentions Spotted bass in the Mississippi in the STL area. I have to remain a skeptic on some things because my experience dictates it. All too often a reason for some catastrophe is given and assumed only to later be found at fault. When it comes to Spots a.k.a Kentuckies what ever the theory or facts are, little can be done about it short of what Al A pushes. Taking as many out as possible to avoid hybrids and competition is likely the bottom line. AS to whether they were there, in and out of the river? First off you can't depend on the natives to make a distinction between LM and Kentuckies, they didn't really care. As far as the MDC not finding them? I'm not privy to the exact times that they took samples, but there is some information that it wasn't often, and even if it did it has no bearing on the situation historically, its not even a hundred years! I don't know the answer and the theory I quoted isn't my own, nor do I know it to be true, but I do believe the Spots are natives even if they aren't wanted where they are presently. Al didn't the Salt have a small population of smallmouth?

Drew if you have any clue at all about the topography of Missouri, south of the Missouri, you know that there are more miles of Smallie water east than west. The area is much shorter north and south on the west side than the east side. In spite of that the St Louis area only gains a couple of SMA'a more. The center SMA's are about the same distance and the southern ones very close. The truth is the eastern side could probably make a good argument that the area got shorted. They should have an SMA on every stream, if for no other reason than to retain seed stock. Laws are and always will be a deterrent, not a complete prevention. I don't see the reality in avoiding the the implementation of a regulation or law based on the ability to enforce it, not when it stands alone.

There is simply no evidence to support this, none.

Even if the cfs is less that doesn't necessarily translate into slower currents. In fact it might mean less slack water. As to the 30's and 40's, what makes you so certain there wasn't some invasion? The reality is that a drought then would not be the same as a drought today when it comes to groundwater. The fact that the aquafier is much lower means that much of the groundwater will pass the shallow areas that feed some springs.

If they were native to the Mississippi it would have been hard to keep them out of the Missouri. There is more than one theory about why they are moving farther into smallies native habitat. I think one that can't be dismissed is the one that theroizes that the reduction in spring flow has raised the stream temperatures making them more acceptable to spots and largmouth. The reason given for the lack of largmouth is that they prefer still waters, the spots are a current fish. If this is true then it would be hard to know if they have moved farther upstrem in the past and then retreated.

I don't see any preference overall. The reality is that while there are 4 close to STL and only 2 in the southwest, people in the southwest are close to 7 SMA's. The eastern area does have more flow overall, thanks to the dams here.

I don't think that can be said with any certainty, they are native to the big rivers. I don't know that you can call them invasive given the fact that the weather has had much to do with an extension of their range, and we don't know if its temporary, a cycle, or permanent. As far Asian carp go we can at least hope they don't do well in still water, or our clear streams.

I think you're right Gavin, the better fish get first choice to sheltered waters and the dinks are forced to go looking.

I realize there is a walleye fishery in the lake, but again I think there is a point where it needs to sustain itself. I suspect it not only isn't, but it never will if they continue to run the hatchery setup they presently run. I just believe its time to move on. Bull Shoals was the darling of the bass crowd in the early 50's and produced the state record largemouth. It wasn't long however until the lake moved into its present day purpose as a flood water holding area. The uncertain lake levels combined with the closing of Table Rock, which was more assessable and stable, diminished its overall worth. It has had some outstanding White bass fishing over the years and only spring spawning conditions seem to diminish it. I believe it would be a perfect lake for the true bass family because they are an open water fish, big, and can be reasonably easy to catch. As far as size goes I have to rely on my experience in watching the fishery evolve on Texoma lake in Oklahoma. It took a surprisingly short period of time to start seeing fish in the 20 lb range, and while there weren't any large numbers of huge fish, the fish that were there in numbers were big by this areas standards. It was also a surprise in the numbers of big largemouth that came out from under the striper schools. One of the cons put forth in regard to this family is its tendency to wander, but that isn't being proven in the relationship between Beaver and Table Rock. There's no doubt some have gone down river, but so do the trout in Taney. Any fear that they would end up in the White and disrupt the trout fishery didn't stop them from putting them in Norfolk, a lake even more remote than BS. I believe a good population or Stripers/Wipers in BS would mean millions to a town like Forsyth, and they could sure use it. It might be noted that after the pros hit BS last year they discontinued the tournaments.

No one on here should misunderstand the pressure that the MDC faces on some subjects. Catch and release ain't happening, but I believe some regulations will be more successful than they think. The agency doesn't always read the public right. If you don't believe that then attend one of the meetings held periodically to discuss proposed changes. The majority simply want proof that the proposal is needed and will be beneficial. If people intended to ignore changes they wouldn't attend meetings. Trout fishing , stocking etc has nothing to do with the financial end of smallmouth management, its supposed to be self supporting and historically does. How much attention it gets in the time allotted by biologist might be a different matter. I do question how much time, and desire, was put into the decisions of the biologist in different areas. Did they see it as more work with little recognition, at least compared to other fisheries?

I don't believe they leave Al, but I have to believe some end up there looking for soft water when the rivers blows out and then make there way back to water they prefer.. I saw fish redistributed year after year on the John Day. When you had a couple of years of good spawn and a mild spring every hole would be well stocked with dinks. It would be rare for the river to manage two springs without a major flood, and when that happened the more narrow holes in the straight part of the river would return to a normal mix, while deeper holes created at bends would seemingly increase the numbers of small fish. I always assumed that the smaller fish got second choice and ended up in the broad eddy's produced at bends. The was a good article a couple of decades ago in the local magazine that you did a lot of art work for, sorry the name escapes me, that chronicled a scuba diver's smallmouth observations in what must have been Swan or Beaver creek. He claimed that he tracked schools of smallies into Bull Shoals during the winter where they remained close the creeks mouth, and then returned to the creeks in the early spring.

I can't think of anything on the lower lake that I would call secluded, much less open. I suppose it depends on what you call secluded, I would call Lilley's secluded as far as Taney goes. Its not on a dead end road and in fact its quite a ways from a through road. The cabins are also spaced apart to some degree, rather than in motel form.

That's certainly a very good incentive. People sometimes ask about county maps etc., well this book has maps to virtually every access site on streams east of the James. These accesses aren't just MDC accesses, but bridges, low waters crossings, fords, etc. Members in SWMO that are connected could be in a position to better inform the state MSA in what is going on in this area. The White Paper is a good example, with the bulk of the members 200 miles away it's hard for the leadership to address problems in this area to the MDC. I think a chapter in this area could go a long way towards correcting that.

CGB what ever your criteria for assuming population is, it has nothing to do with unbelievable. I don't question what you belive, I question that under my definition and maybe others that there are streams with an overpopulation of smallies in this state. Most of the streams in your section have been flushed big time recently and I suspect if there was an overpopulation it's in Grand lake now. I've fish smallie rivers in the west where 100 a day wasn't uncommon, I'm not talking quality here but quantity, and yet they would not be considered overpopulated because they were healthy fish. Once many of them were flushed down river and the competition dropped, the larger fish became easier to catch, but they never left and they weren't absent because of overpopulation. I don't see how a free flowing stream can become overpopulated, especially considering the fact that smallies will move. You don't know whether I've already fished the streams you're talking about, so that is why I ask, What do you see that leads you to believe there are too many smallies in some streams?

This one had me scratching my head also, and I might add the one you missed I believe was that the Osage Fork SMA was nearby. I've fished both quite a bit and while I'm not a biologist, I believe the Niangua to be superior Smallmouth habitat. I suspect that the smallie fish carcasses found in April and early May might be a deterrent, but the fact that Browns mysteriously disappear doesn't stop the stocking of them. It also doesn't help that there isn't more protection for the smallies in Bennett in the winter. They are sitting ducks, literaly, yet there doesn't seem to be any effort to easily pick off violators.

"I'm not for a blanket C&R, it just gives people an excuse to break the law. We have to share the resource, but that doesn't mean that the fish many of us release should allow a larger creel." There's middle ground. I agree about the giggers, they're messin' in their own nest, not to mention ours. You don't see big Redhorse anymore, at least I don't.

Ness I know what you're saying, but its not even a drop in the bucket. I've called only to find they are either unavailable or on the otherside of the county. Its not their fault, they can't be everywhere at once or work 24/7. That's the fly in the ointment, there will NEVER be enough agents to stop those who choose to see wildlife and fish as their personal food supply, or worse simply a moving target. We should call and if they hear a number of calls it can highlight a problem area for them. Laws and regulations only work for the honest and we shouldn't make adjustments for violators that can't be caught.

I'm not for a blanket C&R, it just gives people an excuse to break the law. We have to share the resource, but that doesn't mean that the fish many of us release should allow a larger creel. CGB, what's your criteria for overpopulation? What conditions do you see that leads you to believe that the fish are short on habitat and food? What about their overall condition? What streams are you talking about, you don't have to be specific, but then again if they need thinning maybe you should.

Eric, on this topic you and I think a lot alike. I too think we'll get more mileage out of deterrent than punishment. This is a big state, a big rural state, and its hard for law enforcement to enforce laws on pavement, much less in the brush by a very small force.