SpoonDog

You're making my point for me, Mitch. We know smallies stack up and that they are in certain spots in winter, and you can just as easily find reaches devoid of 18-20" fish November through February. Fact is, neither of those observations are representative of what Ozark streams can produce. For the sake of argument let's say there's 50 miles of wintering habitat on the mainstem Meramec. What you're suggesting is MDC base smallmouth regs off what happens in 23% of the stream three or four months out of the year because of biased sampling- personal observations which maximize timing, location, and angler skill I reckon MDC gets a hundred letters a week from folks asking to change regulations because they want regulations changed. Farmers who believe taking gravels from streams improves habitat or believe cow or pig poop in streams is harmless. ORV riders who believe riding buggies through the gravel bars doesn't do damage. Canned hunt operators who believe domestic deer aren't introducing disease or all the other random folks who believe black helicopters are dumping bears and cougars and rattlesnakes and cobras in the dark of night. There's a reason MDC doesn't implement regulations based on what people believe. Just because I'm not on the "screw MDC!" bandwagon it means I'm some sort of mole. I'm not an MDC biologist, I'm not an MDC employee, I'm not even a Missouri resident. I'd like to see more enforcement more comprehensive smallmouth management areas, I'd like to see winter harvest curtailed, I'd like to see more habitat improvement to increase growth, survival and carrying capacity. I also know it's tough beating a good argument with a bad argument, no matter how many letters you write. Make a good argument.

A centenarian can do a thousand pushups a day, run a marathon, an Iron Man, pull a 747 with his teeth, whatever- if he isn't 6 feet tall by 100, it's pretty dang unlikely he'll be 6 feet all by 101. Your kid's gonna grow faster at age 5 than 55. Your puppy's gonna grow faster at 4 months than at 4 years. That's what MDC's saying Mitch- not that 20" smallmouth are unhealthy- that they're growing very slowly late in life. All sorts of factors play into growing quality fish, over the course of their entire lifetime. The 20 inchers we occasionally catch today have as much (probably more) to do with a good water year, a cool summer, or a poor age class five or six years back when they were dinks and growing rapidly as it does any reg MDC has or could put in place. Restrictive regs like C&R don't change that. You guys are arguing we'll produce 6'0 tall 100 year olds if we produce more 5'10" 85 year olds without ever stopping to think maybe i's an oversimplification of the world around us. I'm not sure how you can rationally be upset at MDC for not buying into it.

What happened in the last couple months that made quality smallmouth go from rare enough to need special, stricter regs to waayyyy more abundant than MDC realizes? If growth did slow in courtois over time I'd be genuinely curious to see those results & see if they compare with population shifts in the Jacks Fork and Gasconade, for example.

I like the fact that MDC's wiling to meet with the public. I sorta thought that was exactly what we wanted them to do. It seems kinda silly to whine about it- like the three year old incessantly asking for a cookie and, when he gets it, bursting into tears. Sure, public meetings are a bit of an anachronism- but they provide minority groups a pretty good loudspeaker. And the small percentage of folks advocating 18" regs or complete C&R are certainly a minority group. I think an online, real-time deal would be good, maybe even add some online component to the in-person meetings so folks can submit questions and concerns electronically. But I've also heard a fair number of radio call-in shows with MDC folks in the Ozarks and other parts of the state, so I think they are reaching out and trying to communicate with the public at large. Seems a lot of folks are upset MDC's catering to one small demographic, but aren't willing to show up and represent their own small demographic. I don't have much sympathy for that, and I'm not interested in the argument MDC's being uncooperative or unresponsive because they've set up a meeting smallmouth anglers choose not to go to. A lot of folks will drive to Crooked Creek or Buffalo and fish for smallmouth, whether it be for pleasure or some warped sense of sticking it to the man. When it comes time to go to a meeting a couple hours closer to home so those same quality regs can be implemented on Missouri streams, they balk. So much for passion and dedication to the resource.

MDC invests a ton burning their own property and in workshops and resources to help private landowners burn theirs, too. I;ve participated in burns on private property with MDC personnel using MDC equipment.. Of course an MDC forest is not going to recommend burning: burning causes fire. Fire scars are a timber defect. I don't know why you think a forester would recommend a practice which will devalue timber. If you're main goal is more wildlife then sure- a wildlife manager has no problem with burning. So no, MDC is not anti-burning. They just don't want everyone burning everything every year, because we've already tried that in the Ozarks and it doesn't help wildlife, fisheries, or landscape health. Same with gravel: MDC isn't preventing private landowners from pulling gravel out of streams on their property for their own use. What they are doing is preventing industrial-scale gravel operations which, time and again, have damaged streams. You're absolutely right folks can eat a ton of carp or suckers or raccoons or possums without having major native impacts on the total population. They're all omnivores and herbivores, which means the ecosystem can support more of them than it can predators like smallmouth. Carp and suckers are broadcast spawners and produce thousands of offspring, while smallmouth are nest guarders and may only produce a few hundred. And carp and gar are not as heavily targeted as smallmouth, they're underexploited while smallmouth (depending on who you ask) are overexploited. Not all wildlife is created the same. And if you can get by surviving on carp, suckers, possums and raccoons- go for it. If you can get by without smallmouth, then stricter smallmouth regs, like those 4-point regs, have no affect on you.

I understand what the 4 point rule is, I just don't see any Ozark locals wasting away because of it. Nor do I see many locals wasting away because they can't eat every smallie they catch. Nor do I see much sense in booing regulations (deer, smallmouth, or otherwise) because someday, somehow, they may change into something completely different. If I lived in some weird alternate universe populated only by myself, male deer, and smallmouth, maybe my attitudes would be different and I'd be faced with some tough choices. Luckily though, no one lives in that weird alternate universe. Even the indians realized the Ozarks were not the sort of place for year-round subsistence. Even the early settlers built hunting camps, roaming across the landscape looking for game and covering a ton of ground in the process. The idea homesteaders were living off the fat of the land without consequences for the resource is a fantasy- we've seen what happened to fish and game numbers. I have no interest in entertaining that fantasy. I don't think management of our resources should be based on that fantasy. I don't think the majority of anglers should have to settle for poor fishing because a few folks buy into that fantasy. It's sorta like building a house in a floodplain: if you want to try scratching a living off the land in a place where it makes no ecological sense- I can't stop you, but I'm not going to enable you, either. If you want to hitch your wagon to exploiting someone else's resources for your personal nutrition, be my guest- just don't pitch a fit when they decide they have other ideas.

Antler-point restrictions only target bucks, they exclude button bucks, and they don't even apply to most counties in the Ozarks. If you live in the Ozarks and you're worried about hunting for food, antler-point restrictions have absolutely zero affect on your life. Same with smallmouth regs- you still get to kill smallies, just not as many. And suckers, gar, largemouth, spots, rainbow trout, brown trout, drum, catfish, walleye, sauger, white bass, longears, bluegill, crappie, frogs, turtles, redear, warmouth, common carp, buffalo, and other species are still on the table. If anything I have to wonder whether the ability to trace one's ancestry 100 years or more through the Ozarks isn't evidence folks weren't living off the land- considering big game animals like deer and turkey were absent on the landscape for substantial periods of time. Much of the Ozarks was basically unsettled until the railroads punched through the highlands- a little more than a century ago. Never heard of an urban resident so irate at the condition of a county road they travel a few times a year that they'd call up the county commissioner. Never heard of a county commissioner greenlighting road improvements because of urban residents. Never heard of county commissioners particularly concerned with the sentiment of urban residents- makes sense, given many are elected positions and urban residents aren't their consituency. Not sure it is a matter of fact, and I'd wager your private road goes from your doorstep to some arterial someone else is chipping in to maintain. Similarly, MDC awards grants to rural fire departments - funds everyone pays into, not just those in the local community. All of that misses the point, though- they aren't locals' smallmouth, and it isn't up to locals to decide what happens to them.

Exactly! Many rural economies depend on rural visitors. Sometimes it's direct transactions like shuttles, campgrounds and firewood, other times it's for indirect benefits like SNAP, WIC and unemployment benefits, heating/cooling benefits, school breakfast/lunch programs, ag benefits, rural fire department grants, infrastructure maintenance and improvements (roads, bridges, sewage treatment plants, etc). Urban residents don't owe rural residents a thing. Changing fishing regs isn't akin to coming into their house and cutting off their supply of food- because it was never their supply of food to begin with. Doesn't matter how close they live to the stream nor for how long- fish and wildlife are a resource owned by everyone. If most anglers want quality smallmouth fisheries, they shouldn't be held hostage by a group of locals claiming authority they don't have. No one MUST eat fish in order to survive, and perhaps if I had never been to the Ozarks and didn't know the #1 condiment for fish is Crisco, I'd be a little more sympathetic to the health and well-being argument.

It isn't even restricted to legislative influence, money (and time) talk. One of the reasons groups like Ducks Unlimited, Wild Turkey Federation and the big buck clubs have been so effective at implementing changes is they not only have a major, vocal constituency- they're flush with cash. Even TU has been able to help MDC with land acquisition and in-stream habitat improvements. And I'd be genuinely surprised to learn the brushpiles and rocks in Table Rock and upper Taney have nothing to do with Johnny Morris dumping tons of cash on MDC's lawn in Jeff City. Squeaky wheels get grease. Squeaky wheels with money get results. Smallmouth anglers pay for licenses and smallmouth anglers pay their share of a 1/8th cent conservation tax; we're buying in while everyone else is anteing (anteying?) up. For better or for worse we live in a region where the private sector is lauded as the epitome of smart management. That means the people with the cash get to set the agenda. For the record I am NOT a fan of this model- but it's been awfully effective for other special interests. Maybe Missouri smallmouth anglers could use a daddy Warbucks type.

You may think about hitting the NFOW or the 11 Point for a smallmouth or trout float- Monday crowds may not be too bad. If you're wading, Bryant, Jacks Fork, or Meramec up around Short Bend may be worth checking out. Just depends on where you are presently and how far you'd like to drive.

BS- MDC studies have produced results- they're just not the results. They're not the results some folks want and for that reason some folks won't listen, but that isn't MDC's prolem. The reason you don't see MDC adopting statewide C&R isn't because they're beholden to meat anglers or yokels- they're beholden to reality. No one anywhere does statewide C&R- even federally threatened bull trout and other western salmonids have some harvest. Smallmouth aren't endangered, harvest isn't decimating their populations, and something like 7% of MIssouri anglers were for statewide C&R- if you think MDC's going to ignore 93% of the state's smallmouth anglers you're delusional. Maybe their biologists recognize "These are the best regs because these are the regs I like" for what it is- a circular argument. I'd love for Scarlett Johanssen to forsake her career and become my constant topless fishing companion-I'd definitely find more excuses to get out on the stream. I can keep pestering her people until they cave or just stop listening. But at some point we all gotta put on our big-boy britches and ask ourselves which party is being unreasonable. Mitch is absolutely right that enforcement will be an issue regardless of any regulations change. Maybe most poachers are locals- MDC's data does suggest most folks stick to one watershed, and usually it's one pretty close to home. An on-the-ground creel survey (at a regional or watershed scale) would nail down questions like: how many people are actually keeping smallmouth, where are they (anglers) coming from, even what harvest of sublegal fish is like. It could also tell us whether there are streams, or sections of streams, where anglers are more likely to adopt restrictive regs because voluntary release is already high. It'd tell us whether anglers are more likely to release big fish (meaning they prioritize quality management) or little fish (meaning they prioritize harvest). It'd tell us whether most anglers are ACTUALLY too stupid to ID smallmouth or determine which regulations the section their fishing falls under- whether these are real issues or crutches ginned up by management. I'd be all for trying to get more agents in the Ozarks, especially during the smallmouth season. Maybe Water Patrol or county personnel could be deputized- it seems I see more of them than agents, at least on the popular stretches. If they can nail you for glass or a beer bong, SURELY they can scope out a stringer. In that big long list I mentioned a smartphone app- something that that'd put anglers into contact with an MDC agent faster. Granted there's a lot of coverage holes in the Ozarks, but maybe just the knowledge it exists could curtail some poaching. Coding is a big nerdy thing right now, maybe there's some class or individual at a state school or community college looking for a semester project or a capstone. I'd be awfully surprised if none existed. It's a win-win-win: the kid gets a line on the resume' MDC gets a feather in their cap and a practical tool to combat everything from fish and wildlife poaching to vandalism, root digging, and wildlife trafficking, and smallmouth anglers get another tool to help protect their fisheries. I'd wager most poaching is coming from nearby areas, MDC's mail survey indicates most smallmouth anglers are fishing their local watershed and not making cross-state trips. Surely there are people in Farmington, Salem, Eminence, West Plains, Rolla, Marshfield and other smaller communities who'd love to see quality regs, but with urban-rural animosity you're not going to reach those folks proselytizing from St. Louis or other cities. If we can get a couple folks talking about it on the local level, we may be able to develop a broader base of support for quality regs.

While we may not be able to put the gravel back on the hills, we can help landowners fence livestock out and quit exacerbating the situation. We can report folks running ATVs up and down streams destabilizing riffles and gravel bars. We know smallmouth growth rates are highest around 70 degrees, we know smallmouth quit growing when temps are in the upper 70s, and that they quit growing when the water's up in the high 70s. The Current, Gasconade, lower Big Piney, 11 Point, Jacks Fork and North Fork are all in good shape, but water temps are up in the 80s in the Big, Bryant, upper Gasconade, upper Big Piney, Bourbeuse, middle Meramec, and the James- fish in those systems aren't growing right now, in fact they may be losing weight due to increased metabolic activity. If it helps sequester that gravel we're worried about, lengthen the growing season, reduce summer stress, eventually provide in-stream habitat (logs, rootwads), contribute to the food base (leaves feeding bugs feeding crayfish and minnows and all the other stuff smallmouth eat), maybe the boring and un-sexy work of habitat improvement should get a little more attention. And with all the other groups out there- MDC, NRCS, Stream Teams, nonprofit watershed coalitions, there's already a lot of avenues in place for more smallmouth anglers to get involved.

Knowing what we know, it wouldn't surprise me at all that smallies would move to a big, temperature stable reservoir like Clearwater during the winter. Honestly, given the landscape Black River drains (nutrient poor St. Francois Mountains) and the amount of total destruction in terms of lead mining, it's pretty wild trophy fish come from that system at all. The fact THAT watershed may benefit a thousand percent from different regulations may be something to bring to MDC's attention.

Seems like if you get decent rains and have access to mature hardwood forests you can find chanterelles through late summer and early autumn. Billethead's right about Hen of the Woods- to me they're awfully underrated. They're tasty, they're big, they're easy to ID and once you've figured out where they are you can come back year after year pretty reliably, at least in my experience. Puffballs are always around in the fall and they're OK- I've read they're likened to the Tofu of fungi- not much flavor or character. I rarely find oysters. I was amazed the one year I found Bearded Tooth mushrooms- I'd been walking the same woodlot for maybe fifteen years without ever seeing one, then they came through and cut some trees and there was one on a stump. Sorta like puffballs though- no real distinctive taste, though I imagine it'd pick up the flavor of a sauce or stew. As always, be careful!

Nice! There's some really great online resources for fly tying, I'd recommend checking out Charlie's Flybox. They go through step-by-step details for a whole host of patterns which are effective in Missouri - Slumpbuster, Barr's Bouface, Clouser Minnow, Deceiver, Fat Albert, Gurgler, hair divers, matukas, Meat Whistle, Sculpzilla, Zonker, mohair leeches. Definitely worth checking out.

You guys are way better at keeping up with all these white papers and reports than I am. Yeah. These are interconnected systems, and (to my knowledge) most of our movement data is restricted to the Current and Jacks Fork- pretty narrow watersheds without a ton of large tributaries and nothing in the way of large impoundments. How applicable is that to other watersheds in the state? How much time did MDC personnel spend huffing it up smaller tributary streams looking for these fish...how many tags were reported from mainstem rivers versus tributary streams. We've probably all ran into some surprisingly big smallies on some little streams, and I think it'd be important to know whether they're residents or they're coming from somewhere else. I was surprised looking at MDC's smallmouth management maps last night- specifically the middle Gasconade- there's protective regs on the mainstem river but not on the lower Big or Little Piney. Theoretically you could sit at the mouth and just tow the fish over to where it's legal. Given what we know already, it wouldn't surprise me at all if fish were moving between the mainstem Gasconade and the Big or Little Piney, or between the mainstem Meramec and Huzzah/Courtois/Bourbeuse/Big. These fish can obviously make these sorts of movements...are they? Maybe the solution isn't reduced regs, just more well thought-out regs. Sometimes I've wondered whether restrictive regs shift harvest to other areas. Or if the few quality sections act as source populations that are feeding harvest elsewhere on the rivers. More studies could address those concerns, it's just a question of finding the interest and the money.

Sorry guys, more stream-of-conscious thought. It seems they're saying natural mortality is the driver of the smallmouth population in that system, regardless of whether you have trophy regs or not. If that's true, we need to figure out strategies to reduce natural mortality. I know baby whitetails up north have to get up above 50 lbs or so, otherwise they won't make it through the winter. And if brown trout can make it through the first two or three growing seasons their diet shifts to bigger prey items, and that's when they really get big. MDC's scale data may tell if that 18 inch fish bigger from Day 1, or whether there's some critical life stage- you must be *this* big to hop on the trophy smallmouth ride. From the scale data Al posted a while back, it looks like there's a jump around 12", maybe reducing mortality of the little guys would translate into more big guys. Or maybe growth is subject to things like water temperature, habitat quality/availability, or drought- then boring stuff like habitat management and watershed level issues may reduce natural mortality. Their results also tell me anglers will adopt C&R in the absence of regs. My guess is folks got use to Courtois being a C&R stream and never went back to harvesting smallies, which is why it has such low angling mortality. If that's the case, I wonder what'll happen on the Gasconade and the Jacks Fork if they reduce the MLL. Courtois could make a pretty good case study for MDC to try implementing trophy regs, knowing release rates may bump up even if the reg is repealed down the road. Maybe MDC would bit on trophy regs on mid-sized, wadeable streams like the Courtois, Huzzah, Mineral Fork, Joachim, upper James, Little Piney or other Gasconade tribs, Bryant Creek...I'm sure there are others, but those come immediately to mind. Or if we have data suggesting the middle Current and the Black have serious potential- are there other streams that mimic their conditions- maybe the 11 Point or the NFOW? I get that a lot of smallmouth anglers are from the St. Louis area and a lot of interest in the Meramec ...but are we asking MDC to create trophy smallmouth fisheries generally or just in our backyard? Busch CA has what, thirty lakes? All with different sets of regulations? Montauk and Bennett each have multiple fishing zones where gear type and creel are managed separately. We have at least three (if we're not including the urban lakes) sets of regulations for trout fishing outside the parks, and in many stretches you actually DO have a Blue Ribbon area butting up against a Red Ribbon area, or a Red right upstream of a White. You float from a less restricted reach into a more restricted reach regarding trout on the NFOW, on the Meramec, and on the Niangua and there doesn't seem to be a problem. Angling isn't a high priority for folks floating the Meramec, Jacks Fork, Elk or 11 Point this time of year, and the survey results suggest most anglers are wading. This move to "simplify regulations" seems pretty arbitrary, and I have to wonder if it's a solution looking for a problem. Regardless of how it goes in the next few months, it'll be important to ask MDC not just what regulations they'll be adopting, but how those regs will be evaluated to determine their efficacy. If all we need is a 15/1 rule to produce better Ozark stream fisheries that's fantastic, but if it translates to reduced angling quality on stretches of streams where we've made improvements, I'd argue that's unacceptable.

We don't even have to dust off a thirty year old study, though- the Courtois still has the lowest natural mortality, the lowest angler harvest, and the highest C&R rates of any of the streams they studied. Plus the watershed is still pretty undeveloped. If we're really interested in what an Ozark stream can produce with reduced harvest, determining a realistic baseline or a target for management- the Courtois looks like it. If we want to know how far reduced harvest and C&R will get us to the sort of fisheries we want, there it is. It'd be really interesting to see MDC's data (all of it- I'd imagine there's annual or at least routine numbers on catch rates and population structure), and if biologists or anglers are interested in doing more studies, really focusing in on it as some sort of reference. If were interested in exploring whether habitat or outreach or other factors could play a role, Courtois seems pretty ideal too. It's a manageable sized watershed, the Corps ranks it as an outstanding water resource, it's a MDC Conservation Opportunity Area, there's a ton of other non-profit groups working in the Meramec watershed, it's reasonably close to major urban areas and it's practically in MSA's backyard, and there's a substantial amount of public property. That said,looking through some of MDC's older stuff it sure looks like an 18" MLL improved some streams, notably the Gasconade. It also seems from their survey data anglers aren't as confused about the current trophy regs as MDC appears to believe. And if about as many folks support quality regs as support a single, statewide rule...I'm not sure how that gets turned into a single, statewide rule for the quality stream reaches.

Would you rather be paid, or would you rather see results? Improving habitat, water quality, or voluntary release rates improves fishing...I was under the assumption that was the goal. Volunteers may not get paid, but they do receive benefits. It would be a cool study, but it goes back to what I was saying in a previous post: even states with trophy smallmouth regs are doing the same thing MDC has- estimating parameters and plugging them into models. Those methods are fine when they justify trophy regs, but when MDC's results vary we suggest they close entire watersheds and shunt enforcement from elsewhere all so they can collect more "baseline data." No one else is doing that. So far I've only been able to find the abstract, but someone may have access to the whole article if they'd make a trip to their university library, but it looks like the folks at MIzzou did a study in the 80's looking at the impact of C&R on Ozark smallmouth populations. Without harvest, without otters, and with a pretty broad definition of quality fish (11 inches), they suggest restrictive regs may have limited applications. One of the things we keep doing is holding up examples of successful restrictive regs, and ignoring the examples where things don't pan out. It isn't a silver bullet, the literature isn't monolithic, and results range from dramatic to nonexistent. Just browsing online you see instances where fish size increases but population size decreases, or fish get bigger but they also get smarter, and catch rates decline. It isn't all one way.

Trout Unlimited has done some pretty significant habitat work on Mill Creek. Looks like Missouri's wild turkey federation is partnering with Missouri's Prairie Foundation to restore grasslands, they're doing riparian work at Mule Shoe CA, they're restoring grasslands around Mark Twain Lake, they're doing cost-share with landowners for habitat improvements, they're working with the National Forest to manage grasslands and forests, they're funding prescribed burning equipment for the Nature Conservancy (another citizen organization which protects and manages a whole bunch of places in the state), they're purchasing equipment for 4H groups, they're helping with a girl's summer camp, they're helping fun Share the Harvest, FFA, scholarships and a whole host of other stuff. You've prioritized outdoor trips with the family and that's fantastic- but there's no question conservation groups have made real, measurable differences.

Twenty percent of Missourians never graduated high school and most folks read at a 5th grade level. People like pretty pictures of butterflies and fuzzy, adorable mammals. Maybe Conservationist's bias is a reflection of the population at large instead of another sinister MDC plot? I'd wager MDC biologists have spouses and kids and other work obligations too. I bet they'd be far more interested in sitting down to dinner with their family than having their studies or proposals trashed at an MSA meeting or online. That's sort of my point- we're constantly asking them to shoulder the burden of protecting the resource, and when it's time for us to put some skin in the game- we're too busy.There's lots of big-fish pictures on this forum, I haven't seen any with folks I recognize as field biologists, their supervisors or administrators, agents, CFM bigwigs or conservation commissioners. We can go fishing AND take these folks along- six or eight hours of their undivided attention and a demonstration of what Ozark smallmouth fisheries could be may work wonders. We can do a fishing trip/spotted bass roundup AND a trash cleanup- I quit counting the number of tires in the river last time I was on Mineral Fork. We can spend four or five hours putting in willow stakes on a CA AND spend the rest of the weekend chasing smallies. It isn't either/or. I'll be the first to admit I'm not in a place in my career where I can devote a ton of time to many of the projects I listed earlier- aside from occasionally volunteering with kid's fishing clinics or helping scouts with angling and environmental science merit badges or donate a box of flies. I don't have the skill set to generate websites or brochures, and I'm probably not the guy you want gladhanding biologists or sponsors. But I'm happy to help find folks with those talents, I'd be happy to share and cultivate contacts with MDC and other groups, and I'll be sending messages to Ron and Dan about projects and opportunities. Dan and Al bring up some really great points on length/creel limits and how they're paying dividends in other states, and if we can get MDC on board with more restrictive regs in the next few weeks or months I'm all for it. I'm just not sure how willing they are to go with something more restrictive. But if they're willing to tweak these regs, maybe they'd be receptive to other suggestions along with it. MDC's data may not give us science-based justifications for an 18/1 or C&R rule, but if harvest rates are so low and voluntary release rates are so high, why do we have such an effing long harvest season? Knocking off a couple months in late autumn through winter won't effect early-season harvest, and it'd protect the fish MDC's studies demonstrate are making long-distance movements between summer ranges and wintering spots. If a couple folks can clean out a stream reach in June, what happens when all those fish are stacked in a few places during January- there may not be many winter anglers, but they may have an outsized impact on the resource. Because their numbers are so low, they may not be effectively captured in a random angler survey- and if we know the number of anglers differs seasonally, why would we expect a uniform tag return (and therefore harvest estimate) rate? That's just one proposal- maybe we can work out others if we invested as much time looking at MDC's data as we do trashing it.

There are lots of folks out there working proactively- Ron put up some great stuff regarding CFM earlier this season, MSA's involved in stream teams, signage, spotted bass roundup, and several other projects, and I'm sure there's other folks out there doing things with kids, scout groups and other projects I'm not aware of. I'm not trying to minimize or belittle their work, just pointing out this whole "explore all possible options" concept goes both ways. It doesn't take much to come up with a pile of constructive ways to get involved in Ozark smallmouth, it only took me a pot of coffee and a little thought. Other states do manage smallmouth differently- just as other states manage largemouth, flatheads, walleye, whitetails, turkey, trout, otters and a whole host of other species differently. Quality regs would probably work here too, it's just not a science-based argument to say "let's do it because they do." To my knowledge there are few (if any) Ozark smallmouth streams with harvest rates so high they're in danger of collapse, which makes it hard for any biologist, regardless of where they are, to make a scientific argument for restrictive regulations. It's a social problem, and in a lot of states with trophy smallmouth regs it isn't that they (the managers) value the quality of the fishery over harvest, it's that the anglers pushing trophy regs have been able to cultivate a broad-base of support for. Sometimes I wonder if us folks back home have the cart before the horse. I think MSA does a pretty good job with the projects it focuses on, and there's limitations in any organization regarding manpower and interest- I'm not trying to single them out, just using MSA as a placeholder for smallmouth anglers in general. That said, I think it's fair to question why we're clinging to this model of outsourcing so much research, management, protection, conservation, habitat improvement, outreach and education when it seems other sportsmen's groups have figured out a much more effective arrangement. If MDC is as incompetent as we say...and yet we keep asking them to do the jobs we can't or won't do...what does that say about us? How much room do we really have to complain? Maybe a more integrated approach has been attempted and maybe it's failed, making it as effective at bringing about trophy regs as anything else we've tried. If we're going to abandon an approach because it hasn't panned out in the past...why are we still talking about changing smallmouth regs?

Sorry, it just seems like there conservation/sportsmen's groups which have been really effective at getting the changes they want implemented- and I think we can learn a lot from their experiences instead of ignoring them.

We have led a long, aggressive campaign at badgering MDC into adopting trophy smallmouth regs. They didn't get the numbers to justify it scientifically, we didn't build the constituency so they could justify it socially. The end result is a study lots of people are skeptical of and a regulations change lots of people aren't happy with. We can continue with a strategy which isn't working, or we can try emulating some of the conservation groups in the states that are, you know. Successful. Groups like Pheasants Forever and Wild Turkey Foundation are focused on more than just regs changes. They have people informed regarding the latest pertinent studies. They partner with MDC instead of treating them as adversaries. They're proposing studies and then helping fund them. They're funding scholarships. They're heavily involved with youth groups and programs. They're involved with habitat improvement projects. They're networking not just with field biologists but their supervisors, administrators, conservation commissioners and the conservation federation. They're partnering with other state agencies, as well as federal conservation agencies and non-government organizations, and private landowners. They put a ton of effort into fundraising, education, and outreach. Not only do they have MDC's ear, they're able to effectively implement boots-on-the-ground change. They are as good at getting things done as we are terrible- so why aren't we paying attention? Don't care. I know I'm not the first person on the planet to make these sorts of suggestions and I know they've been given short shrift in the past, maybe a more direct approach will light a fire under someone's butt. There are a handful of conservation/sportsmen's groups just in this state providing us a roadmap to get from where we are now to where we want to be, and our collective response has been to give them the finger. Maybe that's a terrible and demonstrably ineffective way of getting things don, and maybe instead of throwing ourselves some online pity-party or blaming MDC we we can take this moment to figure out a meaningful, intelligent way of moving ahead.

You guys aren't asking MDC to come up with a solution, you're demanding they adopt yours. They proposed a science based set of regulations, a compromise between the status quo and trophy regs. It's shot down because it doesn't meet all of your demands. Trophy regs would add more 14-15 inch fish to the mix, and maybe they'd add couple more >18" fish per mile, too. For an experienced angler those few bigger fish may make a noticeable improvement to the fishery. I'm not convinced it translates into dramatically better fishing for the average angler though- in my experience it takes more skill and knowledge to successfully target trophy fish. Do we want MDC managing smallmouth resources for the benefit of a wide spectrum of anglers, or the average angler? Then the proposed regs seem a good fit. The only reason they don't work is if you're actually looking for MDC to shift management focus from one demographic (meat anglers) to a different demographic (trophy anglers). Truth is, MDC is not the only party in this conversation with others options to explore. Look: How many third parties have we contacted about reviewing MDC's data? There are tons of folks in academia and the private sector with the skills to determine whether their data and results are sketchy, who's looking into it? We want to fill in some blanks regarding Missouri Smallmouth biology? Great! How many biologists or academics are we talking to about projects which can be implemented. How many grant proposals have we written or assisted with? How many funding sources have we investigated? How many professional meetings have we attended. How informed are we regarding the latest research and techniques? It's summertime! Cole County fair is this week! Gasconade has a fair, Washington county has TWO fairs- TWO FAIRS GUYS! The Missouri State Fair's in Sedalia in August, Eureka Days in September, Butler County something-or-other in September, what excellent opportunities to engage the public! How many booths are we setting up?! What about other networking opportunities? How many of us have contacted state biologists directly to express our interest in smallmouth regs? What about conservation commissioners? What about Conservation Federation of Missouri? How many of us are members of CFM? How many have talked to Commission members or folks at the administration level? What other non-profit groups are we partnering with to raise awareness of issues affecting smallmouth? Stream Team? LAD? Ozark Land Trust? Nature Conservancy (*gasp!*). What about boots on the ground stuff? How many landowners have we talked to regarding issues ranging from livestock management to gravel mining to in-stream habitat modifications which would benefit smallmouth? Heck, how many other anglers- outside of OA and MSA, are we talking to about these issues? How many landowners have we put in touch with NRCS or MDC so they can get some cost-share regarding water quality or aquatic habitat improvements? How many of those projects have we assisted with? How many MDC areas have we inventoried, looking for possible projects and improvements to aquatic habitat? How much have we put up for those efforts, in terms of direct funds or man hours? What about other media opportunities? Lame gaudy stickers may be the only thing that can unite both Bros and Rednecks- where are they? T-shirts, brochures, giveaway stuff for all those county fairs we're going to and setting up booths to get people interested in smallmouth- where are they? How many smart young kids have we approached about creating an app that'd allow users to directly report poachers to the local conservation agent, along with a GPS location and the ability to send a photo of the suspect or their vehicle or license plate? How many websites have we created illustrating the value of smallmouth angling in the state, the issues quality smallmouth fisheries face, and what people can do to help? How many fishing clinics have we hosted? How many youth groups have we talked to? How many kid's outings have we participated in? We have a nationally-acclaimed wildlife artist and the flagship store of one of the nation's biggest fishing retailers, and just on this forum we have folks building handmade canoes, kayaks, fishing lures, flies, rods, nets...we have professional fishing guides- where's the fundraising arm? Why aren't we using these people to help improve our smallmouth fishing? Who's going on local sports radio programs to talk about smallmouth? How many scholarships are we funding at MSU or Mizzou for students interested in some day being fisheries biologists? How many internships are we funding through MDC or the American Fisheries Society to get young talented fisheries professionals in the door? Screw that- who's judging your local science fair? Who's cultivating an interest in science? Who's cultivating an interest in nature? Who's cultivating an interest in the outdoors? Why aren't WE exploring options outside MDC? Why aren't WE being more proactive? It's easy to ask other anglers to give up their creels for the sake of our trophy fisheries and then balk at the idea of making any sort of sacrifice ourselves. We know it only takes a couple meat anglers to impact a stream reach. You can implement a 15/1 rule or an 18/1 rule or a slot or strict C&R and never change that. You have to make the angler think twice about harvesting those fish in the first place. That isn't something you're going to get through increased regs- you're going to get that through education and outreach. But that's hard and it cuts into our fishing time, so we'll play lip service and hang a couple signs to make ourselves feel good and then go back to scapegoating MDC. We'll conflate dogmatism, misinterpretation of scientific data and grousing on internet forums with passion for protecting and enhancing a resource and we'll pat ourselves on the back for being such good stewards. Maybe someday MDC will adopt the regs we want, maybe they'll dramatically improve fisheries, maybe they won't- in which case we'll pick otters, giggers, poachers, jet boats, or something else out of a hat and start the whole process over again. Because that's all we ever do.