Al Agnew

Chief, I'm going to address some of your points... Too many smallies There is no doubt that the better quality Ozark streams have plenty of smallmouth. Too many? Only way you could say that is if a stream that you believe has overpopulation also has lower growth rates than the average. As far as I know, growth rates are fairly consistent throughout the Ozarks. However, I will grant you that more restrictive regs that protect all sizes of smallmouth, like strict catch and release or a one fish 15 inch limit, will in some cases result in slower growth rates. I believe I mentioned that in another post somewhere--I've posted so much on this topic I can't remember what I said where! But anyway, the studies show a decline in growth rates in some of the SMAs that the biologists don't consider very significant. It's also complicated by the fact that some streams, including, I believe, some in your area, have both smallmouth and native or non-native spotted bass. A regulation that protects smallmouth and not spotted bass MIGHT result in more smallies and fewer spotted bass, or it may just mean more and smaller fish of both species. For that reason, as I know I've said before, I'd favor exploring slot limits rather than one fish limits on such streams. If the object is maintaining or even slightly reducing numbers on the heavily populated streams while producing more big fish (maybe "big" is over 15 inches on the SW MO streams where the smallies probably have a lot of Neosho genetics), then there should be harvest of small fish and protection of those that are approaching the "big" size. Perhaps a 12-15 inch slot limit on those streams. And perhaps on the streams where spotted bass are native, the slot limit should include all species. I have no problem with spots where they are native, and no wish to wipe them out in those streams, although I doubt that any reduced limits on smallies would do so. Other problems for smallmouth streams MDC's official mantra is that habitat degradation is the smallie's biggest problem, and I don't disagree. But smallmouth are surprisingly resilient fish when it comes to habitat. I could take you to upper Big River, the most abused stream in the Ozarks. Flows 30-70 cfs in summer water levels. So choked with lead mine waste that the gravel bars and bottom are much more fine sand and gravel, the crushed tailings, than chert and rock rubble like a normal Ozark stream. The gravel bars are almost completely sterile because the crushed tailings are completely sterile and they fill in all the spaces in the gravel that would allow seeds to sprout out of the water and bottom organisms to live underwater. Deep water on this stretch is maybe 3 feet, with absolutely no place on it that's much over 5 feet. Long stretches are less than two feet deep. Plus it's right in the middle of an expanding urbanized area, with subdivisions everywhere, so the land use practices are exceedingly poor. Plenty of denuded and eroding banks. Poorly treated sewage running into it from a population center of more than 30,000 people. And...surprisingly good fishing. In fact, this is one stream section that IS overpopulated--you can tell because the larger fish have big heads and slender bodies. At least they are overpopulated for the lack of habitat! Nobody drives very far to fish this section of Big River, so it doesn't get a whole lot of pressure. And spotted bass are gradually increasing at the expense of smallmouth. It's had the 1 fish 15 inch limit on smallies and the 12 fish no length limit on spots for a few years. Point is, the population of BASS (forget the species for a minute) is strong, in spite of terrible habitat. If anything, it shows that if the spotted bass weren't there, the smallies would be doing just fine. But in such a population in such poor habitat, if fishing pressure was much greater they'd need some protection. And since I still catch 20 inchers out of this stretch once in a while, protection that maximized preserving the bigger fish would probably work to produce more 20 inchers. As was said above, it would be ideal if we could improve the habitat, but I think you can also maximize the production of bigger fish out of the habitat you have. (And by the way, the MDC biologists are seriously brainstorming ways of bettering the habitat on this stretch.) More on this later...I'm going to bed.

I agree with ozark trout fisher. Given the many duties a conservation agent has, it's rather ridiculous that for the most part there is only one per county.

Actually, I think they WERE trying to come up with the simple formula when it came to the SMAs. Pick a stretch of river, put a one fish 15 inch length limit on it, and see what happens. Problem is, I don't think that's good enough. In any other part of the country that is well-known for stream smallmouth fishing, a 15 inch fish is decent but far from a big fish. On all the better places around the country that I've fished, 18 inch fish are pretty common and 20 inchers are present in good numbers. If I can go to the John Day in Oregon, the upper Mississippi and St. Croix in Minnesota, the New and Shenandoah in Virginia, the St. Regis in New York, the Buffalo in Tennessee, the Penobscot in Maine...and catch 20 inch fish on each trip (most of them unguided), THAT'S world class smallmouth fishing, and we don't have it here. Most of those streams have more restrictive limits than the general rule in MO. The people in charge of regulations on those streams know they have world class angling and they want to keep it. Here in Missouri we know we have good fishing for numbers and it seems that's good enough. The studies showed that the one fish 15 inch limit improved numbers of 15 inch plus fish by somewhere between 13 and 87% depending upon which stream and whether the data is from electrofishing surveys or catches from angler surveys. It improved numbers of 18 inch plus fish by between 21 and 35%. That all sounds good, but 18 inches should be the threshold for the kind of fish we should be shooting for. A good regulatory system should be able to at least double the number (100% increase) of 20 inch fish. And the fact is that the 15 inch length limit did work pretty much as designed--it apparently increased the numbers of under 15 inch fish considerably, because it also lowered growth rates. The studies didn't consider that very significant, but it was as much as an inch in older fish, and I DO consider that significant. Growth rates in MO streams, while rather slow, are fairly comparable to those in streams in other parts of the country, but lowering them is counterproductive. Which is why I'm thinking that slot limits are the way to go in the future...keep the numbers a bit lower while protecting fish up to 18 or 20 inches. I have a number of questions after reading both these reports. One...I'd like to know the EXACT stretches of streams that were considered for special management. I couldn't find that in any of the papers, just vague descriptions like "Gasconade in Maries and Osage County", "Meramec in Franklin County". Two, I'd like to know exactly which sections of stream were used as control sections when they were studying the effects of the first few special management areas. For instance, the special management area on Big River is from Mammoth Bridge to Browns Ford Bridge. If they used an upstream section as a control stretch to compare with the SMA, Big River changes character considerably above Mammoth Bridge (actually above the mouth of the Mineral Fork, a couple miles above Mammoth). And, during the time of the studies, the Mammoth to Browns Ford section was in the process of being invaded by spotted bass, while sections above the Mineral Fork were mostly spotted bass-free. How much could that have skewed their numbers? Don't get me wrong...I'm happy they instituted the SMAs, and the 15 inch one fish limit is a lot better than nothing. But there simply has to be more they can do.

While I seldom attend the regular meetings (well over an hour's drive, and I usually have other commitments on Wednesday nights), I agree totally with about everything MSA stands for. I have never seen any evidence of hateful rhetoric regarding MDC...in fact, we have been pretty careful to be diplomatic and keep them on our side as much as possible. Like it or not, they have to be our allies, because they are the only game in town. I have not been all that critical of them before (and certainly have strongly defended them many times). The biggest gripe I and others in MSA have had with them is what we have perceived as foot-dragging when it comes to designating new SMAs, and unwillingness to try other approaches, such as changing the statewide limits. But this latest White Paper is disturbing. If the SMAs are working, we need more of them. If they aren't working as well as they'd like, they need to try something else, not in effect say that what we have is the best we can do. We just have to get organized and get vocal. Please, guys, try to get a Springfield area chapter going. I'd be willing to come and give a program, or do anything else that will help.

Guys, I'm also willing to give programs about the whole subject for any group who wishes. As for the perceived conflict with trout and trout programs, I don't think this is a big deal. The stream stretches that can support trout are only a very small percentage of the streams that hold smallmouth. There is probably some effect outside the actual trout water, because it's quite possible that in the past, smallmouth from upstream, downstream, or both used the big springs and the area around their outlets as thermal refuge in the winter, but I can't imagine smallies from 20 miles downstream moving up to Maramec Spring, for instance, trout or not. And Wayne is right that the put and take trout programs are supposed to be self-sustaining. One important factor that's been hit upon is the opinion of Missouri anglers. MDC's angler surveys, in my opinion, are not really hitting the mark, let alone the fact that it's been a decade since an extensive one was done on any of these streams. Is it really true that a huge percentage of anglers targeting bass are releasing everything? I wonder. And how important, really, are the "casual" anglers, those who are fishing for anything that will bite, and are looking to eat some fish? In reality, you've got dedicated bass anglers who release everything, dedicated bass anglers who keep a lot of fish, and the tournament guys. You've got casual anglers who keep most of what they catch (and often don't have a clue about game laws--I can't believe that a pretty fair percentage of anglers in MDC surveys can't even tell the difference between a smallmouth and a largemouth, just calling them all "bass"). And you have the serious meat fishermen who mainly fish with live bait for whatever will bite, and probably kill most every bass they catch. So as much as we'd like to believe we're in the majority, we probably aren't. But how much does that really matter? If smallmouth are the most valuable game fish in most Ozark streams, it seems to me that they are deserving of protection, period. There are plenty of other kinds of fish in Ozark streams that should satisfy the meat fishermen. I'm not advocating strict catch and release. More and more, I'm far from sure that the one fish 15 inch or 18 inch limit is the best solution. After seeing the growth rate studies, I really think slot limits are the way to go in the future. I wonder why MDC isn't considering them.

The mindset (there's that word again) of the bureaucrats at MDC is to not change things if they don't appear to be broken. When the first SMAs were being decided upon, there was considerable opposition within MDC to the whole concept. The same was true, even more so, with the spotted bass regs in the Meramec Basin. The opposition is based upon several factors. One, like it or not, the commissioners have the final say in all such decisions, and like somebody said above, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Change something, anything, and it's going to tick off some people, and a certain subset of those people are going to be calling the commissioners at all hours of the day and night complaining. Commissioners don't like that sort of thing. So their initial inclination is not to change anything unless it can be shown to be necessary. When it comes to IMPROVING an already decent fishery, that ain't necessary if it's going to cause somebody to complain. Two, the enforcement division of the department has a lot of say over new regulations, because they are the ones that are going to have to enforce them. They were seriously against the spotted bass regs because they didn't think anglers could correctly identify spotted bass. They weren't real happy about the SMAs at first. If there is one really major beef I have with MDC, it's with the enforcement division, which I think is not only understaffed and underfunded, but which has a goal of catching the bad guys that sometimes overrides the goal of preventing the crimes. Three, there have been some biologists in the past that have not been all that interested in the goals of the SMAs. They were also not interested, or didn't believe it was a problem, when spotted bass were becoming a real problem. And the biologists DO have workloads and don't want to have a lot more stuff piled upon them. The biologists I have spent time with and talked to in the last few years are serious, dedicated people who really care about this whole issue, but that wasn't always the case in the past, and may not be true of all the biologists today. It makes me a little uneasy that in the report it said that there was considerable sentiment among the biologists that LAKE smallmouth should be getting more attention. Four, MDC has always taken the position that conservation means wise use, and wise use means some consumption of renewable resources, like fish. In other words, they have always been for as much harvest of fish as the populations will support without going downhill. So there is some philosophical opposition to catch and release or very restrictive limits. You have to remember that a lot of these guys were educated with a couple of very important mantras--you can't stockpile fish, and overpopulation is as dangerous as over-harvest. And a lot of them have dealt with people all their careers that have been mainly interested in catching fish to eat. For all these reasons, it took real gumption to get the whole SMA program started in the first place, and it isn't as easy as it would seem to add stream stretches. In my opinion, what is really necessary is for all of us to band together and speak loudly with one voice on this whole issue. It seems like there are an awful lot of stream smallmouth anglers who aren't joiners and don't want to get involved with anything but catching fish. The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance membership hovers around 150-200, with only a small percentage of them really active, and mostly concentrated in the St. Louis region. They tried to get going with chapters in Springfield and Cape Girardeau, and those chapters never really got going. Again in my opinion, one thing that needs to be done is for somebody to get their act together, get a good organization going that covers the whole state, and go all over the Ozark region giving programs on how smallmouth fishing can be improved with better protection. It's gotta be a grassroots deal that gets a lot of local anglers on each stream really interested and involved.

Yeah, I've caught two that were right at five pounds...both were weighed on Deliar scales that I'd checked for accuracy, but you can't get down to the exact ounce on 8 pound max Deliars, so either fish could have weighed a couple ounces either side of five pounds. They were both caught at least 25 or 30 years ago, though. There are a few legitimate five pounders in Ozark streams, but the number actually caught each year over the entire Ozark region could probably be counted on the fingers of one hand...two hands at most.

Chief, I am usually a pretty staunch defender of MDC, and I think their head biologist for stream smallmouth, Kevin Meneau, cares a lot about it and does the best he can. Where I have a beef with them on smallmouth management has mainly been in the speed at which they've proceeded...lots of study but not as much action. But we in the Smallmouth Alliance who are on the Blue Ribbon Committee working for better smallmouth fishing in Missouri were hopeful that once this White Paper and the Summary of Management came out, we'd see a direction for future management areas and other options for management to maximize the smallmouth potential. What I'm seeing now is that it seems that what we have at this point is pretty much what we'll have in the future. And I'm also seeing what I think are errors of judgment in the evaluation of the stream candidates, and perhaps some apathy from some biologists. I hope not. But I'm not sure that finishing the evaluation well ahead of time is a good thing...could be that some streams were finished early because they weren't really studied well. Perhaps MDC is caught in a no-win situation. Their angler surveys seem to consistently show that most serious stream bass anglers already release almost everything they catch, so they have a mindset that restrictive regulations don't really have much effect. But they also have a mindset that never seems to change much--that their job is to maximize smallmouth harvest on most streams, and the least restrictive regs are usually the ones they opt for. They've also got interest groups, including tournament anglers and locals who do want to catch fish to eat, that would kick and scream if some stream sections had much more restrictive regs. Perhaps the SMAs as currently set up aren't the real answer. More and more, I'm thinking that slot limits on many streams might do a better job with less opposition. Put a 13-18 inch slot limit, with 3 or 4 fish under and one over, on streams that have excellent numbers of smallies but not a lot of big ones. On large streams that have the very best potential for producing big fish, make the slot 14-20 inches. One thing seems to me to be certain...the better smallie streams, other than those that have suffered from spotted bass encroachment, have no shortage of smallmouth, but the problem remains a lack of fish over 16 inches or so. The one fish, 15 or 18 inch limits help but have also been shown to slightly decrease growth rates, apparently due to even more small fish in the stream utilizing the forage base, so there is a little less food to go around. If I had my druthers, the first thing I'd do would be to go with either complete protection or a one fish, 20 inch length limit on smallmouth on all the northern Ozark streams that have suffered from spotted bass encroachment. This would especially include the entire Bourbeuse, entire Big River, Meramec below Meramec State Park, Gasconade below Jerome, all of both forks of the Moreau, all of Maries, and all of Tavern. Since spotted bass directly compete with smallies and for every spotted bass there seems to be one less smallmouth, protecting the remaining smallmouth should be a major priority. Second thing I'd do is look for the very best potential stretches for big smallies and put a 14-20 inch slot limit on them. This would include at least some of the Meramec between Steelville and Meramec State Park, more of the Gasconade above the present SMA, the Big Piney from Mason Bridge to the present SMA and from the present SMA to the Gasconade, the Niangua from Prosperine to Tunnel Dam, at least some of Current River between the mouth of the Jacks Fork and Doniphan. Third thing I'd do is lower the daily limit to 4 fish or less on all wading size streams that have public access. There is another paper out by MDC called the Stream Black Bass Summary, which goes into a lot more detail on what their studies have shown. I'll be reviewing it here when I get a chance, but it has some interesting stuff, along with some stuff that makes me question the effectiveness of some of the techniques used for the studies. But my initial examination of it is what has reinforced the ideas I gave above for what I'd do.

MDC recently came out with a "White Paper" on their smallmouth bass special management areas and the selection process of choosing stream stretches for special management. I have been a big supporter of special management areas, though I've had some beefs with both the selection of areas and the regs instituted in those areas, so I studied the White Paper with great interest. After reading it, some things struck me (more like ticked me off). The first three areas were the Big Piney from Slabtown to Ross Bridge, the Meramec from Scotts Ford to Bird's Nest, and Big River from Mammoth Bridge to Brown's Ford. These were instituted back in 1992, and then studied to see if the management goals were met. The original management goals were to double the numbers of 12-15 inch smallmouth, double the numbers of smallmouth over 15 inches, and increase the numbers of smallmouth over 18 inches. In addition, they wanted to do this while maintaining or increasing the amount of angling pressure on these stream stretches. In other words, they wanted to make sure that special management didn't run anglers off those stretches, and they found that while the total angling pressure did decrease on those stretches, especially on the Meramec, the number of bass anglers, after a small decrease right after the regs were instituted, came back to at least what it was before. As for the other goals, they found there were significant increases in the numbers of all three size classes of smallmouth, but the numbers of 12-15 inchers and 15+ inchers did not double. Soon afterwards, in 1995, they instituted an 18 inch, one fish limit on the Gasconade from Riddle Bridge to Jerome, and the Jacks Fork from Hwy. 17 to Alley Spring. Results from studies of these two streams after the special regs showed an increase in 18+ inch fish on the Gasconade, but little change on the Jacks Fork, which they attributed to light angling pressure on the Jacks Fork both before and after the regs. In 1996, they added the James River from Hootentown to Hwy. 13 to the 15 inch, one fish limit special management. They also began a statewide study of 35 stretches of 33 streams, with an eye to choosing further special management areas. This eventually resulted in adding eight more stream stretches to special management. These are Big River below the original SMA to its mouth, Big River above the original SMA to Leadwood Access (these two effectively put nearly all the floatable length of Big River in special management), Eleven Point River from Thomasville to the state line (effectively putting all the floatable length of the Eleven Point into special management), the entire length of Elk River under a 2 fish, 15 inch length limit for all black bass, Joachim Creek from Hwy. V to Hwy. A, Mineral Fork from Hwy. F to Big River (the entire floatable length), Osage Fork from Skyline Drive Bridge to the Gasconade, and Tenmile Creek from Hwy. B to Cane Creek. In addition, all of the streams in the Meramec River system were put under a 12 fish, no length limit reg on spotted bass. I have no quibble with the stream sections chosen--I think they were all worthy of special management. However, I do have some real questions about those which weren't chosen, AND many which weren't even considered, and I have questions about the criteria used for evaluating those streams. The process was that they chose 8 different criteria, plus angling success for smallmouth (CPUE--catch per unit of effort). The other eight criteria were: 1. Species composition--smallmouth should make up the majority of the bass population. 2. Growth potential--whether the stream is capable of growing larger fish. 3. Access--the thought was that access should be readily available. 4. Present amount of use--how much angling pressure for bass; more angling pressure was better. 5. Habitat quality--was the habitat good enough to support a thriving smallmouth fishery. 6. Regulatory support--whether local judges and prosecutors are willing to prosecute and levy serious fines for wildlife violations. 7. Other management--whether there are other special regs like rock bass regs, or possible effects on species of special concern. 8. Diversity of management areas--whether there are already sections nearby under special management. Let's talk about those criteria for a bit... First of all, the CPUE. If anglers weren't already catching a lot of smallmouth, that apparently meant that there weren't many to be caught. If the stream section simply wasn't smallmouth habitat and smallies were scarce, I suppose that makes sense. However, that criterion was used in part at least to disqualify sections of the lower Gasconade and lower Meramec from consideration. Those two streams historically had good smallmouth populations, but now smallies are a lot scarcer due to the invasion of spotted bass. So it isn't like they simply weren't smallmouth water. They were, and it would seem to me that protecting the remaining smallies in them would be a very important management goal. Of course, that didn't fit their original goals, exactly, but in my opinion protecting an endangered population of smallmouth should be of paramount importance. 1. Species composition--this is similar to the CPUE. Just because smallmouth make up a smaller percentage of the bass population shouldn't necessarily be a factor in disqualifying stream sections. All over the northern Ozarks, the smallmouth populations have suffered due to spotted bass encroachment. Tavern Creek and the Meramec both scored very low in this criterion, yet both were historically good smallmouth streams. And just because smallmouth aren't the dominant black bass species doesn't mean they can't grow big and furnish a better trophy fishery. 2. Growth potential--In theory this makes sense. However, I question the evaluation of a couple of stream sections, and I also don't think there's really enough difference in growth potential in a lot of Ozark streams to use this as a qualifier. 3. Access--It makes sense that more easily accessed streams might need better protection. On the other hand, if the goal is to maximize potential for big fish, stretches with less access would probably have more potential for success. 4. Present amount of pressure--This goes along with number 3. Stretches with more pressure need more protection, but stretches with less pressure may have more potential to produce big fish. 5. Habitat quality--this criterion has two parts, I think. One, is the habitat so degraded that it can't produce many big fish? It might make sense that there is no use trying to make a stream stretch that has very degraded habitat produce more and larger fish without addressing the habitat issues. Still, I know of a number of streams with very degraded habitat that produce very good fishing mainly because they are not heavily pressured. I believe that with adequate protection, smallies can do very well even in degraded habitat. Two, is the stream NEVER going to be good habitat because of geography and geology? The lower sections of some streams are just too slow and lack a lot of rock and gravel bottoms to be good overall smallmouth habitat. However, the lower Gasconade and Meramec, good examples of this, still have spots that are high quality smallmouth habitat. You won't catch many smallies in the long, dead pools that predominate on these stretches, but when you get to the more infrequent riffle areas, you find excellent smallie habitat and smallies. 6. Regulatory support--This makes sense. No point in instituting special regs if they are going to not only be ignored but not enforced because the local authorities don't care. However, this really ticks me off because in effect you are giving up on those areas simply because some of the locals are not on your side. Maybe if you did put special regs on them, it would make some of the local people realize a bit more that they are a valuable resource deserving of protection. And maybe if somebody really publicized the lack of regulatory support in these counties, it might just put a little pressure on those judges and prosecutors to get serious about it. 7. Other management goals--special rock bass regs disqualified a few stream sections from consideration for smallmouth regs, because the biologists didn't want more regs affecting their ongoing studies of the rock bass regs. The spotted bass regs in the Meramec River system also were cited as a possible conflict (?). And protection of the Niangua darter, an endangered species of small fish, were a factor in disqualifying the Niangua, Little Niangua, and Weaubleau Creek. I don't know exactly how much increasing the population of big smallmouth would affect the Niangua darter, since there are plenty of game fish in these streams right now eating darters. And as for the rock bass regs, get the studies done and get on with protecting the smallies. I hope that just because there are rock bass regs doesn't mean that these stream sections are forever disqualified from consideration for smallmouth regs. 8. Diversity of management areas--I can understand spreading out the special management areas so that they don't dominate any one area. Maximizing different opportunities makes sense. But on the other hand, if a stream section is otherwise a high quality candidate, I don't think the proximity of an existing special management area should automatically disqualify it. So let's look at the different streams that were considered, and why they were disqualified... Apple Creek This is small wading size stream in southeast MO. It lacks smallmouth habitat and is full of spotted bass in its lower half, but the upper half is decent habitat. I don't think it was seriously considered, but apparently that was mostly due to a perceived lack of regulatory support. So the judges and prosecutors in Cape Girardeau County don't care about wildlife violations? Hmm. Beaver Creek It got high scores in every criteria except that it was perceived to not be used very heavily. Even there, it got a middle score. So why was it disqualified? Big Creek This, the largest tributary of the St. Francis, is a high quality stream that is fast, clear, and beautiful. It got a very low score on access, yet the lower sections are often floated and are even served by a canoe rental, so I question the very low score for access and use. And it got a very low score for habitat, but the lower section that I'm familiar with has pretty darned good habitat, so I don't understand that at all. Black River The Black above Clearwater Lake got a zero for regulatory support, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Reynolds County is probably the worst county in the state for prosecuting wildlife violations. The county officials are certainly keeping up with the Ozark tradition of disdaining wildlife laws. And that's a real shame. Castor River The Castor is a smallish, very clear stream which got average scores for everything except regulatory support. The lack of regulatory support in Bollinger County was its biggest disqualifying factor. It's a nice stream that can be floated and can produce some big fish, but was probably not one of the best candidates for special management. Cole Camp Creek I don't know this stream, having never fished it. It got low scores for habitat, species composition, access, and regulatory support. It flows into the upper part of Lake of the Ozarks from the north. I suspect it once furnished smallmouth fishing but is now mostly spotted bass water. Crooked Creek This is wading-size stream in southeast MO. Its smallmouth water is limited, the lower portion having always been mostly spotted bass water, too slow for good smallmouth habitat. It was probably not seriously evaluated, and probably deservedly so. Finley Creek It's big enough for floating, it's traditionally been a good smallie stream. It got a very poor score for growth potential, which doesn't make sense to me, although I'm not really familiar with it. It also got a low score for habitat. Some of you who fish it might have a different opinion. I suspect the major reason it was disqualified was because it's so close to the existing James River SMA. Flat Creek This James River/Table Rock tributary apparently was never seriously considered, though the report says it was disqualified due to access problems and poor habitat. Really? I don't know Flat Creek well, but I thought it was pretty decent habitat. Gasconade River The sections considered were somewhere in the lower parts of the Gasconade. The lower river was traditionally some of the best big smallie water in the state, but has suffered greatly from spotted bass encroachment. It got low scores for habitat and for regulatory support. The regulatory support is a shame if true. The habitat is like I mentioned above--lots of non-smallmouth water, but the smallmouth spots are excellent habitat. And it seems to me that if the smallmouth are suffering from spotted bass, why not give them a lot more protection? Glaize Creek I'm not familiar with this tributary of Lake of the Ozarks. Apparently it was not seriously considered due to the lack of smallmouth in it. I'd bet it once had a lot of them, but was gradually taken over by spotted bass from Lake of the Ozarks. Gravois Creek Another one I'm not familiar with. It was apparently not seriously considered, either, though it got very poor scores for habitat, use, and access. It's a wading size stream, and most of it is under Lake of the Ozarks. Huzzah Creek It got an average score for growth potential, yet the Huzzah CAN produce some big fish. I thought that score was low. It got an average score for habitat, and it does suffer from a glut of gravel, but many sections are pretty good habitat. It was apparently mostly disqualified due to ongoing studies of rock bass regs on it, and due to its proximity to other special management areas. Yet the Huzzah is a real gem that really deserves more attention in the regs. I would hope that neither of those criteria permanently disqualify it for further consideration. Indian Creek Another one I'm not familiar with. It got good to average scores on everything but access. I don't think access alone should disqualify a stream section. Little Niangua It was apparently never seriously considered due to the fact that it's one of the last strongholds of the Niangua darter. You have to wonder how much increasing the size of smallies in it would affect the darter. Meramec River (St. Louis County) This stretch got an average score for growth potential. Are they serious? The lower Meramec has historically produced some of the best big smallmouth fishing in the state, and it's only because of spotted bass that it doesn't these days. Until the spots moved in, the Meramec was excellent smallmouth fishing down to about Glencoe or Castlewood, well within the confines of St. Louis County. Yes, it lacks smallmouth habitat, with long, dead pools and slow water, but the infrequent riffles still produce some big smallies. Meramec River (Franklin County) Much of the best water on the Meramec is in Franklin County. I don't know exactly which sections they evaluated, but the Franklin County stretch is from Meramec State Park to Pacific. Of all the streams in MO, that was probably the best big smallie stretch of river before spotted bass moved in. Yet it wasn't even scored for growth potential, and got an average score for habitat. The river down to the mouth of the Bourbeuse is some of the better smallmouth habitat in the state. Both for protection from spotted bass and from the standpoint of potential to regain its status as a trophy fishery, the Franklin County section of the Meramec should have been the perfect candidate for a one fish, 18 inch limit. I hate to think it, but I suspect that one reason it was declined was because it's a popular section among local tournament bass anglers, and putting a restrictive limit on smallies would have crimped their tournaments. Niangua River The Niangua got a low score on growth potential, which I think is ridiculous. I've caught big smallies from the Niangua and I know others who believe it to be excellent fishing for big fish both above Bennett Spring and below the trout water. Its other disqualifying factor was apparently the Niangua darter. Osage River The Osage lacks smallmouth habitat, which was reflected in its score, and smallies make up a very small percentage of its bass population. Still, protection for the small numbers of smallmouth might have been a good idea. Plattin Creek This wading-size close to St. Louis stream has poor access and limited amount of smallmouth habitat, somewhat like a smaller version of the nearby and already a SMA Joachim Creek. It probably didn't need to have SMA status. Pomme de Terre River This stream is still in the process of being evaluated. We'll see what happens. River Aux Vases This is the closest candidate stream to where I live. It's a small wading stream with a limited amount of smallmouth habitat. Probably not worth an SMA. Saline Creek Another close to home stream, this one has very good habitat and is marginally floatable. It got poor scores for access and use, although it certainly seems to get a lot of use to me. It also got a very poor score for regulatory support. Since I play basketball with the county prosecutor, maybe I can find out what that's all about! Shoal Creek It got a poor score for growth potential, and in my limited knowledge I think that may be right. Still, it certainly produces 15 inch plus smallies now, so should be able to produce more of them with better protection. It got pretty good scores otherwise. I found it interesting that species composition was not listed as a disqualifying factor, even though smallies don't really dominate in this stream. Tavern Creek It apparently wasn't seriously considered because smallmouths don't dominate the bass population, but I know that Tavern has a good mix of all three bass species, and before the invasion of spotted bass it had a lot more smallies. West Fork Black River It was interesting that this stretch, which is also in Reynolds County, got an average score for regulatory support while Black River got a zero. Hmm. It's a marginally floatable stream which got a good score on habitat which was probably not deserved, since it is greatly choked with gravel. You have to wonder how seriously it was really evaluated. Weaubleau Creek It got pretty bad scores on everything. I'm not familiar with it to know if they were deserved. Whitewater Creek This is a southeast MO stream that has always been more of a spotted bass stream than a smallmouth stream, though smallies are pretty common in the upper portions. It apparently wasn't seriously evaluated, except for noting a lack of regulatory support. So there you have my opinions on the candidate streams. But another question needs to be asked...why were some streams not even candidates? Look at the missing streams. Current River. St. Francis River. Courtois Creek. Other stretches of the Big Piney. The upper Gasconade. Upper North Fork. Bryant Creek. Bull Creek. Swan Creek. Big Sugar Creek. Turnback Creek. Bourbeuse River. Maries River. Moreau River. Other stretches of the Meramec. And a whole host of wading size streams, many of which could probably benefit from better protection. Thoughts?

I'm going to move my thoughts on the selection process to the conservation board.

Guys, I've been reading over the white paper and another document that has come out of the whole special management area studies, with the intent of summarizing some of the stuff here, and I agree, some of the evaluations of streams were jokes. I'm pretty sure that one or two of the biologists that were responsible for these evaluations entered them with a bias against the special management ideas. And while I understand the reasoning behind eliminating some streams from consideration because local prosecutors aren't taking the fish and game laws seriously (and I happen to know that's true), I think that reasoning is nevertheless flawed. Maybe if they were made special management stretches, and at least some of the people in that particular county saw that and realized the importance of the resource, it might put pressure on the prosecutors to get a little more serious about upholding the law. Sometimes the value of laws is not so much in their immediate effect, but in making people realize that doing the thing that is now against the law is probably not a good thing to do.

Kinda depends upon how many people are contributing to the sewage that is getting into the river. We don't usually worry about elk poop and deer poop because the numbers aren't high enough or concentrated enough that the natural processes can't break it down. But a sewage outflow from a bunch of people, or a whole bunch of livestock in one small area (feedlot, big horse stable, etc.) is another story entirely. If however many people that were contributing to that sewage outflow were instead scattering out in the woods and going to the bathroom, it would be a lot less of a problem than all their poop going into one place. So you can't seriously equate wild animal poop to human poop concentrated in untreated sewage outflow.

Actually, while nearly all of us not only have no problem with trophy hunting but would be very happy to kill a Pope and Young or Boone and Crocket buck, there ARE valid reasons not to kill the big trophy bucks all the time. It's just that making a rule to not shoot the biggest bucks would never fly. But in a "natural" population of big game, instead of the decidedly unnatural situations (food plots, vitamin blocks, managing strictly for trophy bucks, etc.) where most big whitetails are killed these days, continually killing the bucks that grow the biggest antlers theoretically would lead to more inferior bucks passing on their inferior genes in the population and a gradual decline of big bucks. Since it IS possible to catch and release trophy fish, like I said in the other thread, a big fish swimming is more valuable to more people than a dead one on the wall. And there's the possible added bonus of that fish continuing to pass on its grow-big genes. Of course, if we're talking about that big brown trout on Taney, that bonus doesn't apply, which is another reason why it might be more important to release a native fish from a self-reproducing population like a smallmouth than it would be a stocked trout. In my opinion, there is what's legal, and there is what YOUR ethics dictate. Just because it's legal doesn't necessarily make it right. It's legal to kill a limit of 6 smallmouth on most little creeks. But if a dozen anglers fished the same 5 mile section of one of those creeks a dozen times each and killed a limit of smallies every time, that would pretty well wipe out the adult smallie population in that creek. Yet any one of those anglers would not only be legal, but if they were of a mind to kill a limit anyway, they obviously wouldn't have any ethical problem with it. Personally, when it comes to small creeks, I not only release all the fish I catch, but I limit my trips to any one section of a creek to no more than two or maybe three a year, since even catch and release fishing will kill a few fish. That's the ethics I feel comfortable with, and it comes with knowing enough about the population dynamics of that creek that I know it can't take a whole lot of fishing pressure and surely not a whole lot of catch and keep pressure. So...I guess my point is that I believe that, with the starting point of what's legal, the ethical angler then makes an INFORMED decision on how many fish they will kill. And...sometimes that informed decision will be that they should kill fish. Again in my opinion, it is sometimes as unethical to NOT kill fish as it is in other situations to kill them. I fish a couple of rather large private lakes that absolutely NEED more bass killed. I also kill every spotted bass I legally can in the streams where they are taking over from the native smallmouth. If it was shown (and I believe it might) that a slot limit on smallies would benefit the population on a given stream, I wouldn't hesitate to kill a few smallies under the slot. On the other hand, trout in most places in Missouri is such an artificial situation that I basically make my decision to not kill trout based upon the fact that I don't much care for the taste of them and it's too inconvenient to keep and clean them. However, I fished Mill Creek a while back, and using small dry flies, I was catching little 4-7 inch naturally reproduced McCloud rainbows by the dozens, and after an hour or so of that, I realized that I was probably killing a few of those little fish, and they were too valuable to kill, so I switched to a bigger streamer that the little ones wouldn't take. Didn't catch any bigger fish, but that was okay. In a perfect world, the conservation department would set limits based purely on what was best for the body of water, and with perfect understanding of how many anglers would be taking advantage of those limits. Then, all any of us would have to do is follow the law. But we all know it isn't a perfect world. Limits aren't always set based strictly on what's biologically best. They aren't always followed, both by poachers keeping over the limit and the many but not easily quantified anglers who don't keep anything whether they should or not. So I think it's up to us to learn all we can about the waters we fish, and make our decisions on whether or not to keep fish based on what WE think is best for those waters.

Any big fish is more valuable alive and swimming, available to be caught again, than dead. Think of the excitement that releasing a record fish would cause around the lake. However, I have no problem with the fish being kept...relatively few people would release a probable state record anything. Catching a record fish gets your name in the record books until somebody catches a bigger one. Most record fish are caught by more or less "average" anglers. Catching one is usually an accident. You might be fishing for bigger fish, but catching the biggest one ever recorded in a state is pretty much a lottery. There are a few dedicated anglers who fish for nothing but records. Once in a while, one of them even succeeds in catching one. Those anglers have my respect. The average Joe who happens upon a record fish may or may not be skilled, but he is certainly lucky.

My winter fishing guru friend called last week. "Hey, next week should be perfect for a jerkbait bite. What day can you go?" I'd already been looking at the long range weather forecast, and knew that Tuesday (today) was going to be the warmest day of the week, so I immediately said so, and affirmed that I was free on Tuesday. As Tuesday neared, the forecast for the rest of the week kept looking worse and worse, and I kept getting gladder and gladder that we'd be going on Tuesday. With snow on Wednesday evening forecast, and highs in the 20s the next two days, it was looking like Tuesday might be the last good day to fish for quite a while. We met at the boat ramp at 8:30 AM. The Meramec was still a bit higher than normal for this time of year, but down considerably from the last few times I'd fished it. Water clarity was beautiful, about 4-5 feet. My buddy's temp gauge said 47 degrees. At that temperature, we knew the bass would be in fairly slow to very slow water, near or in fairly deep water. On the stretch we fished, that limited somewhat where we could find them. So we motored to the first pool. I was trying a crankbait just to see if the fish would take it at that temperature, while he was fishing a jerkbait. Nothing happened until we reached the end of the pool, where I caught a small spotted bass. The next pool was one my buddy said would surely produce some fish. Did it ever. By the time we'd fished it thoroughly, with a combination of jerkbaits, jigs, and weighted Senkos, we'd boated 17 smallmouth. All but a couple were over 14 inches, and they included a couple 16s, a couple 17s, and an 18. On to the next pool. In this one, the fish were in two spots. One was off a submerged sandbar on the log side of the pool, the other in big rocks on the bluff side. Another 17, couple more 16s, and three smaller ones. From then on, the fish in each pool came more slowly, but we kept catching them. Found a group of largemouth in some slow water logs. Some more in a backwater. Each good pool had at least one or two willing smallies. As it got later in the day, we started back toward the access, stopping to re-fish some of the more productive pools. In the pool where we'd caught all the fish earlier, we added 8 more, including another 17 incher. And in that first pool we'd fished with only the one dinky spotted bass to show for it, my buddy caught the best fish of the day, 19 inches and change. Altogether, we probably caught well over 50 fish, mostly smallies. And at least 30 of them were over 14 inches. The jig was the most productive lure, with jerkbaits catching some nice fish but not the magic lure we'd expected them to be. The weighted Senko caught quite a few, but not many later in the afternoon. Two fish, including my buddy's big one, had lampreys on them. So now I'm sitting here not knowing whether to be elated because we got in such a great trip before the weather blew up, or to be bummed because I can't go and do it again tomorrow.

Yep, first two are hybrids. Some of those hybrids are really pretty fish.

Maybe has some smallmouth genes in there somewhere, but actually isn't an untypical coloration for a murky water spotted bass. I know that spot.

Carp can get really sophisticated if they are fished for a lot, but most places around here they are still fairly easy to catch. Here's a couple of ways I used to do it when I was a kid...I caught a lot of carp on the local river. Any kind of tackle that will cast fairly light baits and will handle 6-8 pound mono will work. I used to use Zebco 33s. You need some very small treble hooks, small split shot, and a couple sizes of slip sinkers like egg sinkers. Tie on the treble hook on the end of your line after sliding an egg sinker onto the line. Put one small split shot up the line 8 or 10 inches, to use mostly as a stop for the sliding sinker. For bait, all you need is a box of regular Wheaties. Lots of people have carp recipes that involve Wheaties, but plain Wheaties works just fine. Take a small handful of the Wheaties in the palm of your hand, dip your hand in the water so the Wheaties get good and wet, and then knead them in your hand until they are a gooey dough. Then mold the dough onto the small treble hook--should be a ball of dough that is slightly bigger than a marble. Cast it out GENTLY where you think the carp are, and let it sit. If you don't get a bite in 10 or 15 minutes, reel it in and check it. The Wheaties will gradually soften and finally disintegrate, but if there are carp in the area they'll usually sniff it out and take it pretty quickly. Second thing we used to do is buy two cans of whole kernel corn. Take one can, poke a bunch of holes in it with an ice pick, tie some heavy fishing line around it securely, and toss it out into the area you want to fish. Using the same weight and split shot system, but this time using a small single hook, about a size 8 or 10, open the other can and string kernels of corn on it like beads until the last one covers the hook point, and cast it out somewhere close to your sunken can. The can acts to chum the carp in, but they can't get to the corn in it so they will be eager to take your bait. Word of caution...carp will sniff around your bait and take it very lightly, very hard to detect sometimes. But once they get it into their mouth, they tend to be very good at suddenly sensing something's wrong and taking off like a 20 pound bonefish, which means if you aren't HOLDING your rod tightly or have it very securely tied down, you'll lose your rod. On the little river I used to fish for them, we regularly had to go swimming after our rods...which is why I always used cheap spincast reels!

If Big River is flowing over about 500 cfs at the Richwoods gauge, it's more or less runnable at either access, but I haven't been on it in over two years down there, so I don't know about whether there are downed trees anywhere that will stop you. Some riffle areas tend to get blocked often in that stretch, and it can be tricky to run even if it isn't blocked. I pretty much fish all the Meramec from Steelville to Moselle. Lots of good accesses. But even with the high water we have now, there are some spots above Meramec State Park where you have to know the river well to run it. I'm not going to say here exactly where I fished the other day, but there was one spot where there was a new downed tree that blocked the river in very fast water, with one little gap next to the root wad of the tree where the trunk was deep enough underwater that I thought I could get the boat over it. Couldn't run it on plane because directly above that gap was another tree, and there was no way I could make a sharp enough turn to avoid it at speed. So I came up to it almost idling, going just fast enough to make headway against the current, pretty much slid the boat over it, almost getting hung up on it. Coming back down I couldn't even get lined up to idle the boat over that gap, and had to take it down a little side channel by getting out and pushing it. By now the river will have dropped enough to make that spot totally impassable unless somebody cuts out the tree. I'm philosophically opposed to cutting out trees, but I'd bet somebody will do it sooner or later.

The lamprey that devastated the lake trout in the Great Lakes is a non-native species, the sea lamprey, which made its way to the Great Lakes in the bilge and ballast of commercial shipping. There are actually 6 different species of lampreys in MO. Two of them are parasitic, but one of the parasitic ones apparently only lives in the Mississippi River. The parasitic ones in the Meramec are chestnut lampreys as Adamg said. According to Pflieger in the "Fishes of Missouri", the chestnut lamprey is native to all the Missouri and Arkansas Ozark streams except for the upper White River system. The non-parasitic lampreys are brook lampreys, and there are four species--northern, southern, least, and American. They have an interesting life history. The young look like adults, but instead of having round, toothed sucker mouths, they have a mouth shaped like a hood, and they have no eyes. They live in the bottom muck and feed upon microscopic life and organic particles, which they sieve out of the water they inhale. The larval stage lasts for one or more years. Then they change into the adult form--all the lampreys, even the non-parasitic ones, have rasping teeth and sucker-like mouths as adults, although in the non-parasitic brook lampreys the teeth are poorly developed. Brook lampreys don't feed at all after transforming into adults--and they usually transform in the fall and don't spawn until spring, so they spend the winter not feeding, and usually decrease in size during that time. They spawn and then die. Both the chestnut and the brook lampreys build nests of shallow pits excavated near the upper ends of gravelly riffles, but the smaller brook lampreys build less of a pit. The least brook lamprey, which only gets to about 5 inches long, seldom builds a nest at all, but two or more of them have been observed moving one small rock. Some brook lampreys spawn in the nests built by chestnut lampreys. The chestnut lamprey gets to about 12 inches in length according to the book, but the one I saw yesterday was probably closer to 15 inches. They feed as adults for one to two years, then spawn and die. Chestnut lampreys attach themselves to various fish, and rasp a hole in the scales and skin of the fish with a hard, tongue-like structure in the middle of the mouth disc, through which they suck blood for several days before dropping off. The host fish doesn't die from the larmprey's feeding, but may die later from infection. The bass I caught yesterday had a round, reddened area where the lamprey had been attached, but no real hole. I've caught some that did have shallow holes where the lamprey attached, and it can be about anywhere on the fish but usually up closer to the head. I once caught a nice largemouth which a lamprey attached to the top of its head between its eyes. I see a lot more fish with lampreys attached in cold weather--could be that it's easier for them to catch up to a fish and attach themselves when the fish is more lethargic in cold water.

Makes sense to me...I hadn't thought about a bank caving, but that's probably the simplest explanation (and the simplest is usually right).

I just cleaned 11 spots from Big River the other day, and they were mostly females with eggs, though the egg sacs were pretty small. So I think your fish had just been eating exceptionally well. Cooler water temps could have stunned or killed some threadfin shad which the fish then gorged upon. I've caught stupidly fat spotted bass below Clearwater Dam when the threadfin shad are coming through the dam dead or nearly so. It apparently doesn't take long for them to really put on fat in the late fall/early winter.

The Meramec was still up more than a foot above what it was before this last round of flooding, and even that was well above what it should be this time of year. I knew it when I left home this morning, so I was sweating a bit awaiting my first view of the river...would it be clear, murky, too murky? It was murky but fishable, I thought as I put the boat in. The stretch I wanted to fish was a long way upstream, so I bundled up and took off on a long run upriver. About halfway up, I suddenly noticed the river was a whole lot murkier, almost to the point of being brownish instead of greenish. Not good. But I kept going, and by the time I reached the pool I wanted to start out fishing, it had cleared again, to visibility of about 3 feet. The temp gauge on the depth finder said 51.5 degrees. The river was really honking on. I stopped just below the head of the pool, and by the time I rigged up a couple of rods I was two or three hundred yards downstream. Had to start up the motor again to get myself back to the head of the pool, where a quiet backwater was that I wanted to fish. Spinnerbait, crankbait, and jerkbait produced nothing in the backwater. When I got out into the main channel again, even though this is a long, usually very slow pool, I knew it was moving too fast to fish the jerkbait well. I had to keep the boat pointed upstream and the trolling motor on medium to slow myself enough to fish the quieter water along the bank. The crankbait worked, though. By the time I reached the tail end of the pool, I'd put 7 smallmouth, 2 largemouth, and a half dozen goggle-eye in the boat. Nothing real big, but three of the smallies were 15-16 inchers. One of them shed a lamprey as I lifted it into the boat. Bet it was glad to get rid of the lamprey, which was attached to its throat just behind the gill connection and was as long as the bass. Alright, I'm thinking...this is going to be a good fishing day. Nope. By mid-afternoon I'd fished all the pools I wanted to try in a 5 mile stretch of river, and hadn't caught as many fish in all of them combined as I'd caught in that first pool. So I motored back downstream to one of my favorite cold water pools. The slug of very murky water had reached it. The visibility was maybe 18 inches. I caught two little ones out of it. Since it was getting late, I motored on downstream to another of my favorite pools, not far above the access. The muddy water hadn't reached that point yet, and I caught a nice 15 incher and had a bigger fish on briefly. And then it was getting dark and I had to quit. Gotta wonder what caused that little slug of muddier water. I'd be curious to know if it came from Maramec Spring. Sometimes, in high flows, there are apparently collapses of sinkholes full of mud, or little mud-filled side caverns, that temporarily muddy the springs. This long after the high water, there shouldn't have been any slugs of mud coming down the river or out of Dry Fork. At any rate, it was an interesting day. Final tally of my catch was 15 smallies and 8 largemouth, with none of the largemouth over 12 inches but 8 of the smallmouth between 14 and 16 inches. Oh yeah...and a half dozen different eagles and a big flock of turkeys and no other people. I'll take that any day.

Put me in Gavin's camp...24 inches is the important thing, the weight can vary even from day to day, let alone month to month. Fact is that there simply aren't very many 24 inch largemouth caught in this part of the country, period. The heaviest bass I ever caught in Missouri, 9 pounds even weighed on a postal scale, was 23.5 inches. I've caught one 24.5 incher on a Missouri reservoir, but it was a skinny fish that only weighed a little over 6 pounds, and a 24 incher on a small lake in the summer that weighed 7.5. And the longest largemouth I ever caught in Missouri was a 25 incher that I caught on the Meramec River that I estimated at around 8 pounds. But if I had to guess, knowing that the fish was around 24 inches, I'd say a little over 6 pounds. Heads don't weigh as much as bellies!

Only problem with the Delorme atlases is that they don't differentiate between public county roads and private roads. In most cases they name the public roads either by number or by name, but it still can get a bit confusing when you're looking for a road. The county road maps show all public roads and selected private ones, but the private ones are depicted with a different symbol. However, I wouldn't be without Delorme atlases for every state I visit, and I carry the Missouri atlas in both vehicles as well as another copy that stays in the house. I also have their software, but don't use it much because I like to have the actual book in front of me. I do have the National Geographic map software for Missouri and Arkansas, as well as Montana. It's pretty expensive, but it's all based upon USGS topo maps and the topography is excellent--topography on the Delorme software leaves a lot to be desired.