Jim Spriggs

I haven’t posted in a while. But, yesterday’s outing was a big one for me. I launched in the afternoon and jetted through pelting rain to chase smallies. The conditions seemed good for some bigger fish to be out feeding. And, the Meramec River did not disappoint. On consecutive casts, I caught a 20.25” and then a 20.5”, breaking my previous Meramec PB of 20” and 4.2#. My scale decided to not work, so I don’t have weights on these two fishThe bigger one looked like a real warrior—it’s jaws were scarred up and had a bunch of holes. What did I catch them on, you ask? The new HD Hellgrammites (green pumpkin) on a shakey head jig. I bought a few packs at Denny Dennis in Fenton. So, thanks Tackle HD for helping me catch (and release) truly awesome fish! This post has been promoted to an article

Congratulations!

Well, HW, I say there are only two times to fish, when it’s warm and when it’s cold (unless it’s so cold the darn river is frozen). So, I’m game for doing it in either weather. If I had to choose, I’d say cooler weather to avoid the canoe crowd, since I assume this event would be on a weekend.

Nice fish!

What a catch. Congrats!

As I suggested above, we need a biologist to do a simulation of the influence of aggressive harvest. But, to make a difference it seems only two things need to be true: 1) anglers harvest spotted bass at a faster rate than the fish can reproduce; (2) Smallmouth respond to the relative absence of spotted bass, increasing the number of eggs that mature to fish and increasing the size of fish. #1 seems doable, and #2 doesn’t seem out of the question; but I don’t know the science on #2, which needs to tell us the following: for every X number of Spotted bass, how many fewer Smallmouth are there?

With respect to the disagreement about whether removing the spotted bass will have an effect, that’s an empirical question and either: (1) biologists already have a good model of the spotted bass population dynamics, and one of them could forecast what effect a change in one factor, harvest rate, would have on the overall population; or (2) we need a study. In the meantime, it can’t hurt to keep the spots. Anyone know a fisheries biologist you can pose this question to?

I want to thank everyone for their responses to my post. You all have interesting information and insight into this issue. It would be awesome if some of the ideas we have been talking about get put into action. I’m certainly going to change from blanket catch and release to harvesting spotted bass. And, an education campaign, including signage, social media posts, and the like, isn’t too difficult to tackle. I like Al’s idea of MDC shock boats hitting the river hard one day and having a big fish fry. I wonder how politically/logistically difficult that one would be? Who would we approach in MDC? It could be pitched as a study—do the typical creel study and count and measure all the SMB,LMB, and Spots; and keep and eat all the spotted bass from two or three of the creel study sites. The next couple of creel studies can then determine if the spotted bass population declined in the sections of the river where the spotted bass were removed. It could take place on a day when a group like MSA is doing stream cleaning. I think there would be good turnout for such an event. I wish I could go to the river and contemplate these issues today, but, like most of you, I gotta go to work...

There is a consensus on one thing on this thread—the Spots are a problem. So, I want to refocus attention on a solution, and the most effective seems to be aggressive harvest (meaning anglers taking what they catch, up to the 12 fish limit). But, this requires education because catch and release is (and should be) such a strong part of the bass angling culture; we need to get the word out to harvest Spots. Therefore, I think a publicity campaign is in order. I mentioned some ideas above, and other ways are an article in the MDC Magazine and posts on social media websites. I’m a member of the MO Smallmouth Alliance, and I’m going to talk to them about it. Later, all you crazy river runners (and, yes, I’ve been told I might be a little obsessed with he river and fishing).

I think resurrecting the Spotted Bass Roundup is a great idea.

I would guess most mistakes would be thinking a hybrid is a Smallmouth; and that most people wouldn’t confuse a Smallmouth for a Spot. So, the error would be for people to not take a hybrid because they think it’s a smallie—reducing the effectiveness of the effort So, we should combine the Spot campaign with a flyer that describes in easy terms how to recognize a hybrid.

I knew Spots competed with Smallmouth, but I didn’t realize the seriousness of the problem until now. In fact, I haven’t been keeping Spots, but I will now. How can we, or perhaps MDC, educate anglers who care about Smallmouth to keep Spotted bass? An article in the MDC magazine? Signs at boat ramps? Occasional emails or mailers from MDC to all fishing license holders? I suspect MDC would be reticent to send out such a request, so I wonder if MDC would give a group, such as the MO Smallmouth Alliance, the email list for license holders. They could email anglers with a note about this issue. How about an online tally of the number of Spots harvested from each section of the river? Every time someone goes fishing, they count the number of Spots they keep, and they add that number to the Spot count for that section of the river. We can divide the river by the water between boat ramps (e.g, between Sand Ford and Red Horse). We can set a goal for the number of Spots taken from the river, and we get people interested in helping to achieve that number. Run it like a fund-raising campaign. Maybe we keep count of who keeps the most, and they get a prize, or just the glory of being the Spot King. Maybe the MO Smallmouth Alliance would sponsor it? Other ideas? Assuming most Smallmouth anglers began keeping Spotted bass, how long would it take to make a difference for the Smallies?

When Jen sent me the 2015 data, she said the following about lower catch rates in 2015: “You’ll notice the catch rates appear to have dropped, but we implemented a standardized sampling strategy that accounts for that change more so than reflecting a real change in the smallmouth population.“

The table below is from the MDC’s 2015 electrofishing survey. The average # Of Smallmouth caught per hour was 11; and it was about 18 per hour from the State Park to Hwy 8 (if you drop out Riverview, which is an outlier, the average is still 10.75 upriver from the Park), while it was only 6.25 per hour below the Park to River ‘Round How much of the decline in the number of smalmouth caught per hour below the State Park versus above might be due o Spotted bass versus the character of the river?

Thanks, Al, I wasn’t aware of any of the Spotted bass history. That’s fascinating (and unfortunate) stuff. Has there been any serious discussion by MDC to eliminate creel or size limits on Spots in any of the creek or river systems those fish have populated? Has MO Smallmouth Alliance or any other group lobbied MDC on this issue?

When did the MDC stock Spots? Is that how they got in the Meramec? I didn’t know that. So, it is a native versus transplanted fish. That’s a big debate across the county. What is interesting is that in other states, the smallies are the non-native fish. They were deregulated in the Pacific Northwest because they were said to be hurting the native salmon. https://www.seattletimes.com/sports/daily-catch-and-size-limits-removed-in-the-columbia-river-starting-thursday-for-bass-walleye-and-channel-catfish/ And, there was a big fight on the Sacramento Delta, too, and the black bass won the fight over dropping regulations , but that battle isn’t over. https://www.google.com/amp/s/sacbee.relaymedia.com/amp/news/local/environment/article97473712.html

Science and politics are definitely in tension, but there are some states where political interference is worse than in others. MO, for instance, has two institutional devices that, insulate the MDC from legislative attack. It doesn’t eliminate outside interfence, and, of course, there are internal agency politics, too. The first is the way MDC is funded, which is unique in the US because over 65% of MDC funds comes from tax revenue rather than annual appropriations bills (I think Arkansas gets a small fraction from taxes, but other state conservation agencies have to battle it out each year for cash). I think we, as consumers, benefit from this revenue model. The second is the way the commissioners are chosen—where the commission has to have partisan balance (four members, where no two can be from a given party). Fishing and politics....

Oh my. She is a beast!

Let’s see a pic of that monster Spot. Has there ever been a study done of the influence of Spotted bass on Smallmouth in MO? That would be a interesting. There was a big conflict in TN and AL over the affect of Stripers on Black bass. My recollection is that anglers believed the stripers hurt the black bass population, but the science said they didn’t. In the end, I think the management agency stopped stocking stripers to appease the anglers. And the Walleye fishermen at Mille Lacs Lake want the Smallmouth deregulated because they believe the Smallies are hurting the Walleye. Interesting stuff from a biological and political point of view.

I have a question for the group to consider. How can we make the smallmouth population better—defined as, say, increasing the number and share of fish in the 15+ size range? I’ve seen this talked about in passing on some posts, but it would be nice to see what folks think. My understanding is a fish population structure is a function of genetics, habitat (both micro, such as the amount of rock, and macro, such as topography), forage, water quality and quantity, angler behavior, and management. So, which factors are the most important in the Meramec? Is it angler behavior? Is there too little catch and release? Too much accidental gigging of Bronze fish? Too much fishing pressure and too much fish mortality from catching, even when released? Is it competition from Spotted bass? Is it the regulations? It would be a fight to institute, but how much would longer seasonal closures, more special management miles, or longer seasonal closures matter? While the fishing improved in the special management areas after they were created, it didn’t increase the number of larger fish as much as MDC hoped. Or, are the factors limiting the number of bigger fish beyond our or MDC control, such as topography or forage? Or, is my question assuming something that isn’t true— that the smallmouth population needs to be better?

I’ll reiterate my plea to keep this forum civil. I’m as competitive as the next guy, and I’ll certainly talk smack with my friends. But, I don’t see any point to posts that go after someone. Yes, I’m referring to a few posts about Al Agnew. I know Al only from his posts on the forum, and he seems like a thoughtful guy who loves the river and is an awesome angler. I look forward to his posts, and they don’t read to me like he cares about whether he is the best on the river or is in the top 10%. What I can say for sure is that I don’t have many days that are as good as Al’s, and I’m not too proud to admit that. I spend a lot of time learning the craft of caching smallmouth by reading (and forums like this one are good for getting advice from people) and, of course, spending as much time on the water as possible (I’m on the river at least once per week). Let me put it another way. You have heard of this thing called the Golden Rule. Let’s follow it here. I wish you happy holidays and tight lines.

Of course, I realize that the giggers may actually be more motivated and willing to lobby against the study than those who want the study, which would likely mean it would never get off the ground

I know nothing about gigging, as I’ve never been, but I agree with Al that the way to answer this question is to use science. The MDC should conduct a study. The only wrinkle to Al’s research design is I would suggest we use what scientists call a “difference-in-difference design”, which is just a fancy term for saying the MDC would choose one section of stream for the “treatment” group” and also choose a “control group” section of the stream( a section that is, to the greatest extent possible, similar to the section of the stream with the new regulation banning gigging; and the “only” difference is the control section of the river allows gigging). And, you then compare the difference in the fish population before and after the new regulation across the two sections of the river. The advantage is you can do annual creel studies at multiple sections of the river in the two study areas. Also, why is this study a pipe dream? The MDC is a public agency. Its mission is to protect and enhance our natural resources, and, importantly, to do so in a way that is consistent with what MO hunters and fishers want. I’m not saying it would be easy (it would take some number of years) but if enough people and organizations (eg MO Smallmouth Aliance, Conservation Federation of MO, etc) lobbied the right people at the MDC it might just happen. Consider the recent changes to the trophy areas, where one of the things the MDC did was to include some new areas of the river under that designation It took a long time, but, if I’m not mistaken, there was lobbying on that issue. And, I’m going to open up a can of worms. I’m interested in why some people have a low opinion of MDC. (I’ve seen it in a lot of threads on this forum). What is it about the organization that angers people? Is it the process by which they make regulations? Should they make decisions in a different way? Is it the content of the regulations? Is it the commission or the local game warden that you think isn’t doing a good job? I’m not interested in defending MDC or picking a fight; I genuinely want to know why some people see MDC as a model of a good management agency and others do not. My last comment is a request—let’s keep this discussion civil. I think most of us on this forum want the same thing—a healthy population of Smallmouth. While we may disagree on what that looks like (a fishery where you can catch a bunch of 12-14” fish or one where you catch fewer fish but they are bigger), we all love the river. I’m the most relaxed and at peace when I’m on the river, even if I’m not catching fish. And, honestly, I’ve been in a slump. I’ve had trouble locating quality fish lately (which I define as 15+). I went out Saturday with a buddy on the Lower Meramec and we caught Smallmouth and spotted bass, but nothing of any size (and we fished for about 6 hours). I then took my youngest daughter out for an hour Monday late afternoon to take photographs of the river; and I fished for about 15 minutes at one hole and caught a 16” smallie and lost one that had much broader shoulders. Had to be timing, where I was out just ahead of the cold front. Again, let’s keep the forum a place where we can talk about our passion for the Meramec without attacking each other

I have a question for everyone. What do you consider a trophy size walleye on the river? For smallmouths, for instance, I think anything over 18” is a serious fish and a 20” is a trophy.