SpoonDog

Guys, I can't stress enough the "FBI poses as militia and assaults locals" story is bogus. Even Briels has come out and said he didn't actually say what these "news" outlets attributed to him. I'm glad you guys don't blindly accept the government's position, let's apply the same standard to some dumb lies, false accusations, and shoddy reporting you find on the internet. Murder, assault, and kidnapping are three crimes, they're not somehow more legally valid than any other law on the book. By my count breaking and entering, carrying weapons in federal buildings, squatting on public property, damaging public property, and sedition are all crimes, and US citizens are subject to the laws of this country, whether they're against murder or anything else. Law enforcement doesn't want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, and this isn't Die Hard. They're not gonna swarm the place and start pointing guns at folks because they know it'd go over like a lead balloon, it'd threaten to martyr these zealots and embolden others. But I can tell you from my own personal experience I've never been arrested and it doesn't mean I've never committed a crime. These guys aren't in handcuffs, it doesn't mean they're innocent. Owning a sliver of the pie is totally different from owning the entire pie, and the fact these guys are stakeholders in a federal government doesn't give them the authority to commandeer public property and restrict access based on political philosophy. They simply do not have that right- they're fighting for rights they don't have, they're fighting for rights I suspect they don't really believe in. If I were the rancher who's grazing lease had been torched by some third party, I'd consider that harm. If I were some current leaseholder who couldn't access the refuge, I'd consider that harm. If I were the locals who've begged these folks to leave (because, you know, they're all about local control), I'd consider that harm. The feds are providing local ranchers grazing land at a fraction of the cost they'll find on the private market. The government isn't putting ranchers out of business- many ranchers couldn't afford to graze livestock if it weren't for federal lands. They pay pennies on the dollar, you and I and the rest of the American taxpayers subsidize their business. Pretty raw deal, huh? Maybe it would be better in the private sector, sold off to the highest bidder, who either charges market price for grazing rights or doesn't allow grazing at all. It'd be a neat experiment, seeing how well a ranching community does without ranches. Aside from grazing they're managing an important wildlife area for the benefit of sportsmen, they're protecting water quality for irrigators and downstream users, they're protecting sensitive natural and cultural areas for the Paiute, they're providing access for birders and other folks. What is it the militia's bringing to the table, aside from tearing down fences and trampling over the land of private property owners? Mending fences? Serving meals at the local old folks home? Helping with 4H projects? What exactly is it they're doing to benefit the community?

Whew! Good thing they caught 'em, I'm sure the feds were just about to fluoridate the water. Just a stab in the dark, but I'd wager if your militia decides to commandeer a federal wildlife refuge, federal law enforcement will show up. The video of the guy's press conference is below-the first 8:30 is pretty tough to follow (reminded me of the quiz bowl scene in Billy Madison), after that he gets into his encounter. Spoiler alert: in his press conference, Briels never says he found FBI agents impersonating militia members. I mean I get it- it's a good story, it feeds into their narrative, it makes the militia look like heroes and the government look like oppressors. That's what it's supposed to do. That's the whole point. But it isn't true. It's par for the course with these folks. They haven't been forthcoming about the amount of money they've happily taken from Uncle Sam. They were gonna leave when the sheriff asked, they didn't. They were gonna leave when the locals asked, they didn't. They're mad about arson charges until they're mad about grazing leases until they're worried the Constitution isn't being honored- whatever garners the most sympathy. You don't have to trust the government, but I'd sure think twice before trusting these guys. There's plenty about the government to get mad about. There's a pile of folks in Flint Michigan bathing and drinking bottled water because some bureaucrat thought they could save a dime a gallon. Let's be outraged about a real thing for a real reason.

You may not be born owing the Feds anything, but most rational folks should understand when you torch someone else's property, you're on the hook. When you enter into a grazing contract with someone else, you're on the hook. Doesn't matter who the owner is or what that owner paid for the property, you honor the terms of your agreement, and you don't re-negotiate the terms of your agreement at the barrel of a gun because they no longer suit you. What's unfair about holding people accountable for their actions? These guys aren't heroes, they're grow men throwing a tantrum in the desert. East Oregon is a desert, after all. So's Nevada. Maybe the problem isn't a malicious government, maybe these guys are terrible businessmen looking for someone, anyone else to blame. If they believe in the Constitution, they can follow it. If they believe in property rights, they can respect them. The moment it stops being an exercise in "Do as I say, not as I do," I'll start taking them seriously.

It stinks the judge didn't follow the instructions the first time the two arsonists (the Hammonds?) wound up in court. But that doesn't mean they were innocent. Anyone convicted of a drug crime (and poor) will tell you Mandatory Minimum Sentencing sucks- that means you fix the law, it doesn't mean you grab your gun and occupy the local post office. If Ammon Bundy's gonna convince the general public he's defending the Constitution, he's gonna have to wrap his brain around the rule of law.

Only if they put in a canoe landing and a boat launch and electric campsites and an interpretive education center with paved trails and a lodge/motel and cabins along the river

http://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/new-bennett-spring-hatchery-manager-familiar-trout

Now we're talkin'! Thanks Dan and Al, for laying out your ideas explicitly, I really do think we'll be more effective if we make them based on a logical train of thought. I don't know the answer and maybe you guys do, but lots of times productivity/biomass is measured as weight/area (hay yield, for example, is measured as tons/acre). Maybe that's just the unit they're reporting results in, not necessarily an indication they're stuck in 20th century harvest mode. It isn't a dichotomous, black-and-white scenario where you're either a meat angler or a C&R guy, there's a gradient of folks fishing for all sorts of reasons. There is no uniform, standardized definition of "quality," and what may benefit "trophy" smallmouth anglers isn't uniformly positive for other angling groups. An acre of water that can support ninety 12" smallmouth may support fifty 15" smallmouth- you're making smallies bigger, you're also making smallies less abundant. That means lower catch rates for the average angler, even if average size is bigger. I'm not sure what proportion of the general angling public (not just quality anglers) are willing to accept that tradeoff- MDC's probably asked the question but I'm too lazy to look. Not saying it's a good thing or bad, just that it's important to keep in mind as we ask MDC to craft regulations for a broad range of anglers with varied goals and interests.

State parks protect natural and historic features, not just provide an economic boost for local communities. It may not be ideal but I'd rather have a state park go in adjacent to a scenic riverway than a hog farm, as happened on the Buffalo in Arkansas

I don't know you, and I don't want to get personal. But I just checked. Last Thursday I wrote "Hog- I agree gigging should receive more attention and enforcement, but I gotta disagree that electrofishing gear isn't effective." On Friday I wrote: "As for the gigging/enforcement/fine issue, it is ridiculous smallies aren't prioritized- it takes what, 4-6 years to produce a trophy whitetail and 10-12 to produce a quality smallmouth?" On Sunday I wrote: "I hope Ozark streams can produce more big smallmouth, too." After thirteen pages it is very simple: you're not mis-characterizing what I've been saying. You're fabricating what I'm saying. No, you don't need to change my mind. But I promise you'll be more successful changing MDC's mind if you put together a cogent argument. Harvest is one tree in a forest of variables affecting Ozark smallmouth streams- I see no reason to focus on that one tree unless it's going to impact the rest of that forest. Convince me otherwise. Convince MDC otherwise. But do it based off something more substantial than "because I say so." The difference isn't you guys want quality fishing and I don't The difference is you guys want stricter regs, I want quality fishing.

You've made it abundantly clear you don't know much about me. You're using that absence of information to draw a conclusion. I don't think that's wise, but hey- it's a microcosm of the last thirteen pages. I've been fishing Ozark streams for twenty years, I've targeted smallmouth for 15, and I've been curious enough to put 200,000+ road miles fishing the Meramec, Castor, St. Francois, Gasconade, 11 Point, North Fork, James, White River Tribs, Niangua, Pomme, Sac, Neosho, and Elk. And in Arkansas. My copy of Tryon's (the first, spiral-bound one) book is falling apart, as is my Gazeteer. I'm also a trained scientist and educator with advanced degrees and experience in that field too. Oh- and I'm a Pisces, which I think ought to count for something. You do bring up an excellent point, though- I'm not arguing about your experience, and I'm not injecting my own. The only thing I'm using is the information you guys have provided. It isn't my experience vs. your experience, it's your explanation of an observation vs. an equally probable (again, if we're being generous) explanation of the same observation. I really don't know how to make it any clearer- 1 in a 100 is the definition of "the exception, not the rule." I still don't understand why you insist MDC manage for the exception, not the rule. By all means, take some time and explain why MDC should manage 99% of streams expecting the outcome of 1% of streams, providing something a little more solid than your amateur assessment of harvest. You guys catch or see lots of big smallmouth in a small stream and assume it's because there's been no harvest recently- but you don't know what harvest rates were before you got there You're using the absence of information to draw a conclusion. Filling in blanks. At least MDC has the courtesy to base numbers off evidence and state when they're making estimates- you guys pull numbers from your bum and insist they're better because of it. Al said Courtois was infertile. Gavin said it was a dink factory. That wasn't my assessment, it wasn't MDC's asseessment, it was your assessment. The only reason I'm insinuating there's a happy medium between growth and harvest is because sometimes there is- anyone who's ever fished a stunted largemouth, bluegill or crappie pond has seen it in action. I don't know whether Ozark streams are overstocked with smallmouth, I do know smallmouth have a finite lifespan, and the results of MDC's harvest and growth studies don't suggest reduced harvest increases growth.

Glad to know folks at MDC are still asking questions and figuring out how to improve the state's resources.

I'll be the first to admit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if low harvest=quality fishing represents normal, baseline conditions of Ozark streams, it's really weird the number of times MDC's found a smallie population exhibiting those characteristics is no times. Zero times. In 80 years of sampling across the Ozarks you'd think they'd run into one just out of sheer dumb luck. Sure we don't have big C&R rivers, but we have big rivers with a range of harvest rates which don't demonstrate relationship to growth. If you guys want to argue it's because Ozark streams are all unique, ok: then we have to concede harvest is the driving factor in all of them, or that quality regs will be some sort of silver bullet. Rivers don't just change spatially they change through time- if we can't compare the Black and the Meramec, we can't insist MDC create a 1970 Meramec in 2015. Re-creating a fishery based on conditions which no longer exist is an absurd request. Courtois' effectively been C&R for 40+ years, with intensive studies in the 60's and in the 2010s. The results of those two separate studies are very similar....but they represent anomalies. The Black's an anomaly, too. So's the North Fork. So's the Current. Any evidence MDC collects is an anomaly- it's the data they don't have which is representative of Ozark streams. That's really convenient. You want to say MDC's data isn't representative that's fine, maybe it's even true. But we're right back to the point we realize angler data is no more representative than MDC's.

Those coldwater stretches are warmer than the rest of the stream in winter- if smallmouth were so adverse to them, we wouldn't see them stacked up in spring branches and deep pools and reservoirs. Smallmouth have to deal with significant coldwater stretches on the Current, Jacks Fork, 11 Point, Meramec, and probably others- they seem to do OK. I'd be surprised that nothing lives in that very small portion of Table Rock or that it boogies out whenever temps get cold, and I'd be surprised stacking a whole bunch of Black River fish in a small portion of a small reservoir reduces competition and improves growth rates. Maybe we're getting off in the weeds though, debating the aerial velocity of African swallows. If you guys want to throw out Courtois AND Black AND North Fork, we can talk about the Current at Big Spring, which had serious exploitation, high growth, and no reservoir below it. How much information would you guys like to ignore while attempting to draw a straight line between harvest and quality?

You're right, Mitch- the big gigging bust was on Little Black and not the Black River proper. My mistake. I was just giving Mitch an example of how you'd quantify the proportion of gigged fish you run into, though- doesn't really have a bearing on anything else. You're right Clearwater exists downstream of the upper Black. Bull Shoals exists downstream of North Fork, and we don't see the same relationship. The mainstem Meramec exists downstream of Courtois, it's more fertile than that stream, and yet we don't see that relationship. If that many fish are migrating to Clearwater they're doing so at some energy cost, and when they get there they're competing with resident fish for food and space. If they're being targeted as intensely as we believe- that means harvest rates are even higher than MDC data suggests. But if that's the relationship you say we see, it means MDC can prioritize enforcement and quality regs to the stream-reservoir combos where they'll have the most effect: the Black, the St. Francis, the White River tribs, Sac, Niangua, Pomme, Neosho...and they don't have to worry about the Meramec or the Gasconade or the Current.

...not unless Al's mistaken, too. The numbers are pulled from his report of the MDC smallmouth study presented at the MSA meeting here: Look, you guys are extremely skilled smallmouth bass anglers. No question. But you're conferring expertise in one area to expertise in another. Being a great basketball player doesn't make you a great coach. Being a great mechanic doesn't mean you're a great racecar driver. Being a great smallie fisherman doesn't mean you're a great fishery biologist- and having different results than MDC's doesn't mean your results are representative and theirs aren't, no matter how forcefully you insist otherwise. All it means is they're different.

I actually like the rubber band idea. If you've ever watched them swim around in a bucket it almost looks like their back third is hinged- they flap it around and that's how they propel themselves. I imagine when they're washed out of the rocks they're not static, either. The band may have the same movement and less likelihood to foul around the hook like marabou. I'd test it out first before junking the rubber band idea

Same thing happens in reservoirs. You start with an low initial population of a species (let's say bass) you dramatically increase the habitat and food base (by creating the impoundment)- and populations and growth rates explode. That's why there's so many record fish from young reservoirs. Then the population reaches a new equilibrium- most reservoirs aren't producing as many trophies at 55 as they were at age 5. Maybe Ozark streams did the same- release a low-density population from exploitation and they take off. It'd explain why we see high growth and high harvest in places like the Black and low in Courtois- a low density smallmouth population in one, a high-density population in the other. It sounds like you're arguing a growing smallmouth population should have the same characteristics as a stable smallmouth population- that what happens <10 years after stricter regs is representative. You're taking the extreme value and insisting its normal. I'm not trying to sound slanderous, but it's awfully convenient for anglers that MDC's stats fall apart beyond 18". It's convenient that Ozark smallmouth grow fastest, biggest, and most abundant when MDC's not looking- I recognize big smallmouth are smart, I don't think they can read logos and license plates and adjust growth or maximum size accordingly. It's really convenient that the same electrofishing gear, sampling and statistical techniques used to evaluate world-class smallmouth fisheries in VA, PA, MN, WI, TN, OR, ME etc suddenly, magically, doesn't work when you apply them to the Meramec. Take a step back and look objectively at your position, fellas- it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see why MDC would be skeptical. Fifty years ago regs bumped the age of a smallmouth from 2 years to 4 or 5- the middle of their natural lifespan. You guys want them bumped to 8-10+, the end of their natural lifespan. It'd be like saying we're only gonna shoot 10 year old bucks or 20 year old geese because that's how one group defines "quality." I agree protecting big fish will yield more 17-19 inchers. If you guys are content with that, fantastic. If you're really going to hold out for those 20+ inchers though, you need to explain how your proposed regulations will extend the natural lifespan of the average smallmouth bass. You may be able to get them to do it on some stretches of stream- but I doubt you're going to get them to do it statewide, because they don't manage anything that way. I hope Ozark streams can produce more big smallmouth, too. What I don't understand is why anglers believe Ozark streams could hold more quality smallmouth if we reduced harvest. That's why you guys like the idea of closing the Meramec- you're assuming you'll see a different outcome because you're assuming harvest is a driving factor. It's like otters- you can see gig-scarred fish and filleted smallmouth and yokels holding stringers of dead bass on Facebook. It's visible, but that doesn't mean it's driving population structure. You can look at the relationship between harvest and growth rates and say the picture's unclear- that's being charitable. You can't look at the information we have and say, with any confidence, lower harvest=better fisheries. Let's do more experiments. I thought the tracking study was pretty cool, and we learned a fair bit. Let's determine if Ozark streams have the prey base to support more quality fish. Let's figure out why some populations have high growth even in the face of high harvest. Let's figure out if there's any consistent factors (size, nutrients, temperature, land use, whatever) between the streams with the high growth rates or the best population structure and map out trophy waters accordingly. Current, Castor and Black are all south-flowing streams- is their some funky geologic thing going on? Something that cropped up due to genetic isolation? Just less urbanization/agricultural conversion and more intact riparian corridors? Let's compare growth rates of those fish overwintering in deep pools and spring branches with the general population- maybe not all the fish are moving, maybe the ones which do have the benefit of a longer growing season, maybe protecting those wintering habitats should be prioritized. There's fifty questions out there, each influencing the quality of our smallmouth fisheries, and we're asking MDC to answer ONE- over and over and over again.

And we don't have historic data on anything, Al- black bass, walleye, trout, deer, turkeys, ducks- nothing. Not only does data on unexploited game populations not exist for the Ozarks- it never existed. Exploitation has always been part of the equation- removing exploitation doesn't give you a baseline, it gives you an outlier. That's why MDC isn't shutting down harvest on Table Rock or closing deer season in a five county area just to see what happens- it isn't representative of "normal" conditions. It would be a neat study, and maybe MDC would be game if they had unlimited funds, unlimited enforcement resources, and there was no sociopolitical blowback- but you guys are trying to argue it's necessary for good management, and that's not true. Nor should MDC responsibly manage resources based on unrealistic assumptions. Setting no-harvest as the "baseline" assumes Ozark smallmouth populations were historically unexploited- that isn't the case. And getting "baseline" data as you guys are defining it goes beyond no harvest- it means no angling so as to avoid C&R mortality. If Al and Mitch want to design an MDC study to gather the "baseline" data they feel is necessary, Al and Mitch can offer up their most productive reaches with the highest proportion of quality fish and sit on their hands for five years. I've said repeatedly science isn't 100% accurate, let's get that straight. What I am saying is MDC is making a case based off information while anglers are just going with their gut. We can ignore Courtois, but if low exploitation= ideal size structure, places like Black River and the lower Current- with their high exploitation AND high growth rates- shouldn't exist. Why are we, as anglers, basing our management recommendations on a relationship which doesn't show up in the real world? I drew you guys a picture, and I apologize in advance for going all-out nerd. But look: "High" is the maximum (average) MDC reported across streams at a given age- not perfect, but a general idea of how fish are growing through time. "Black" are those crazy freak fish in Black River that are sixteen inches at age three and eighteen inches at four- under some of the highest exploitation rates in the Ozarks. You can plug ages in for the x-value in either equation and it'll spit out a length estimate. You don't get to 20" under "high" until the fish are around 15 years old- Pflieger states most Ozark smallies only live 10-12 years. You DO start seeing 20 inchers in the Black River around age 8, but that's the most irrationally optimistic "hope MDC did all their aging correctly,"data set. If you think MDC's "normal" numbers are bogus there's NO WAY you'd blindly accept the "ludicrous" values. Point is you can't get to 20 inches over the lifespan of an average smallmouth and you only get to that top line by arguing outliers aren't outliers. The biology says their aren't many 10+ year old smallmouth in Ozark streams. Both MDC data and angler observations suggest you don't see many 18" smallmouth in Ozark streams. All those lines of evidence are pointing at the same thing...and you guys are trying to argue they aren't. Boosting numbers of 18 inchers 10 year olds doesn't mean you'll boost numbers of 20 inch 15 year olds if most everyone's dying at 12. Especially if you're not paying attention to factors like prey and habitat availability- having more big fish competing for the same resources doesn't improve survival. I'd love to double the number of big fish in Ozark streams too, Al- farmers would love to double the capacity of their chicken coop without increasing space or feed. You guys aren't fighting against harvest- you guys are fighting against time. Smallmouth's Grim Reaper, isn't holding a spinning rod OR a stringer. A whitetail reaches quality size around five years, and may live five more. A wild turkey reaches quality size at two years, and can live two more. Brown trout reach quality size at two or three or four years, and can live at least a couple more. A Canada goose matures at 2 years and can live twenty more. A "normal" Ozark smallmouth isn't going to make it beyond fifteen inches, an exceptional one reaches quality size at ten years old and dies at eleven or twelve. You guys say you want MDC managing smallmouth the same way as everything else except when they're managing smallmouth like everything else- based on the average instead of the extreme.

what'd you sing?

...the math doesn't magically, mysteriously change when MDC's using it. You're going to have a different amount in your bank account if you're paid $10/hr than if you're paid $20/hour, because changing the variable changes the outcome. Changing harvest rates from 30% to 80% doesn't prove MDC's science is junk, it proves you don't understand algebra. But if you'd like to cut off your nose to spite your face, have a ball. That's the thing folks- a lot of the reasons you're so hot at MDC are only reasons if you don't understand what you're talking about. You're upset MDC's samples aren't 100% accurate? Let's release every felon convicted with DNA evidence because they're not 100% either- nothing in science is. That you don't understand what a scientist is doing is not evidence it's being done incorrectly. Learn why he's doing it that way. Ask questions. But assuming you have all the answers when that clearly isn't the case, blasting MDC based on your own lack of knowledge, doesn't get us any closer to the regulations we want. Instead, you're providing them everything they need to write you off. As for the gigging/enforcement/fine issue, it is ridiculous smallies aren't prioritized- it takes what, 4-6 years to produce a trophy whitetail and 10-12 to produce a quality smallmouth? Maybe there needs to be more education as to how rare these things really are. It also strikes me as weird..if there's one thing gov't folks like it's job security, and I can't imagine a smallmouth biologist saying smallmouth are a low priority- that undermines their own career. I wonder if some pressure through the commissioners/upper echelon MDC folks and the Conservation Federation could turn some heads.

It was a lil tongue-in-cheek Mitch, and I'm sorry if you took offense- but you guys act as though MDC's reading tea leaves when most of what they're doing is pretty basic. Whether it's baseball stats or smallmouth bass stats the mathematics are the same, which is one of the reasons I have a tough time when you guys insist MDC's numbers are junk. All kidding a side that would be a good way to quantify something like illegal gigging. Browising through the last five pages of the forum I found photos of 89 ungigged fish and 21 of fish that looked giged- for a proportion of like...24%. Seems like a lot, but seventeen of those were from one bust on Black River. Black River also had some of the highest mortality rates in the MDC study, it looks like. Instead of insisting MDC studies are categorically bad and must be redone ad nauseum, we can use the information we have to make informed recommendations. Something like "Hey! We know there's illegal gigging going on in Black River and we know there's high mortality rates. Maybe the high mortality rates are due to underreporting of tagged fish or illegal gigging. This is something we should look into further/this is an area which needs more enforcement." That is a conclusion, based on facts, MDC can do something with. Things like the Google Earth job I half-heartedly mentioned would help, too- if only because it produces a paper trail which documents whether MDC is following up on reports or not. Hog- I agree gigging should receive more attention and enforcement, but I gotta disagree that electrofishing gear isn't effective. There's a reason folks strip old crank telephones and take them down to the creek.

The Farmington article makes it sound as though they were offered the property.

....the same way you calculate a batting average. Divide the number of gigged fish (# of hits) by the total number of fish you catch (# of at-bats) to get a proportion. Then you can ring up MDC (or email, whatever) and say "Hey! My buddies and I went fishing and 43% (or 84% or 29% or whatever it turns out to be) of the fish we caught had gig marks." See? You sound more scientific already. It's a neat parlor trick that doesn't require a calculator and it'll impress the heck out of your buddies, plus your friendly local MDC biologist will say thanks! for not filling up their email space with photos. But that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg: if you wanted to get REAL fancy you could geo-reference all those photos with GPS points and create a Google Earth layer- not only would it show that smallies are being gigged but WHERE- that's a tool agents can use to concentrate enforcement. We have the technology.

MDC banned hand fishing for catfish despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science indicated it was terrible for the fishery. They banned commercial fishing on the Missouri river despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science said it was terrible for the fishery. They banned lead shot on 21 CAs despite the feelings of other hunters, because the science indicated lead shot is toxic to wildlife. They reintroduced otters despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science indicated it could be done without damaging other resources. They reintroduced elk despite the feelings of many landowners for similar reasons. They've banned felt-soled wading boots despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science indicates they're vectors for invasive species. Do you guys see a pattern? Yes, MDC is soliciting angler input and comments. No, MDC is not saying they'll manage smallmouth based on feelings instead of science. If they were, they'd be introducing trophy regs or regional C&R or shutting down harvest on a Meramec or Gasconade-size river just to see what happens. We're not. That should be our first clue. They're willing to work with anglers when and where they can, but they're not going to prioritize angler sentiment over the science. That isn't their job, nor should it be- that's how bad policy gets made. They're using science coupled with the sentiments of all anglers to propose regulations most anglers are willing to abide by- and that IS their job. Make whatever suggestions you'd like- if they're pragmatic and reality-based, all the better. But if you're going through this process with the mentality you're right, they're wrong, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to make you think otherwise...I wouldn't hold my breath. No one wants to work with that guy.

You understand what MDC does, right? That their job is to manage the state's fish and game based on biology and science? Couching biology and science as "the problem" is EXACTLY why you guys haven't been able to accomplish anything. MDC isn't going to manage smallmouth based on feelings instead of facts, and there's a very good reason: what do you tell the guy who believes keeping ten 20 inchers isn't harmful? What do you tell the guy who believes pulling smallmouth off their spawning beds doesn't hurt anything? Heck- why even have creel limits or closed seasons if what matters isn't the biology or science, but rather what anglers believe? The fact that they're not caving to the pressure of one group's beliefs or catering to an arbitrary group of anglers is a good thing. You can write letters and attend meetings until the cows come home- they'll never do what you're asking them to do just because you're asking them to do it. MDC's electrofishing gear targets every fish in the stream with a central nervous system- it's not going to be as effective on the small ones, and they'll miss some big ones, too. MOsmallies' gear targets the fish that want to eat that lure at that time, are big enough to get hooked, and actually make it to the boat. Because MDC's sample doesn't just select for hungry fish or big fish or fish that like purple their data is more representative of what's in a stream. They're sampling a fraction of the fish in the stream, and the one's I've spoken with aren't arguing their data's unbiased. Anglers are sampling a fraction of a fraction of a fraction and arguing it's as good or better than MDC's dataset. It doesn't take an advanced degree or fancy math to realize that's ridiculous. I understand your results are different than MDC's- but that's all you're telling us. Your entire argument is based on circumstantial data. C&R regs were tried on Courtois and you guys say it's a dink factory. Even so, we STILL want to implement C&R regs in Ozark streams. Quality regs have been put in place on streams- from what I've read there's more 18" fish but still not many 20+ inchers. You guys insist smallmouth fishing has declined DESPITE restrictive regulations, and use that as justification for...more restrictive regs! It's a Python sketch folks, not a rational basis for changing regulations- does that HAVE to be pointed out? Sure, there's a possibility option X, Y or Z could improve smallmouth populations- there's just no numbers, no data, no evidence to support that contention. It's not even a hypothesis- it's a guess. Reasonable people would rather base their decisions off something, not nothing- and your guess, by no stretch of the imagination- trumps MDC's numbers, no matter how circumstantial you believe they are. If you think a management biologist is going to put themselves in a position where they're defending regulation changes to Munzlinger or the legislature not because of the information they've gathered but because MOsmallies likes the idea, you're daft. Good call. Michael Scott the most ineffective and oblivious character in an imaginary television series, a fitting mascot for this thread