eric1978

I think an asterisk in the books would be appropriate. Or maybe two different categories, one of which is "World Record Triploid Rainbow." Generally I don't give a rat's behind about records at all, though. So take my opinion with a grain of salt.

I don't really think it's the biologists that are the problem. I think it's probably more "other factors" within the MDC that stunts progress. The biologists provide scientific data, and then that data is plugged into a formula that includes variables like "regulatory support," and what comes out at the other end is, I'm fairly certain, usually not what the biologists recommended.

Ditto. I would prefer it if all but the most dangerous logjams were left on the rivers. They are supposed to be there and the fish need them. I hate portaging as much as the next guy, but it's worth it overall. I know it's not a popular thing to say because of the "just say nice things" crowd, but it wouldn't bother me one bit to see some of the aluminum hatch and jetboaters turned off by the inconveniences logjams cause. I don't mind so much on the bigger, downriver water, but the skinny, upstream stretches of most streams should just be left alone and allowed to let nature take its course. Fire away.

We may not all agree on specifically what should be done, but the general consensus on OAF is that MDC is not doing enough to implement more SMAs. It wouldn't hurt for MDC to know what a group of concerned anglers thinks about the program, and what that group generally thinks should be done, which is simply: more SMAs, whatever or where ever they may be.

I tried to get that ball rolling but it fell flat with no support. You should give it a shot, but don't expect too much participation. I plan to join MSA in the coming year and help them with their efforts. I don't really know what else to do. I haven't looked into MO Conservation Federation yet, but I plan to do that as well.

I think that might be a little naive, Tim. Kevin Meneau may be an expert in fisheries biology, but that doesn't necessarily mean that MDC will follow his suggestions for SMAs. They have many other factors they consider, several of which have nothing to do with the actual needs of the fishery. I'd like to hear what Kevin really thinks should be done with the SMA program, but I have a feeling that if he intends to keep his job, he will remain "unavailable for comment," other than the reports that have been run through the gamut of bureaucratic sausage-making that is state government. We may be beating a dead horse, we may not be. But either way, this is a "forum" after all, and the point of it is to discuss relevant issues to angling in the Ozarks. I think this one fits the category. I go through periods of exhaustion with this topic, too, believe it or not, but I think it's a really important issue and worthy of continued debate.

Well obviously I have a motive, Chief. I'm not going to deny that. I wouldn't be here discussing it if I didn't enjoy the resource. But the ultimate outcome I desire, for whatever reason, just happens to be a product of healthier ecosystems. So I don't really see how motive is relevant. Either it's better for the fish, or it's not. It just so happens that tighter creel regulations have proven to help some fisheries, so I'm interested in seeing more of that. I wouldn't be pushing for regulations if they were detrimental to streams, so I guess in that sense, you can say I'm "in it for the ecology."

Sounds like you should be good to go, Joe. I love winter floats...not crazy at all. I would make sure to have several ways to quickly and easily make a fire in case someone takes a swim. Make sure your dry bags are actually dry and be sure to have a change of clothes and your firestarters in them. It's also nice to have a bigger dry bag to stuff your sleeping bags in to make sure they don't get wet. Even synthetic bags are close to useless if they're not perfectly dry. Don't even consider bringing a down bag. Be vigilant about keeping your dry bags locked up tight at all times when you're floating. It's easy to convince yourself not to roll it back up every time you get into it for something. I learned the hard way. The chainsaw is a good idea and very convenient to have with you, but not very convenient to carry along. I usually just bring a bow-saw. A bottle of tequila (poured into a Nalgene bottle, of course) and a couple limes are always with me on winter overnights...and some hair jigs.

To answer your question Chief, if I saw that a substantial change in regulations was made, and I felt satisfied that it was the best MDC could do, I would probably begin to pay closer attention to habitat degradation and begin looking into what I could do to make any difference in that arena. Regulations just seem to be the most likely aspect of conservation in which a little peon like me may have a chance to affect some change. I also think it would also be the easiest change to make, since there aren't as many big-money interests pushing back against it, in comparison to something like habitat issues.

I don't want it managed to suit what I want, I want it managed according to what is best for the ecology of the stream, and if the result means better fishing, good for us. If studies had shown that SMAs did not increase the productivity of a fishery, it would be a moot point and I would drop it...but that's not the case.

No, your sarcasm is totally appropriate. Guys like him are the very reason the problems have been swept under the rug. It's really easy to track his alterior motives: Studies show lake is unfit for recreation...less people seek residence there...fewer potential loans...less money...Answer...pretend there is no problem. End of story. Cleaning up the sewage problems will be a tremendous task, and it certainly won't happen without new laws being passed (hmmm...that theme sounds familiar). Even if the septic system problems are addressed and eventually resolved, LOZ will still be a polluted mess simply because of the sheer numbers of people who live and visit there. You gotta wonder what volume of petroleum products are leaked into the lake every year.

If there's a really late spawn, most spawning fish would not be protected, since anything over 12 inches on the vast majority of MO stream miles are fair game opening day. Besides, you could make the argument that if a 14 inch fish is taken even in October, she won't be around the next spring to spawn either. What's the difference if she's taken before spawn, during spawn, or after spawn? Either way, it's one less fish that will be spawning. So current regulations do not protect the majority of spawning-sized fish the majority of the year. To me, the closed season is moot, although, again, like I've said a million times, it's better than nothing. For a guy who doesn't harvest smallmouth, you sure fight hard against people who want only to protect them. I just can't figure out your angle...I think I have a vague idea of your political philosophy, and things just aren't fitting together. Can't get a read on you Chief. Baffling.

I have one of the new Curado 200E7s and I love it. For my money, they're just as good if not better than the old Chronarchs, plus they have a lower profile now and are super comfortable. Forget about the gear ratio thing. If you need to move a bait a little slower, then crank a little slower...the speed is there if you need it. You can pick them up for less than $150 on ebay plus free shipping. The Curado is the best price-to-quality ratio reel you're going to find, period.

Fished 28 today for a little while. The wind was ripping on the dam side and was just too cold to bear, so I went to the shallower side with the points. Tough bite today. Only one fish landed, another hook-up and lost fish, and two missed takes...that's it. Only stayed an hour or so. A lady with a black and yellow jig and a bobber the size of a baseball was tearing 'em up. My guess is the lakes will be frozen within the next 24-48 hours...the ice in the coves grew noticably in the short time I was there.

Do you have a link to the study that proves that? No, they are not going extinct by any means. But the point of this is to make fisheries better, and tighter regulations would do that on most streams. You don't think so?

Yeah, but poachers are going to poach, regardless of the rules, so nothing really applies to them anyway. I was talking about people who follow regulations. If the stream was under a Red, Blue or Yellow Ribbon management system, those who obey laws would have to release most spawning fish.

Okay, not to get off the RR guys, but does anyone else have any ideas or opinions about what type of management system they'd like to see on their favorite streams?

Raw scientific data bores the hell out of me, so I'm bad at regurgitating facts. But I think I remember that the scientists have established the average temperature has risen something like 1 degree in something like the last hundred years. That sounds insignificant when you look at the miniscule rise in temps in itself, but when you look at the big picture of the effects of that temperature increase, it's pretty unsettling. I don't personally think that we are going to see in our lifetimes, and hopefully not our kids, or ever for that matter, a rise in temperature that is very significant in actual terms of temperature. What I mean by that is, we may see in fifty years or so that scientists are now saying the average temperature has risen by 2 degrees over the last 150 years instead of 1 degree over the last 100. So my opinion is that temperature in itself is not going to be a major factor in changing the ecological makeup of most streams, especially those heavily fed by springs. But as Al said, it really worries me what that small spike in temps does to the planet on a systemic level...as he mentioned, changes in weather patterns: hotter, colder, wetter, drier, windier, hurricanier , whatever. And maybe the thing that worries me most and is the greatest potential threat to all river species (or really just all species, including humans in the long run), is the fact that the polar ice caps are melting, and that raises the sea level. That water has to go somewhere, and eventually it will be backing up into smaller and smaller tributaries, and flooding more areas depending on sea level. I don't care to use the brain energy to speculate on what kinds of changes that would cause, and frankly, I don't even want to think about it because, again, as Al said, we're not going to do anything about it, so whatever happens, happens. So basically, I agree with this comment of Wayne's. As of yet, I really don't see the tiny spike in temperature effecting the streams all that much, but it's the other effects like flooding and drought that worry me more than the actual temps. And like Wayne said, we have bigger problems with direct human habitat destruction at the moment. Al, you really think the atmospheric temperature would change the temp of the aquifers? I figured that they would pretty much stay constant regardless of air temp.

I like that theory, too, for no other reason than my affection for the Ozarks and the fact that I think that smallmouth and the Ozarks are like peas and carrots. But I don't think the fact that Ozarks smallies are closer in appearance to OH/TN smallies than they are nothern smallies argues against your theory. Evolution is a result of animals adapting to their surroundings, and the fact that the OH/TN habitat is closer to Ozark habitat than northern habitat, to me, would be more of an evolutionary consideration than just simply TIME. If there is no need for an animal to evolve, it won't. Look at an animal like the alligator. They've been exactly the same for a VERY long time. If we had a million years to do an evolutionary study, and put some gators in some habitat that is similar, but not identical to, the Everglades in temperature, environment and forage for the full million years, and put another set of gators in a different set of conditions that was slightly cooler or warmer, or drier or wetter, or with a different type or amount of forage, for only a half million years, my guess is that you would see changes in the latter set much sooner, because they would need to evolve to survive, or at least survive more efficiently...the first set wouldn't change as quickly, or possibly at all because the habitat is similar, even if not identical to their original habitat. So that's my long way of saying I don't think time is as big a factor in determining an evolutionary path as need to adapt.

I'm right there with ya Al, and you know I'm all for doing what's best for each river for the river's sake, based on scientific data. And you're right, I suppose we already do have the situation with segmented regulations on certain streams, where you could be legal one minute, and the next minute you're not. My only point is that, if this whole debate is about devoloping some kind of legitimate and reasonable management plan to submit to MDC for consideration, I think it has to be simple enough for them to take a second look at it. I may be naive to think that all of this discussion could lead to anything, so call me naive. But I enjoy discussing it, so I'll continue to do so whether it bears fruit or not. Given that commitment, what I would eventually like to see is as many opinions as possible ultimately sculpted into a viable smallmouth management system and that idea be presented to MDC. I hear so much talk about how they won't do this or won't do that because X set of regulations is too complicated or too difficult to enforce, so I guess I'm a little gunshy about making any of this hypothetical program more involved than it has to be. Again, I would like every mile of Ozark streams evaluated and regulated accordingly, but that just won't happen. Deciding where the line of "too complicated for consideration" is drawn, I have no idea, but I'm guessing that 3 distinct SMAs with different sets of regulations already gets us close to that line. I personally would rather see a greater number of streams under some decent regulations than a few streams under the perfect regulations, so if dumbing down the rules is what it takes to get something done, I say that's the way to go. Again, if I had it my way, it would be a confusing mess, because there would be so many rules you wouldn't be able to keep track of them all...C&R here, slot limit there, can't touch these fish, gotta keep those fish, etc. Whatever you guys think is viable, I'm fully behind. I just think the simpler, the better, at least in terms of practical purposes. Any idea for an SMA that remains in someone's back pocket is a worthless idea. It has to be implemented to be useful, and it has to sound reasonable to MDC to be implemented. A system of regulations so involved it would make your head spin sounds pretty good to me, but I'm definitely in the minority on that front. I had a poker game at my house last Saturday, and had some buddies over that don't really do much fishing, although a few of them do a little. (One goes to Taney quite a bit and C&R to him is as foreign as Constantinople.) I told them about the conversations we've been having here about smallmouth regulations, and most of them just looked at me like I was nuts. I think someone said, "Why the hell do you care about that?" They just couldn't wrap their heads around why it would be important to regulate the harvest of a species of fish. I think most people are just like that...indifferent. Some fish, some don't. Some keep fish, some don't. I think any set of new regs would have to be relatively easy for MDC to explain to the regular guy who fishes only a couple of times a year.

I kind of figured we could eliminate the White Ribbon category, and simply make that the state-wide regulation for smallmouth. 3 fish, 14 inches or longer. That change should have been made long ago. Now we're left with only three Ribbon designations, which helps simplify things a tad more. Any of those little streams and creeks in Tyron's book would then just fall under the state-wide limits, and be slightly more protected, even though between the relatively light pressure those streams get and the fact that many of the locals will be ignoring the regulations anyway, the new regs wouldn't be all that productive, in my opinion. While I agree with this entirely, and I realize I said I'd like to see MDC considerations left out of this thread, I suppose I just can't completely ignore the fact that this whole idea and discussion is totally irrelevant if it's not close to something MDC might possibly even consider. In a perfect world, I would also like to see sections of rivers designated according to their specifics needs. But I just don't see MDC EVER adopting a system that's so complex. If an angler is on a float from Hwy V on the Huzzah, which is designated a Red Ribbon area, and catches and keeps a legal 19 inch fish, and then he floats down through the confluence to Onandaga, which is under Blue Ribbon regulations, he is now in illegal possession of that fish. To anyone who isn't a hard-core angler who really knows and understands what the regulations are and where they begin and end, I'd say that's way too confusing, and frankly a bit unfair. So in short, while yes, I agree that some rivers should be broken into separate regulation areas, I just don't think it would be a goal worth pursuing, because of its practical impossibility of ever being realized. But I'm all for shooting for the stars, so let's keep talking.

If we had the Alvin Smallmouth Management System, it wouldn't matter, because most spawning-sized fish would be protected under the Blue, Red or Yellow Ribbon regulations. MDC officials could be relegated to enforcement around the more popular accesses that weekend, just like they focus on deer violations during deer season.

Thanks for the words of encouragement Bman. I do look forward to my new little fishing buddy...it's the years between now and then I'm worried about. Have a good holiday. It would be interesting to know what the general response was to the regulations implemented in MN. Maybe when I get bored enough I'll try to look that up. C&R and a 12-20 slot are very aggressive regulations. If they can do that up there, why not here? All regulations we currently have now in MO were proposed and passed at one point in time. Some people liked them, some people hated them and complained, but eventually it just became the way it is and (most) everyone adjusted. I still don't see how the group of people who feed their families out of necessity with purely smallmouth bass make up that great a portion of the population. Their voice can't be any louder than ours, especially given that they are not organized in any way.

Oh yeah, I should have mentioned that was lake 28 at some other conservation area. There are no fish at Busch, so we didn't go there.

Just out of curiosity, do you remember the regs on any of those rivers? Which rivers in which states did you fish?