eric1978

You're on Brother. Let me get this baby knocked out (not literally of course ) and I'll give you a holler.

My guess would be that law is in place to protect the redds. No?

I read a ton of stuff today, and one of the articles I ran across was one for the New River in VA. They instituted a 12 mile C&R only stretch in hopes of creating a trophy fishery. After some years under those regs, they found that the fishery had not improved all that drastically. They tagged a bunch of the smallies in the C&R stretch, and after studying those fish, the biologists realized they were moving in and out of the regulated area more than they expected...enough to be caught and kept outside of the special management section. So IMO, unless an entire river is under one set of regulations, you're not going to see the full implications of the improvements those regs could make, which could account for the lack of disparity in the numbers you posted. The only river mentioned that had a long enough SMA to prevent the aforementioned glitch was Big River, which is so heavily impacted by habitat degradation and spotted bass invasion it could hardly be used as comparison. The other rivers you noted with SMAs are shorter sections and had regular state regs above and below them. I'm running out of steam for this go-round of this tired old argument. I'm sure I'll be ready to fight it out again in another month or so. OB, I'll just put you in either the "devil's advocate" or the "I don't care" category, and we'll just say you win. I'm pretty sure you know that fishing would generally improve under tighter regulations, but for some reason or another it's not something that interests you or you just like to take a position and argue it whether you agree or not. I always scratch my head when I hear a devoted angler arguing against his own interests, but then again, I'm confused by much human behavior. So until later, I think I'll go outside and shoot me a bald eagle for the smoker tomorrow. I've been seeing a lot of them lately, so one less won't do no harm.

Not a whole lot of info out there to look at. I did find the same study you did on the Gasconade, and it did say this: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.g...ocuments/68.pdf "In the Gasconade River, the number and sizes of smallmouth bass increased after the 18-inch limit was established." From another study done on Glover Creek in Oklahoma: http://digital.libra.../v63/p37_41.pdf "Survival rate (age 2 and older) calculated from our Glover Creek sample was 39% with 95% confidence limits from 32 to 47%. This is similar to rates reported for other exploited stream populations (4,18,20,21). Reported annual survival rates ranged from 34% for Courtois Creek, Missouri (18) to 64% for Buffalo River, Arkansas (4). Over one-half of the total mortality has been attributed to fishing from six of seven populations where data were available (20). No exploitation rates are available for the Glover Creek population, although it seems to receive substantial fishing pressure. Fajen (22) estimated that survival of an unexploited population of smallmouth bass (ages 1-6) in Little Saline Creek, Missouri, to be 89%." This report done by the Tennessee Department of Conservation was interesting: http://www.tennessee...ter/smbtech.pdf "Unexploited populations in Missouri had 11 and 16 % annual mortality. Among reports for exploited populations in Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, Iowa, Wisconsin and Alabama total mortality was typically above 35 % and as high as 84 %." "This modeling exercise suggests that the current lack of length restrictions on smallmouth bass fisheries always minimizes the abundance of larger bass (PSD and RSD14) and, in most cases (cm >10%), maximizes yield. This effect would be most pronounced in populations with low natural mortality and high fishing mortality." "Based on our assessment of smallmouth bass populations and our modeling exercise using the FAST Dynamic Pool model, there are opportunities to use length restrictions to improve fisheries in Tennessee's streams and rivers. Populations that have low natural mortality rates and high fishing pressure have the greatest chance for improvement. The best length restriction to consider would be a 356-mm minimum length limit" (in order to please meat anglers, stated below). "Of course, higher minimum length limits could be even more effective at increasing the abundance of large bass, but they would drastically reduce the yield from these fisheries. There are a number of anglers that enjoy harvesting smallmouth bass, therefore the 356-mm minimum length limit, which allows more harvest, appears to be the best compromise." Now granted, I cherry-picked these quotes in an effort to provide some kind of evidence that biologists do indeed believe that harvest has a direct impact on the general population and the number of large fish. I suppose the reason I'm having trouble finding a study or an explicit statement that conveys as much is because that's kind of a "duh" comment. I mean it's just common sense that the more you take out, the fewer there are. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what I'm trying to prove to you. Deciding which regulations are best for Ozark streams is still plenty debatable in my mind, and the more I read, the more I like slot limits. 14-20, 2 under, 1 over and a total of 6 black bass per day sounds good to me. Are you gonna tell me that's not enough meat for one day?

I'm speechless. It is doing what it's always done...which is change. It is NOT doing it at the same pace, and it's pretty naive to think we CAN'T cause worldwide change.

Yeah, it's definitely worrisome. Apparently that storm came out of nowhere on a path that rarely occurs. Got me thinking...for longer trips, do any of you guys have some kind of radio or other device that you can reliably get weather updates on? I think I'll look into something for future extended floats...radios have always been hit or miss on the rivers for me.

It's an inside joke SB. I constantly whine about being a two hour drive from any good fishing. PC is my boy...be nice to him.

Scientists are kicking themselves for originally calling it "global warming" instead of "climate change." Because global warming causes dramatic fluctuations in the weather in all four seasons. It makes normal and natural events more severe and more frequent, hence a changing climate. You can't argue with the facts. The earth's average temperature is rising, and rising faster than it ever has in recorded history. Is that caused by man? That's debatable, but I personally believe it is. I'm definitely not going to deny it just so huge corporations aren't fined and taxed for polluting, which is the only reason I can gather anyone would deny it.

Look, my point is that creel regulations should be based upon realizing maximum potential of fisheries, not just enough to sustain a population. Once that potential is realized, then people can start skimming the cream off the top by slowly loosening the regs incrementally and keeping more fish until the right equilibrium is found. Of course the appropriate set of regulations will vary from stream to stream, but there's no doubt, and I don't think you will argue, that most Ozark streams could produce more bigger fish...not world records, just more quality fish...you've already conceded as much. So let's get to that point, and then reassess the amount of fish that can be taken. To me, that sounds fair for everyone. The regulations we have now are great for meat anglers, and just mediocre for anglers interested in better days of fishing. I have to ask again, what makes their desire to eat fish more important than my desire to catch fish? Your argument works both ways, and I have to point out once more that, as of right now, their behavior is interfering with many C&R anglers' desires, just as you state C&R proponents will interfere with theirs. If you want to talk about fairness, I think it's total BS that a small percentage of anglers are allowed to keep a stream stunted in a state of mediocrity, and the rest of us just have to swallow it. All those other factors are just more reason to tighten regulations. I'm all for helping with the other problems, too...how do we do that? The answer to those aren't as easy. Regs are one thing that can be done that is immediate, broadly reaching, and inexpensive...and possible. Would you change your mind if I found some? I'll look for it if the answer is yes. Just the fact that they instituted SMAs in the first place is evidence enough that something wasn't right.

You owe me a beer. So we do agree after all... I'm not endorsing statewide absolute C&R. Meat anglers would still be able to harvest some, just not as much. I'm just not going to be convinced that, given a smallmouth's extremely slow growth rate, for every fish removed from a stream there's another one growing right into his old shoes. They can't be keeping up with the harvest...they just can't be. And pretty much every angler that has, say, 20 or 30 or more years experience on the rivers says the same thing...you just don't catch them like you used to.

Oh. I was told that the license revenues go to the public schools. Guess I should stop listening to that guy...he's wrong about everything else so I don't know why I believed him on that. Good point about the mindset. Plus it sets the table for even more restrictive regs later. No, I'm kidding...kinda. Edit to add: I looked into the MDC revenues on licenses, and sure enough, you're right. In 2008, hunting and fishing permits made up 16.99% of MDC revenue that fiscal year, the last year's data I could find.

It's true that without enforcement, regulations are not as effective, but enforcement is totally worthless without regulations. So let's get the first part done first, then worry about the second. Some people follow laws because it's the right thing to do, not because they fear the punishment for breaking those laws...and those anglers' stringers of smallmouth would be smaller, and I like that thought. I'd be agreeable to a slot limit also. But I'll take whatever I can get.

I'd PM bobber...he would know.

A lot of guys make that point, or ask me why my desire to catch more and bigger fish is more important than someone else's desire to eat some. And I get the point, but it can be flipped around the other way. I pay taxes just like they do, and their vote counts the same as mine. What makes their desire to eat fish more important than my desire to catch and release more and bigger fish? The difference is that my behavior does not negatively affect them, but theirs does affect me. And by the way, I live about 5 minutes from Hwy 70, and I don't blow a gasket when some hillbilly is limping down the fast lane in some run-down, smoke-blowing, noisy as hell 1984 Bronco with a giant lift and a big ballsack swingin' from the hitch. I live closer to it and drive it much more often, but it's just as much his as it is mine, just as the river he lives near is just as much mine as it is his, and I don't really care if he doesn't like progressive regulations that benefit a larger group of people than his in-laws.

http://ozarkanglers.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8669&view=findpost&p=52210&hl=usgs&fromsearch=1

Genius, if you're going to quote me, don't cherry-pick the part that fits your point and ignore the rest. I said immediately after that... Poachers will always be around and of course a problem, like you said, so my opinion on this subject is not contingent upon them except to the extent that they wouldn't be as big a problem if you didn't have everyone else taking fish on top of them. I think most anglers are reasonable and can see the need for tighter regulations, and of those that don't, most will at least obey the laws. So it would help...some. And something is better than nothing. What's your solution? Now shut up and go sell some auto-collision-repair stuff.

Aren't there any lawyers on here that are looking to do some pro bono work? Sounds like we need to find one, have a volunteer "trespass" on a questionable stream, appeal the ticket all the way to the MO Supreme Court and get some precedents set. I guess that could be a little risky if the judgment goes the wrong way, but it might be worth the gamble. I'll volunteer to be the trespasser if we can find a decent attorney who wants to work for free.

Sorry OB, there's a lot of logic in this post that I just don't buy. MDC doesn't make money on license sales. Realistically, how much revenue do you think the state would lose from a few SMAs? I mean really? There might be a few guys like wrench who would take a principled stand against a government entity encroaching on his freedoms, but even he wouldn't last a whole year. How many guys are going to throw up their hands and say, "Well, I guess I ain't fishin' anymore cuz I can't keep all the smallmouth I want outa my river?" Very few. In fact, I would make the assumption that the guys who get in such a twist over tighter regs would either be guys that wouldn't be buying a license and fishing illegally under normal circumstances, or those who would continue to buy licenses and continue to poach as they always have before. For all the rest of the law-abiding citizens, they will either happily follow the new creel regs and practice C&R for the most part anyway, or if they MUST eat smallmouth, they'll go to another stream that can legally accommodate their fryers, OR, do the thing that makes the most sense and target a different species of fish that's easier to catch and tastes better. It's just not logical to think that huge numbers of fishermen are throwing away their rods and tackle because of a few hundred more miles of SMA. But for the few that do, one can hope that the fishing on those streams improves enough to spark interest in a new C&R angler who otherwise would not care to waste his time casting in a river that holds 3 dink smallmouth per mile, therefore sustaining the license fee revenue you're worried about (which doesn't go back to MDC anyway). This is the 21st century. The free-for-all glory days are over, and consumptive behavoir is passe and no longer acceptable. There are lots of fishermen. Because of progressive government, we have more public access to rivers than ever. Baits are better, line is stronger and drags are smoother, and fish are somewhat easier to catch. If we don't adjust the creel regulations to compensate for the increased number of smallmouth that reach an angler's hand, we will continue to see dwindling populations of these fish on our streams. They simply cannot keep up given all the other problems they face. It's the Neanderthal meat angler who needs to get with the program, not the conservation-minded C&R angler. Again, I, and I believe most others, don't expect or fantasize about growing world-record size fish in Ozark streams. What we do fantasize about, and what could more than likely be a reality under the correct conditions, are fisheries that hold greater numbers of mature fish...that's it. I don't dream about the day when Jeremy Wade gets in a Land Rover and drives deep into the Ozarks in search of the man-eating smallmouth. But you can't sit there and tell me that if no one was keeping smallmouth, our catch rates wouldn't dramatically increase. And don't give me any of that nonsense about how nature needs us to thin them out for this reason or that...the smallmouth have inhabited those streams much longer than people have been fishing in them, and I'd be willing to bet their populations reached a pretty healthy equilibrium before we got involved. And like Siusaluki said, our streams are already destination fisheries. There are plenty of MO residents, myself included, that spend outrageous amounts of money driving to rivers and back from suburban hell every year and make weekly trips to the tackle shops. The revenue is there. Straight from MDC's mouth: "In 1991, the first Stream Black Bass Special Management Areas were established, using special regulations to improve the numbers and sizes of smallmouth bass. The success of the management areas led to a statewide effort to identify, study and improve Missouri's best black bass streams." Better fishing = more people fishing = more revenue. It doesn't work the other way around, and I think you've got the cart before the horse.

Hey Mitch, I don't care what it weighs, that Gasconade smallmouth is an unbelievable fish. WOW! That had to be a great day for you. Beautiful creature.

There's an answer for that, but it will surely ruffle some political feathers, so I'll keep it to myself. The history of regulating (and more importantly, deregulating) drilling is easily found with a little googling.

KC I'd say 175 will be pretty darn near perfect. When we did our April trip it was around 200-225, and I would have preferred just slightly less flow. We didn't drag once until we were less than a mile above Bay Creek, and we floated all the way from the Prongs. Should be pretty good for you guys. Looks like Eminence is expecting a chance of storms each day for the rest of the week, so it shouldn't drop much more if they get a couple showers now and then. Make sure you guys remember that JF floods extremely quick, so if they're predicting any serious rain while you're there, camp up high or at least near an escape route to high ground. Have fun and I'm totally jealous!

And in case you didn't know Max, spots are invasive and putting a big-time hurtin' on the smallies in the Bourbeuse, and there's a limit of 12 with no length limit on them (I'm not sure if they recently removed the limit altogether or if that's just an optimistic figment of my imagination...maybe just a dream I had). Keep all the spots you can and have a nice fish fry when you get home. It's not often you get to eat bass guilt-free. I hope you go. I haven't made it to that river this year and I'd like to hear how it's doing. Like Hank said, it's not the most breathtaking river as far as scenery, but it can fish pretty well and you'll definitely be able to avoid the huge summertime crowds you get on other rivers.

There's nothing at Wenkel except a parking lot. Good access, no camping. There's a big bedrock shelf there that's used as a low water bridge, and you could probably camp on it if you really wanted, but the locals use it for their campfire/fishfry spot on weekends, so I'd paddle down a quarter mile or so for some isolation. If you're going to float the upper sections of the Bourbeuse, get there when the water is up a little, otherwise you'll be doing plenty of dragging with a loaded canoe, especially above Wenkel...and when you're not dragging, you'll be paddling. It's a slow and muddy river, but it does hold some good smallmouth in the appropriate spots.

Matt, it's gonna be a zoo on any of their floats. All those stretches will be packed this weekend and they're a pretty big livery to boot, so you'll be put in among dozens of others. If you want to do some fishing instead of bumper canoes, I'd call Skip at Greene's and have him take you somewhere above Hwy 8 on the Meramec. You'll probably have a few jams to deal with, but you'll find much more solitude up there...if you're interested in solitude.

I'm not so sure you can use the Rapalas in the flies only section even if you replace the trebles with one single. The regs book explicitly okays "rooster tails," but makes no mention of other lures...if I remember correctly. You may want to ask at the office first.