SpoonDog

Sure. Otters are native, they're not 300 lbs, and my quick google search revealed zero returns for "trophy otter hunt" and 1200+ for "trophy hog hunt." I couldn't find MDC Hog harvest reports from back when it was legal, but it never really seemed like many folks were out there looking for them. I couldn't find MDC harvest records from back when hog hunting was legal- but NC's are online. In 2010 total reported harvest was....ready? 158. Not 158,000, 158. Look.  . From 2003-2010 harvest never exceeded 200. In a state with lots of hogs and lots of hog hunters not many hogs are being killed, and even if MDC was lying through their teeth and killed a tenth of the hogs they reported, they'd still be lightyears ahead. If your entire argument rests on hogs being a grave threat, I have absolutely no idea why you'd want MDC using a less efficient system to eliminate them.

Hog hunting requires hogs. MDC doesn't want hogs. It's really that simple. You can say sportsmen will ride into the rescue and eliminate a nuisance species, but in reality that almost never happens. Trout, walleye, pike, stripers, smallmouth, pheasants- take your pick. Once they've developed a constituency among sportsmen it's almost impossible for an agency to get rid of them, no matter how much environmental damage they do. And why would it? A guy who's dropped 30k on a boat doesn't want stripers eliminated from the Sacramento delta, a guy who just bough his hog calls, hog guns, hog attractor scents etc. isn't going to want hogs gone from the state tomorrow, next year, or the year after. It's diametrically opposed to MDC's management goals, and that's exactly why MDC doesn't want to do it. What's the "code of ethics" say about knowingly violating game laws?

They're not game animals, they're pests. Rats are perfectly edible, too- and no one gets upset when they're poisoned or trapped and thrown in a dumpster. How many tons of carp are left rotting on the banks of Stockton every year by anglers? How many perfectly edible sportfish die and rot on trotlines? States like Texas and North Carolina, with no closed season, no bag limits, and lots of hog hunters- still have a ton of hogs. The idea hunters keep their populations in check, much less drive them down to zero, just isn't substantiated by fact.

MUs enrollment declined by 1500+ students since protests last fall. There's a 30 million hole in the budget. They've closed dorms, dismissed faculty and staff, and were under a hiring freeze. The idea a university administrator is going to jeopardize their own career tanking the institutions budget so they can hire more administrators during a hiring freeze doesn't even make a little sense. You may love the videos, but they're putting their success on the hope you don't know enough about what you're talking about to realize their argument is fundamentally flawed . They're preying on ignorance. There are an alarming number of administrators on college campuses these days. It has nothing to do with diversity or PC culture. We've engineered system of higher education where states no longer fund their public institutions the way they did 20 or 30 years ago. Instead, the vast majority of students on campus receive some sort of financial aid: grants, loans, scholarships, stipends, whatever. Someone has to be watching the pocketbook. Individual universities manage hundreds of millions of dollars in research grants to fund professors salaries, graduate students, and associated workers, as well as funds received from alumni, businesses, and other institutions. As a society we've decided we want universities to turn out as many degrees is possible in a year- that's a business, and that's why universities hire business people. I agree that shouldn't be the function of higher education, but let's not kid ourselves that it's the result of diversity initiatives.

What she's doing is increasingly common in academic reporting- choosing one explanation while ignoring others. Canoes may have been a way for pioneers to stick it to natives, or they may have just been the easiest way of getting around. Even if canoes were culturally appropriated that isn't inherently bad- our vocabulary, alphabet, and numerical characters have been, to. That's the purpose of a university education, though- to foster discussion and debate ideas instead of shutting conversation down because its controversial. The goal isn't to parrot the professor (though many students and academics think otherwise). If you can't hack it in an environment which challenges people to think critically, to examine an issue from multiple positions, and to rationally reflect upon positions, that's not a failure of the institution. College isn't the place for you. It's more important now than ever, when kids grow up in homes, schools, entire communities which are largely monolithic- similar demographics, incomes, voting trends, etc. a lot of incoming freshmen have little experience dealing with "others"- regardless of who falls where on the political spectrum, and as a result you wind up with emotionally immature students who don't have the tools to deal with a complex world. The best thing you can do for your kid is expose them to as much of the world as you can- even the parts you don't understand. If the know what they want to do- go straight on to college, just make sure whatever high school or community college credit they've earned transfers- in many cases it doesn't. If they're unsure- take a gap year. You can do a lot of travel for a years tuition at a state school- work, volunteer, take some time to figure it out. It really does help stem the heartburn of switching majors or burnout, and if grades are high mist universities don't hold it against a student.

Unless there are no private gun sales, everyone gets a background check (including gun shows & private sales), and you're allowed a maximum of three firearms, the idea we have "Swiss style" gun laws is a joke. If you're carrying concealed in Switzerland, you have to provide a detailed explanation of who you're threatened by, "just in case" isn't good enough. Totally different. Pick one one of any number of mass killings in the past decade- there's no shortage. Of course it's not the OK corral, only three died there. thousands die in shooting incidents every year, some having committed no crime. thousands are injured. Surely awoke of the 200000 guns stolen every year come from unsecured firearms from otherwise responsible gun owners. There's a societal cost to gun ownership, to giving any inexperienced person a gun and sending them on their way, it's not all upsides. Everyone else shouldn't also have to pay your training & fees, too.

I'd argue injuring or killing innocent folks is more than "an incident." And if we're concerned about what provides the biggest benefit to the public in general, I don't understand why we're discussing relaxing gun laws in the first place. After all, look at Switzerland.

Thanks fellas. I'm not terribly allergic, a few spots and lines if I walk through the stuff but nothing tremendous. We'll see how it goes

Hey folks, found these this evening, growing in clumps up an old dead hackberry- of course only on the side of the tree rampant with poison ivy. Knocked some down with a stick, reverse-bagged 'em dog poo style. Are they oysters? And if so, am I gonna wind up with PI in my nose, eyes & throat if I cook them do to the oils they likely received on their tumble off the bole? Or does all that nastiness break down with heat? thanks fellas

the same Switzerland which requires CCW licenses, background checks, training, and purchasing guns through authorized dealers? They're more liberal than the rest of Europe...and nowhere near the US. Many communities don't have enough cops as it is, especially those with the most serious crime issues. Peeling officers off the streets to provide free training sounds like a waste of their training and our resources. How important can a gun be to self-protection if you're unwilling to spend a couple hundred bucks for a license & training. We're talking about protecting your life & your family, remember?! and how one ensuring everyone out there with a gun knowing how to use it & understanding the responsibility isn't a part of protecting yourself & your family?

The new law doesn't just mean you don't need a CCW permit, it liberalizes existing stand your ground & castle doctrine statutes. My understanding is the new law allows almost any untrained individual to carry concealed- without ever having to demonstrate they're a responsible gun owner. As respondible gun owners you guys seriously, sincerely that results in a safer society?

Stand your ground absolutely lets you walk down the street & shoot people- ask George Zimmerman. My understanding is "looking suspicious" isn't a capital crime. Trespassing isn't a capital crime. Doing drugs, selling drugs- aren't capital crimes. Peeing on a gravel bar isn't a capital crime. The problem with "feeling threatened" is it's pretty subjective for something as permanent as killing. The guy on the Meramec felt threatened because some in that party were throwing rocks. Someone didn't make it home. Police mistake toys & wallets & phones for guns at least occasionally, and they have some mandatory level of training. Who knows what'll happen when we place completely untrained individuals in the position of assessing threat. growibg up in big cities, I understand people do bad things. I also understand the chances of being falsely accused are not zero, which is why I'd like all the rights and legal principles I'm entitled to as a citizen.

Abridging the rights of others- the right to vote, bear arms, etc- requires a conviction. Innocence until proven guilty & all that. A conviction requires a trial. I'm just sayin' in this instance "protecting oneself and their family" is a sanitized way of saying "execution without trial." Stealing a tv from Walmart and stealing a tv from a home are the same crime- I one instance the consequences are prosecution & in the other they're execution. That's the difference between rule of law & what these bills articulate. Honestly, the first thought I had when I heard the veto had been overridden was that fella on the Meramec killed while pending on a gravel bar a couple years back, and the landowner claiming castle doctrine. Could've been any one of you. You never get to explain high water marks or Delcour to the court-you're dead. The guy who killed you because he felt threatened- irrespective of whether the court finds him guilty or innocent- you still never get to see your family again. But that's justice, right?

The appeal of concealed carry is it allows individuals to wax suspected criminals without trial, which of course violates their constitutional rights. It's not a matter of whether you like guns or hate guns, it's a question of whether you value the rule of law. If they can qualify someone's right to a fair trial, they can qualify your right to own firearms. Consider that as you celebrate.

As many federally listed species as there are in the meramec, and the bourb in particular, the chances the Feds would sign off on a dam are practically nil. The COE couldn't, legally. The irony is it's a manufactured crisis, the result of dumb planning. Theses food green-lit levees around Pacific and elsewhere, never acknowledging those project wouldn't dissipate floodwaters, just move them someplace else.

Sure, but why would they miss that rootwad? There's no evidence your hypothetical situation is real, and there's no evidence MDC's providing "marginal data." I think I've said it before, but of course MDC's dataset is different from anglers experiences- that doesn't mean one's biased and the other isn't. Unless smallmouth anglers collect 100% of the fish, that 100% of the fish that eat are actually boated, that anglers aren't cherry-picking the most likely smallmouth spots and blowing through frog water. Both estimates are biased by the gear being used, and like it or not MDC's results are at least as likely to represent "true" population structure as an individual angler's.

I guess we can add "never been to an MDC surplus auction" to the mountain of evidence you haven't the slightest idea what it is you're talking about.

Good grief...I'm sorry if acknowledging the differences between deer and smallmouth management in the state is somehow an affront to your sensibilities, but I never criticized you or anyone else for hunting outside the counties with antler point restrictions. I never criticized you, or anyone else, for catching little smallmouth, Neosho smallmouth- any smallmouth. And when we're talking about increasing minimum length limits statewide, the idea anyone's leaving neosho smallmouth out of the equation simply isn't true. I don't know why you've decided to take a simple adult discussion about smallmouth regs so personally, I don't know why you've decided to miscontrue what I wrote so that you're somehow the victim. That's for you to sort out. Grown-ups can disagree without being adversaries, and I'll never understand why it has to be a parochial pissing contest between SWMO anglers and Meramec anglers, or anyone else. I hunt deer in St. Francois County, jtram- well outside the point restriction zone. I've lived in SWMO and I've fished Shoal Creek, Center Creek, the Elk, Big and Little Sugar creeks. They're fine. Chief says I have a standing invitation in his canoe any time I'm down that way, and I'd happily take him up on it. Not only would I do those things- I have. Not that it matters, of course.

While deer quality regs may not have been established in your area, MDC has did put antler restrictions in about 30 counties. Even though those regs haven't met all the biological goals they were meant to address they were expanded to 60+ counties, due largely to increasing numbers of hunters preferring large bucks over meat for the freezer. Those regulations are reviewed annually to determine whether counties should be added or dropped. I'd argue there's considerable difference between revisiting antler restrictions annually and revisiting smallmouth length limits...never. And I'd argue your analogy further highlights the lackadaisical approach to stream smallmouth management in the state.

It can be 12 & 3/4" inches or 13 & 1/2" or 15", the number is arbitrary as long as it protects enough spawning-size fish to maintain the population. And as I said- if there's no science-based evidence suggesting at 15" MLL would benefit Ozark smallmouth fisheries, there's no rationale for MDC using that reg in special management areas. We both know MDC didn't survey every river mile when they implemented the 12" reg, no need for them to start now. We know these fish grow slowly, we know these fish are harvested at some level, we know a good year class is continent upon stream flows, seasonal weather patterns, and many of the habitat issues you mention. That's all the more reason to be conservative with length and creel limits. And regarding those habitat issues: we can't turn back the clock. MDC, DNR, and other state agencies are limited with what they can do to rehabilitate streams, much less the average Missouri resident who doesn't own creek or river frontage. That's largely beyond our control. What isn't beyond our control, though- is harvest.

You're comparing a situation which would have a negative affect on smallmouth (10" MLL) with a situation that woudln't have a negative affect on smallmouth (>12" MLL)- it's apples and oranges. But if most anglers wanted a 10" MLL and it wouldn't harm the state's fisheries, I'd suck it up. I'm not upset MDC isn't doing what I want- I'm irritated MDC's proposals aren't informed by their own investigations. The catfish/noodling debacle is a great example: there's a science-based reason for the noodling ban. There's a science-based reason for gravel mining restrictions. I haven't seen MDC produce a science-based justification for a 12" MLL instead of a 15" MLL. I figure if a 15" MLL would decimate smallmouth populations they wouldn't adopt it on the special management sections. I get that 12" allows some anglers to kill more and smaller bass- but at that point it's not science-based management for the health of the fishery, it's managing angler's attitudes and expectations. And like it or not, increasing minimum length limits was the most frequently cited regulation which would improve smallmouth fisheries. That's MDC's own data. If MDC biologists are going to choose to ignore that fact, they need to explain why. They don't appear inclined to do so, undermining MDC's stated values regarding transparency. I want MDC to make science based decisions, but talk is cheap. Objectivity is one of the most critical elements of scientific investigations. MDC biologists should be using the best available science and angler input to craft regulations- what they shouldn't do is take sides or advocate one management regime simply because it's the path of least resistance. Increasing minimum length limits doesn't deny any Missouri angler the opportunity to catch a smallmouth bass. It doesn't deny any angler the opportunity to harvest smallmouth bass. It is a compromise- between the liberal 12"/6 limit which got us to where we are today and more restrictive slot/18"/strict C&R regs advocated by many anglers. The idea a small number of trophy anglers would be imposing these measures on everyone else is a strawman, and it isn't trophy anglers being intransigent in this scenario. It's seems pretty unlikely that in the 1960s we lucked into a smallmouth management prescription which suits all waters at all times for all time. If that's MDC's position, it raises the question of what purpose smallmouth biologists serve when management prescriptions are set in stone. If that's what smallmouth management in this state means, then at this point I'd rather have four less biologists and four more agents.

.....Mmmmmmmennonites ain't Amish.

Nice work, Gavin- I've been working on a rough draft I'll email to the commissioners this evening. Dear, Missouri's stream smallmouth bass fisheries represent an important part of our natural heritage, a resource prized by resident and non-resident anglers across a broad spectrum of economic, political, and social backgrounds. At times these differences result in conflict with regard to management of stream smallmouth resources, and in general I applaud MDC attempts to manage these fisheries for the benefit of all. Over the past several years, MDC biologists have conducted a series of research projects with the goal of refining the state's stream smallmouth bass regulations. The result is we have a better understanding of Missouri's stream smallmouth fisheries than at any point in history. We understand growth, harvest, and mortality rates for many smallmouth streams. We see the effects angler-adopted catch and release have on some stream reaches, like Courtois Creek. We now understand smallmouth bass aren't “homebodies,” that many fish move as much as ten miles and some move thirty or more over the course of a single season. And through angler survey efforts, we understand the value this sport fish has for many anglers within the state. Despite that, MDC fisheries biologists appear beholden to a half-century of management dogma. I understand and fully agree that when stream smallmouth regulations were initially implemented, many anglers believed a 12” smallmouth was a quality fish. Values and attitudes have changed in the intervening decades- many anglers today fish for pleasure instead of protein, and even many anglers who enjoy keeping their catch would like the opportunity for more large fish. I encourage you to read carefully the “Smallmouth Bass and Rock Bass Regulation Changes Under Consideration for the 2017 Season- Public Input Summary” recently released by the Missouri Department of Conservation- in particular the appendices. Increasing minimum length limits and reducing creel limits are two management options most frequently cited by respondents for improving Missouri's stream smallmouth fisheries. Many respondents suggest a statewide 15” minimum length limit on smallmouth bass, with creel limits reduced to 2-4 smallmouth per day. MDC's own Public Input Survey indicates most anglers harvest fewer than two smallmouth per trip, suggesting a statewide 15” minimum length limit is not only widely adopted by anglers already, but that it would have little impact on the creel of most smallmouth fishermen. Larger fish produce more, better quality eggs, and are better able to defend nests from predators- which may confer some benefit to Missouri smallmouth fisheries. A statewide minimum length limit of 15” would confer protection to smallmouth moving seasonally out of special management areas. Such a measure would also reduce regulation disparities between special management areas and other stream reaches, further simplifying regulations- a stated goal of the current effort. These points appear entirely ignored by MDC personnel, who have instead proposed maintaining current length and creel limits. In fact, angler responses are misinterpreted as supporting 12” minimum length limit on pages 11 and 12 of the document. When professional biologists misrepresent survey results, it is fair for anglers to question the legitimacy and purpose of the public comment process- the value of participating if management outcomes are preordained. It is fair for anglers to question the purpose and expense of long-term field studies if their results continue to be ignored. It is fair for anglers to question the expense of having so many stream smallmouth biologists when management of these fisheries appears to be on autopilot. At at time when the Missouri Department of Conservation faces routine attacks from the state legislature, the agency literally cannot afford to make enemies out of advocates. The process to evaluate stream smallmouth regulations has not lived up to the Missouri Department of Conservation's stated values: respecting the opinions and valuing the trust of all Missouri citizens, partnering and communicating with citizens to achieve conservation successes, and promoting fairness, objectivity, integrity, sound science, accountability, and transparency to guide Department actions. As a Conservation Commissioner I encourage you to demand a higher caliber of public service from MDC employees, and that the current proposed smallmouth regulations changes be tabled until the Department personnel are willing to develop a management approach based on the results of their own investigations and the stated values of Missouri's smallmouth anglers. I appreciate your time, and look forward to the outcome of the August 25th meeting. Sincerely,

All good points, Haris. And for many of the reasons you mention, that section already receives some level of protection. It's not stellar smallmouth habitat for a good part of the year due to discharge of Maramec Spring and a lot of people fish it for trout, not bass- the ones who aren't practicing strict C&R may not bother keeping smallmouth in the first place. It may help wintering smallmouth, so would closing the harvest season around October 30th- and that's something that could be implemented statewide. Again, if they're really concerned about streamlining regs, it doesn't make sense to put a smallmouth area on top of a trout area. Because the segment is already trout water it already receives some protection- I'm certain MDC already knows that and I'd hazard a guess it's why they selected that segment for smallmouth instead of extending the zone further downstream. Path of least resistance. It's lazy. Some of you guys have made it abundantly clear you're upset at MDC. That's fantastic. I get it. the Commission meeting is in a couple weeks and in the meantime MDC has dropped a document in your lap which can be used to push for higher statewide MLL's, if nothing else. I don't know how to make that any clearer. If you're really mad and really want to stick it to 'em- don't wait until the next election cycle. A concerted effort to get the Commissioners' attention would put MDC in the uncomfortable position of having to defend bad policy, and demonstrate people are paying attention. At the very least it'd be possible to table the regs changes until MDC addresses the inconsistencies in the development of their proposal. All I'm sayin' is you can funnel that frustration and energy into something constructive, or you can sit on an internet fishing forum griping about the sales tax and whether department trucks have CD changers. Your choice.

I don't know how expanding current SMAs and establishing a new quality SMA on the Current River qualifies as "nothing." That said, the Public Input Summary smalliebigs linked to is pretty amazing. Two pages in you realize no one proofread that thing before it was published, and from a personal "take pride in your work" position it's kinda pathetic. I was baffled MDC justifies a 7 inch rock bass length limit because they're slow growing and heavily harvested....and yet they're still insisting on the 12" statewide MLL for smallmouth. Nor does it actually justify their prescription. The sample of survey responses about maintaining the statewide 12" MLL include : "Anything to limit a harvestable smallmouth," "it's an improvement," and "I support all these regulations. Would like to see statewide 15"-1 limit someday. Thanks for all you do." NONE OF THOSE ACTUALLY SUPPORT MAINTAINING A 12" MLL. To me that raises a ton of red flags. The same thing happened with their online responses: one ambivalent, two supporting the status quo, three advocating a 15" MLL. And in the full list of survey responses in the back of the document, it seems pretty clear increasing statewide MLL is one of the most popular measures. The best way I can think of to polish this turd is it puts numbers on angler's perception that the comment process is a joke. Which means anglers get to ask their conservation commissioners and MDC personnel what the value of the public comment process is, or the purpose of paying biologists to attend meetings, if the outcome has been preordained. There's nothing biologically significant about a 12" smallmouth, in '66 or '73 or whatever it was some long-dead MDC biologist decided that was a quality fish in Ozark streams, in 2016 MDC biologists are using that now-outdated definition to manage the region's fisheries. It's not unreasonable to insist MDC adopt a statewide 15" MLL, given the results of their own investigation. A statewide 15" MLL isn't going to collapse smallmouth fisheries, and larger females with higher quality eggs and better capacity to defend nests may stabilize recruitment in smaller or widely fluctuating streams (hey, it's possible). If MDC's really interested in streamlining regs it makes more sense to have 15" statewide, with a bag limit of 1 in special regs areas and (3?) everywhere else. AND a 15" MLL is already widely popular. That specific proposal should be a no-brainer, shouldn't even be a serious question. If enough folks put a bug in the ear of the Commissioners ahead of the August 25-26 deadline, one would think they'd be able to amend the regs. Instead of being angry about it, do something. Big Piney- Everything downstream of Slabtown would now be special regs. Big River- Everything downstream of Council Bluff Lake would be special regs Jacks Fork- Everything from Hwy 17 to Two Rivers would be special regs. Meramec- Hwy. 8 to Birdsnest would be special regs- I didn't realize until I read this how lame it is that the "new smallmouth area" would basically just overlap the current trout management area. Current- Two Rivers downstream to Van Buren would be special regs.