SpoonDog

Estimates of mortality, tag and survey returns are always going to be fuzzy. Technicians will miss fish. Every management biologist in every agency everywhere deals with it. Those studies we cite regarding the value of C&R and restricted harvest use the same sampling techniques, the same statistics, and make similar estimates and assumptions as these MDC studies. Not only do we accept their results without question, we use those results to justify tighter regulations. Experience, gear choice, lure choice, size, presentation, patience, number of days on the water...there's a ton of factors which feed into an angler's success. You can put an inexperienced angler and a very experienced angler on the same stretch of water and they'll have vastly different estimates of the population size, structure, and quality of the fishery. Neither of those estimates may be representative of what's actually there. The experiences of individual anglers are biased too, and it's not as though biologists are unaware sampling gears have a certain effective range. If you've read a research paper on any fish species published in the last two decades, there's a good chance there was some form of bias in the original dataset. It doesn't mean the science is junk, and it doesn't mean there's no useful information present. We can throw out MDC studies because they use assumptions and estimates, but it means we have to throw out all the other studies which do the same- most of the stream smallmouth literature. We can insist MDC adopt unbiased fish sampling techniques, but the only way you're going to get that sort of data is through a couple jugs of rotenone. You guys are going to offer up your favorite fishing spots all in the name of science, right? This isn't skepticism. This isn't criticism. It's ginning up reasons to dismiss results which are contrary to your beliefs. Maybe MDC biologists ARE passionate about smallmouth bass fishing in the state, they're just constrained by the limits of reality. I know I don't have all the answers. I doubt MDC does. I'm positive MSA doesn't. Maybe it really is as easy as upping length limits and/or reducing creel, but given the information we have that doesn't seem likely. Maybe it's something no one really has control over, like the decline in smallmouth abundance/size mirrors some general decline in stream productivity following implementation of the Clean Water Act in 1972. I couldn't prove it, but it'd be awfully neat- maybe the heyday of Ozark smallmouth in the 70s through the mid 80's wasn't the baseline of how great the resource can be- maybe it's the anomaly. At any rate, I suspect the new regs will move the needle a little more towards quality smallmouth fishing in the Ozarks, and I'm looking forward to seeing how the larger special management areas effects angling over all.

One flathead will fix it.

It sounds like these folks were already at it for a couple seasons before the undercover agent got involved- they were engaged in illegal activities before the Feds stepped in, which means it isn't entrapment. I don't have any sympathy for them, and if the means of their arrest were fisby I'd hope their lawyers would follow through instead of allowing them to plead guilty. Hopefully the consequences are severe enough to send a message to the other folks in the area doing the same thing.

Looks like MDC is soliciting comments on their 10-year management plan for Bohigan Conservation Area . If you have any thoughts or suggestions, make sure to let them know.

I've been mulling it over a while, and I guess MDC's numbers regarding harvest and C&R adoption really don't surprise me. To me it seems easy to hang out at a MSA meeting or an online forum where maybe 70-80% practice C&R of smallmouth and then be surprised when MDC's results contradict that ethic. Maybe their data is skewed, or maybe it's a sort of angling echo chamber- if the only people you interact with practice C&R, you're gonna have an inflated estimate of how prevalent it is. I practice C&R on smallmouth and I'd love to see more quality fish in Ozark streams. But IMO it isn't MDC's job to cultivate a C&R ethic among smallmouth anglers- that's the purview of organizations like MSA. And if most folks don't want C&R regs and those regs aren't going to contribute much to the numbers of quality smallmouth...I think it's fair to ask what the purpose of changing the regs would be. If anglers really want more quality smallmouth regs, they're going to have to win over the hearts and minds of the meat fishing crowd. Or maybe they'll have to make a scientific case- that growth rates in Ozark streams are on par with those of trophy smallmouth streams elsewhere. A quick and dirty Google Scholar search suggests Age 4 smallmouth in the New River in WV and VA average 11-13 inches, and age 4 fish in the Red Cedar River of Wisconsin ran just under 13 inches. Two year old fish were already 10 inches long in the Devils River (TX), and 4 year old fish on the Maquoketa river in Iowa averaged 12.8 inches. I don't know the answer, but it seems like maybe Ozark smallmouth really do grow more slowly than fish elsewhere. If that's really the case, then perhaps we as anglers need to pull our heads from the clouds and accept that biological reality instead of seeking scapegoats in otters and state biologists. Maybe more C&R, or tighter regs, or habitat improvement would help- but maybe no matter what we do, trophy smallmouth in the Ozarks will always be a rarity.

There is no push to reintroduce mountain lions in the Ozarks- there is no state or federal agency attempting to reintroduce them. Western populations are at carrying capacity, and young males are headed east to establish new territories. Wolves aren't experiencing the same situation.

Think of a river network like a tree- everything is connected, and its overall health is going to be compromised if you keep whacking away at every branch. It all runs downstream, and the consequences are the same whether it's a tributary or mainstem river. Erosion is still erosion, tearing up the riparian corridor still releases fine sediment and gravel, it still removes trees and vegetation which protect banks and moderate water temperatures- and many tributary streams are important nursery areas for juvenile sportfish. Part of the reason we see habitat issues (like increased gravel loads) in Ozark streams is because small tributary streams haven't received much attention from landowners, sportsmen, and regulatory agencies. I only skimmed over the legislation and maybe I missed it, but it seems like the landowner is allowed to operate vehicles in streams on the property he owns- if he's charging other people for access, folks who bring their own machines to tear up the stream- wouldn't that be illegal?

A whole lot goes into growth rates, especially when you're looking across an entire watershed and between different systems. Fish in one reach may have better habitat or a denser prey base than fish an another. Even mortality or harvest rates can effect growth- high mortality frees up resources for the remaining fish, allowing them to get bigger, faster. It isn't always as easy as saying "the big fish have better genetics, so we need to protect those."

I have no interest in arguing whether the urban or rural demographic contributes more to what we see on the rivers. But I can't tell you the number of sobriety checkpoints I'd run across on Highway 19 while Camp Zoe was in operation. I haven't run into a single one since it closed, though. And it always seems like the folks in outfitter canoes are more likely to be checked on the middle Current and 11 Point than the folks in private canoes, kayaks, or jon boats- though I've seen some awfully toasted folks in all of them. I've seen information on this vandalism from the Salem article linked above as well as the River Hills Traveler. I've seen nothing from local law enforcement or county officials, which I find odd given Pioneer is one of the largest landowners, tax payers, and economic drivers in the region. Would that be the case if Pioneer were based in Eminence instead of St. Louis? Given what I've seen in this and other instances, I have to wonder whether there's some double standard- law enforcement seems pretty vigilant when the threat comes from outside their community, but they really seem to drag their feet when it comes to investigating $#@!-disturbers within the region.

The emerald ash borer will only attack the aboveground portion of the tree- the root system stays alive and intact, and the trees will often sprout back from the base. If it gets as bad as some folks say, it'll be like the American chestnut- they're still around, just not as mature trees.

Cute.

The St. Louis NPR Station tracks Missouri's state legislator's "gifts", it looks like they have a pretty comprehensive list of representatives. It looks like you can search through candidates and see their campaign contributions here. MDC's mission is to protect and manage our state's fish, wildlife, and forest resources- with 90%+ of the state in private land ownership, you're going to have to work with private individuals to accomplish that mission. When MDC uses tax revenue to restore a wetland or stream, that means better water quality and habitat for everyone. When MDC uses tax revenue to help a landowner install ag buffers or fence cows from streams, that means less sedimentation and nutrient enrichment for everyone. When MDC uses tax revenue to assist landowners with prescribed burns or conduct forest management, it improves habitat and benefits wildlife for everyone. MDC is using public funds to generate benefits for everyone- I'm not sure what's inappropriate about that. Munzlinger can couch the bill as protecting private enterprise if he wants, but it's a red herring. Stream restoration can run more than $100 bucks a foot- many landowners simply aren't going to adopt conservation practices if it costs them that sort of scratch. There are successful private consultants in the state, and removing MDC from the equation won't necessarily create a bigger market for them- people could just opt out of doing anything altogether.

Precisely. If you're worried about MDC spending too much money, the last thing you want to do is take away the sort of cooperative programs which don't cost them anything. Friends for Munzlinger has more than $100,000 on hand, and he's taken more than $17K in "gifts" from special interests since 2004. The guy obviously has no problem with outside money funding legislative priorities, so long as the outside money is his.

I read somewhere the conservation sales tax costs Missourians about $12.00 for every $10,000 they purchase. For the price of a medium pizza or a spool of line or a couple wiggle warts you're getting the paddlefish program PLUS everything else MDC does- if that's too expensive, you probably don't have the budget to be fishing in the first place. And as has already been mentioned, much of the money comes from federal funds. MDC's paddlefish program isn't centered around giving a couple thousand yokels an opportunity to get hammered and snag big fish for five or six weeks every spring. That's a side benefit, not the main purpose. Paddlefish are a big river species with specific spawning and habitat requirements which simply don't exist now that we've channelized and dammed most of our large rivers. The evidence biologists have indicates they can't spawn in the wild and maintain viable populations- so biologists have to raise them in hatcheries. It isn't as much about snagging as a lot of folks think- it's about keeping a charismatic and ecologically important species from declining further. MDC prohibits the sale of game. You can't sell your deer or turkey, or walleye or crappie or trout, and I'm not sure why paddlefish should be treated any different. Some may see throwing the eggs overboard as wanton waste- but up until the last couple decades, there was no market for paddlefish roe. The only reason that market exists today is because every sturgeon species which has ever been used for caviar production is currently vulnerable to extinction- as sportsmen we should look at that trend and ask ourselves if we're in the business of protecting our fisheries, or pushing them over the edge for personal profit. MDC prohibits the sale of game and their parts. You can't sell your deer, or turkeys, or rabbits, or walleye, or trout, I don't see why paddlefish would be any different. A quick google search of "Missouri paddlefish bust" demonstrates all sorts of reasons why letting anglers keep roe is a bad idea. Most folks seem to agree MDC's enforcement resources are already stretched pretty thin. To me it seems allowing folks to keep the roe (and potentially sell it) would create a whole lot more enforcement issues, spreading those resources even further. I'm not sure that's in the interest of our other fisheries. I do agree the length limit/mandatory release of undersize fish seems silly- then again I've seen plenty of trout die due to poor handling practices, and few folks seem all that concerned about hauling bass up from 60 feet of water, stabbing them in the side, and throwing them back. Fish are pretty resilient critters, and I'd be surprised if the hooks were what killed the fish as opposed to gaffing, sticking hands up their gills, or letting them beat around on the side or bottom of a boat for a few minutes. But I'm glad MDC plans to look into mortality/angler catch rates, so we can have those questions answered and make better policy in the future. That's why they're here.

Maybe I should be less surprised than I am, but I haven't been able to find audio or transcripts of yesterday's meeting.

I've been wondering, too. There's a lot of folks in this guy's district who like floating and fishing, there's a lot of folks in his district making money through tourism, there's a lot of servicemen at Ft. Leonard Wood (in this guy's district) who like spending time on streams and would see many of those opportunities curtailed. There's lots of ways to make this legislation look awfully bad, and you'd think this bill would be toxic to Rep. Ross' political career, but there it is. It's one thing for me to tell my legislator I think this legislation is boneheaded, but it seems like the only way we're going to tank legislation like this is making the folks in these legislator's districts aware of what they're up to. I'm really surprised I've seen no news coverage of HB 955 either in print or on radio, and I've fired off a couple emails to papers in Representative Ross' district to see if they'd be interested in looking into the bill.

HB 955 repeals the state's water pollution regulations. It provides no pollution protections to headwater streams, intermittent streams, or streams deemed non-navigable by the state. The bill states that the only Missouri citizens with a right to a stream's flow and purity are riparian landowners. Those riparian landowners are also given the right to pollute their adjacent streams, provided they've made a "reasonable" attempt to comply with state and federal pollution regulations. The bill transfers public property (stream courses below the high water mark) into private hands, and articulates no right for the public to access our waterways above the low-water mark. The "pros" of this bill only exist if you're an adjacent riparian landowner. I'm honestly kinda surprised a guy with a B.S. in Cartography and a shooting range could put something like this together. Given the bill's emphasis on private landowner rights, water pollution, and nuisance law, my guess is Representative Ross is paving the way for the poultry and swine industry- at the expense of the tourism dollars many of his constituents have built businesses on.

There's some public land abutting Hinkson Creek off Scott Boulevard, and it may be less of a hassle to put in there and float down to Perche than putting in at Gillespie Bridge.

This guy's district (Phelps, Howell, Texas & Pulaski counties) include some of the most popular float streams in the state- what he's proposing seems pretty crazy given the number of folks in his district benefit, directly or indirectly, from floating and tourism. I'm sure the Missouri Trappers Association folks will be righteously pissed about it, too. This bill is nonsense- privatizing a public resource and protecting ag interests at the expense of anglers, sportsmen and recreational users. I've fished states out west where there is no public right to access streams, and I've seen the damage done to fisheries when landowners are given carte blanche to trash streams. We don't want that here, and I have to wonder if many of Mr. Ross' constituents understand what sort of legislation he's pushing in their name. I think writing letters and talking about the issue with coworkers and other interested folks are all good ideas, but I have to wonder how easy it is for legislators to sweep all that under the rug. We already know lots of these folks aren't entertaining criticism from outside their own districts. I'm not that technologically savvy, but Representative Ross has a Facebook page and a Twitter feed, and I'm sure Perhaps it's a good idea for folks to (respectfully) raise their concerns regarding HB 955 and other legislation through social media channels- it may raise the profile of these issues and get more folks talking/thinking- out in the open.

I dunno what to tell ya- not only do these places exist, that's what they're charging for a canned hunt. Theres lots of folks out there with more money than brains, and all the photos on these deer ranch websites indicates to me someone's willing to pay handsomely for the "experience." You can believe what you wanna believe, it doesn't change the facts. Just makes me wonder who's really embracing a conspiracy theory.

Stupid is subjective. They're cheaper and easier to raise in hatcheries than many sport fish like walleye and hybrid stripers, and because they're planktivores, they're safer to eat than walleye, white bass, flatheads and other predators. As filter feeders they probably help offset some water quality issues on our large rivers and reservoirs.theyre important to the ecosystem, and lots of folks like catching them. I'm not sure how much money is injected into Warsaw's economy during snagging season, but every time I've been through there it's pretty packed with anglers. I think the tagging study should be interesting, and help MDC figure out how many fish are being harvested, how fast they're growing, whether they're spawning in the wild, and whether adjustments can be done to stocking to improve the fishery.

Looks like East Fork white fails out of Albany charges $7000 for 160-170 class bucks, with bigger animals priced on request, and a quick google search comes up with stocker bucks running upwards of ten grand. thats some conspiracy!

I think part of the rationale is nonresidents aren't paying into the system (the 1/8 cent sales tax, for example), like residents are. And many state fish and game outfits, especially out west, receive little or no funding from the legislature- permit sales are their only revenue stream. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing out of state landowners the opportunity to pay in state prices for licenses, though.

From what I understand federal funds for wildlife and sportfish projects are based on the number of permit sales- MDC would probably still get federal money for threatened and endangered species, but federal funds for fish and wildlife management projects probably would've gone out the window.

I met Noppadol Paothong (photographer for the Missouri Conservationist) at a TU meeting a couple years back. Despite his silly name I found him to be an exceptionally talented, intelligent, kind, patient, and courteous individual. I reckon a few folks on this forum could learn a lot from him. He makes about $38,500 a year according to the state- I'm not sure what MDC makes off the calendars, books, and other stuff featuring his artwork. The average MDC salary is around $50,000. The average Missouri salary (for all employees, not just state) is around $44,000. When we talk about the folks at the top, making $100,000+, we're talking about three individuals. When you consider practically all management-level biologists and above have advanced degrees, when you consider how many are nationally or internationally renowned experts in their field, and when you consider many could be making an additional $20,000 or more as private consultants- I'd argue we're getting a pretty good return on what we pay into the system. Yeah, the elk were expensive- but I haven't seen them overrun the entire state, decimating crops and killing motorists. I have seen far more people visiting the Peck Ranch area now than previously, and if I were a hotel or campground or gas station or restaurant owner in the area, I'd be pretty happy with that. Yeah MDC logs, and for a bunch of different reasons- fire or weather salvage, research, forest stand or wildlife habitat improvement, etc. I won't pretend to know the ins-and-outs of MDC's timber ventures, but like Justin said- there's all sorts of reasons they do it, and I doubt it's a serious cash cow. Looking at the budget it seems to make up less than 2% of their income. I absolutely agree MDC should take steps to be more transparent, accountable, and fiscally responsible- I just don't see how any of the proposed legislation accomplishes that. But I also think, on the whole, MDC does a pretty excellent job protecting our fish and wildlife resources. If you set out only looking for the negatives, the negatives are all you're ever gonna find- and I have to wonder if some of the outrage expressed regarding MDC doesn't stem from personal politics or biased perceptions.