Chief Grey Bear

Add Tuna, Cod, Mackerel, Whiting, Abalone, clams, crabs, lobsters, oysters, scallops, shrimp, Shark, Swordfish, bullfrogs, crawdads and probably some others to that list.

Oh sure I can for the most part agree that just about every bit of water has at some point in time been fished. I am just not going to say that every fish has been caught and released. Now on your rant in the second part of your post, I am 100% agreement. But it is obvious that, even though those that like to keep a limit of bass here and there have had that very picture painted about them here on this forum. But we all know it is not true due to the fact we can go to any stream in this state and still catch a limit of legal bass. Carry on brother!

looking to expand the operation Phil?

That would be true assuming that they have been caught before. But there is no way of proving that one way or the other.

May the same happen during your next tournament.

How in the hell do you generate that much trash in less than 2 days? My family of 4 doesn't generate that much in 2 weeks! Hang'em High! By his nad's!

More questions for sure. I counted 44 fish. As near as I could tell. I can see at least 3 maybe 4 stringers. I can also see at least 3 sets of feet, not counting who took the picture. The biggest question is where did these fish come from. We all certainly assume it was from public water. But was it? Did these come from a pivate pay lake? Was there a pond that was going to be drained for development? I am certainly not defending this but maybe you should make contact with the ol' "Hey bud, how ya been..." yada, yada, yada. And then mention that you saw the pic and thought it was an awesome day fishing like he said. Then he will drop the scoop to you and if it is not legit, you never have don't have to respond back to him. If you do this, I hope you post your findings here. You have peaked our intrest.

Stange for sure. I would say if it indeed a cross and not some abnormanlity, it would be of a White and Black Crappie mix.

Great to see you back Dano.

There is no such thing as releasing a fish "unharmed". That fish still has a hook wound in its mouth. I have caught numerous fish that you can still see the red, inflamed area around the mouth from a hook set a few days earlier. A mortal wound? No. Unharmed? No. Would it be irresponsible or unselfish for all C&R anglers, regardless of species sought, to stop purchasing a fishing licnese? Certainly it shouldn't just be flyfishermen fishing for trout.

Thanks for the report. Sounds like some great fun for these guy's up there. Keep us informed.

On paper, Al, that would appear to be correct. But in the field, not so much. As siusaluki states, it is not ideal, but I am not sure we can develop an idea regulation to cover the all of the unimpounded smallmouth waters without making it very complex and probably not very likely to be adopted by the MDC. The concern about total daily bass harvest is a valid point. I have couple reason/thoughts to the reason I thought a seperate creel limit would work better than a single combined creel. One reason I don't see it as much of a concern for two seperate creels is that in the areas of large populations of small smallmouth bass, generally are not inhabited by largemouth and spots in great numbers. Sometimes not at all. Most of the areas that I have found that contain these concentrations are more in the upper watersheds of steams. And as you move down stream to the flatter, slower water, the populations seem to be more in control and therefore, one would be much less likely to creel a limit of 4 smallmouth from the bottom of the slot in addition to a creel of largemouth/spot bass. Another reason I thought it might be ok is that if there is an abundance of the smaller smallmouth in the same area of largemouth/spots, then they probably need some thinning too. This slot is nothing more than a mangagement tool. If it was to be implemented, I think it should be evaluated at least every 5 years. If there is a dramatic drop in the smallmouth populations on the bottom of the slot, then it should be suspended. If it appears to be working, well then we can all be happy. Well all of us except OTF. I have to agree with eric on the id of our bass. But remember, what I am purposing is a sperate creel of smallmouth and largemouth/spot. It wouldn't really matter if you couldn't tell the difference in a LMB or a Spot. As long as you can count and read a ruler. If you can't do that, you shouldn't....be fishing! You should be in school!

Hard to tell. Since none of your post remains and 10% of your post appears, apparently, in my post, one could only assume you were taking that tone with me. Just for the record there were a few post lost in the move. Carry on.

That wouldn't happen with if we seperated the creel limits. Smallmouth would have their own creel. Largemouth and Spots would have a combined creel.

Are we done???? No comment pro or con?????? Al??? eric???? anyone????? Hello????

Are you talking to me? It looks like your original post was lost when Phil changed servers. Because I didn't start this topic you did. But mine is now the first post. No since in jumping my case. I didn't delete your post. Take your beef up with Phil.

All we are talking about is a simple state wide slot on Smallmouth only. That wouldn't be very hard to remember. And it is much less complex than what the MSA is trying to have imposed.

Something else I have been thinking about is seperating the creel of LM and Spot from the Smallmouth if a slot was implemented. But it would have to be from the bottom. Meaning that one would be allowed to creel 4 smallmouth less than 13 inches in addtion to the total of 6 creeled LM, Spot or any combination of. Now just think about it a minute before you jump on keyboard and start baning away. Something along these lines may be needed to maximize the management of smallmouth for the greater.

I am not against meeting half way in Monett. I would at least attend a meeting or two. I am still not ready to sign on the dotted line though. Yet.

Well my intial thought was to only change the regs for smallmouth statewide. But in another post you also added LMB to the slot regs. So I thought that wouldn't hurt anything really and would make for larger bass in the river. I would rather leave the current LMB and Spot regs in place. As stated earlier, the more complex it is, the less chance you have of getting some reg revision.

I have been doing a little thinking on this. What if we have something like this: State wide regs on unimpounded waters of a 14-20 slot on LM and SM bass. Only 1 smallmouth maybe creeled over 20. Except on unimpounded waters south of I-44 and west of Hwy 65. Those waters will be have a slot of 13-15 on SM bass only and only 1 over 15 may be creeled. I think that something along those lines will remove the bulk of the complexity and could most likely stand the best chance for approval. EVERBODY? I would have agree that probably not. Like I said in the very first post, you don't have to keep a limit on every outing.

I don't keep trout either. But I do buy a stamp. It helps in more way than you may know. It's only $7. Hopefully you spent more than that with the local merchants the last time you were there. And it is really gonna suck when you hook the next state record. And if you ever fish Taney, its gonna suck even worse when you hook the new world record. You just never know.

The more restrictive you make the slot, the less it will work. If at all. It will only work to improve the desired results if applied correctly. And that means you and I both would have to start harvesting those on the bottom end of the slot. A lot can be written and has been written about the harvest and consumption of fish from the the smaller end of the scale. Most folks that fish to eat fish as a meal not as a fish fry, prefer to consume those that are refered to as a "pound and down". They are younger, more tender and haven't devloped the stronger taste of fish. They are much milder. There are also noted health risked in eating the larger, older fish. We have all read about the amounts of heavy metals and such, mainly from the burning of coal, that have negativly affected the rivers and lakes and thus the fish within them. The larger and older the fish, the larger the concentration of these in the flesh. Now I think that is right on. And I am also afraid you are correct in that the MDC will find it too complex to emplement. And there is some validity in that. But it does look like a great place to begin refining.

Very, very cool my brother!

I would be much more in favor of a slot limit than anything else I have seen proposed. It is in my mind the most effective managment tool. But that is only if WE comply with it. Not so much on the top end but more importantly on on the bottom end. The theory behind the slot is that if you remove some of the smaller, more ferious eaters, it will open up more forage for the other fish to grow larger, quicker. And it will work. But it will take all of us working together. But that also doesn't mean you have to keep a limit every time you go either. And you certainly don't have to keep one from the top end of the slot. I would be most in favor of a 10-13 inch keep 4 on the bottom and only 1 over 16 on the top. That would protect the 13-16 inch fish. Now I could also give a little leeway on that. I also think I could be in favor of that being a blanke reg state wide. So in a very short, to the point post, that is what I am thinking in a nutshell. Al, I asked the other day how many were on the BRP. I think you stated about 20 with only around a dozen active. Of those that actively worked on the reccomendation to the MDC, other than you and Bob, were there any others didn't really agree with the new regs but went along with it anyway? I know that looks like a badly worded question but, I don't know how else to ask it. I finally read Bob's article and he didn't seem to agree with the proposal and you stated here that there you didn't seem to agree with all of it. I just wonder if it was kind of hurried and not thoroughly discussed.