eric1978

I felt like that until I got a fly rod and started catching trout. They may not be native, and on lakes like Taney and even more ridiculous places like Busch Wildlife it's definitely like shooting fish in a barrell, but man, it sure is fun...Especially in the winter when the warm water bite is slow. I'm still partial to smallmouth, but I'll take a tug on the line over nothing any day.

Heard from Matt at MSA today. Awaiting a statement from their organization. Does anyone have an opinion about what course of action to take?

KC, here's a link that includes some info on what some other states have done: http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_..._Regs____sv.ppt

This is a pretty interesting power point presentation for those of you who haven't seen it. http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_..._Regs____sv.ppt And another tidbit of info: http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/68.pdf

I have no interest in eliminating or diminishing any of the trout programs, or shifting funding from one program to another. Changing the smallmouth regulations wouldn't cost any money, and that's all that's being asked of them. I don't see why it has to be an "either or" thing between the smallmouth and the trout or any other species for that matter, and even if it was, why does the smallmouth always seem to finish second?

Well said, Wayne. I think that sums it up very well. I'm right next door to St. Charles, but I know there are hundreds of guys with more knowledge that would be more suited to meet Kevin Meneau in person. I wouldn't know what to say to the man except, "this isn't good enough." I'd like to hear some opinions from MSA members, and what their position is on the White Paper and their plan of action. As of right now, the MSA website has no response to the White Paper that I can find.

I was really just asking your permission Phil, to use OAF as a voice. I didn't want to be presumptuous, and I wasn't asking for you to actually do anything in particular, except allow us to collaborate as a group on your site. Phil's right though, we need to figure out exactly what it is we are wanting to say. I think "Dear MDC, We're not happy with your decisions" will be neither sufficient nor useful. The general mission is clear: "To provide better protection of smallmouth bass in Missouri's Ozark streams by increasing regulations." But aside from that sweeping goal, I really don't know how to articulate what should be done, or even what "we, as a group of concerned anglers" want done. My opinion is that if the petition route is taken, it does not necessarily have to include specific complaints about specific bodies of water and the problems we have with their evaluations of those waters. I think it would be foolish to try to assert what we believe to be the ideal regulations for a given stream. I think we need to convey a simple message that their current SMA programs, while they are a good first step, aren't nearly adequate to protect smallmouth in a way that would substantially improve and return Ozark fisheries as a whole to the way they once were. I'm not an expert on smallmouth biology or ecology. I need help developing a persuasive argument, and Phil's also right that we need to come to some kind of consensus. If you guys post some ideas for what should be said, I will begin developing some type of short letter that can eventually be printed out, signed, and sent to the appropriate MDC office. If you guys think it's a waste of time, or don't care to be involved, just say so, and we can just keep on whining.

Greg, I think the main reason that trout come up in the smallmouth discussion is not because smallmouth anglers are concerned about encroachment, but we scratch our heads about the fact the MDC will spend millions on trout programs, but have to be driven basically at gunpoint just to do a "study" on smallmouth. I think for the most part it is agreed that trout populations in native smallmouth streams are not that great a detriment to the smallmouth population, although some people are more concerned than others. The problem that I have is the irony that they will throw the vast majority of their resources at a non-native species, and won't even assert themselves enough to change some regulations to conserve a native species, which wouldn't cost them a dime. Wayne, I'm not an MDC basher by nature. I don't have a problem with them simply bacause they are a government run beauracracy. But let's face it, they are. Unfortunately, MDC, just like every other organization on the planet, looks at the money. And they are influenced by the money. There's no other way to explain their obseesion with the trout programs. If they were that obsessed with trout from a purely biological perspective, how do you explain their relative apathy toward smallmouth? It's totally incongruent, and the only conclusion I can reach is that the programs that are more financially beneficial are the ones that get the most attention. And looking at that fact through the lens of conservation is not only disappointing, but unethical and immoral if you ask me. And if the current MDC biologists lack interest or enthusiasm for conserving Missouri's favorite native game fish, then they should be fired and replaced with biologists who will do their job. Exactly!

There have been varying responses to the MDC White Paper on SMAs, but the general consensus is that it is "flawed" to one degree or another. We can bitch and moan about it all we want, but if we don't take action it's simply a waste of breath. So my question is NOW WHAT? I will be writing a letter to MDC through both email and paper through USPS to assert my problems with the study and their consequent decisions, as I know several others already have or will be. Before I go digging around on the internet for the appropriate name and addresses to send said letter, I thought someone here may already have that information and could post it on this thread for convenience purposes for those willing to take the time to express their concerns. I'm sure there is a name and address that would be more relevant to pursue than others. Anyone know? Also, since it sure appears that MDC is in so many words saying that these decisions are a done deal and they are closing the book to further considerations, I wonder if something like a petition would be appropriate, relevant or useful. I'd like to hear thoughts about that, and I wonder if Phil would be willing to accomodate such a proposal? Phil? About 470 members have responded to the recent OAF headcount, and I'm guessing the vast majority would be willing to sign some kind of petition. I realize that's a small amount of people, but it doesn't have to be limited to OAF members. I would be more than willing to stand outside BPS or Cabela's for a weekend to acquire signatures and drum up more involvement from other concerned anglers, and I'm positive many others would do the same. Guys, MDC is turning their backs on the Ozarks smallmouth, and if we sit idly by and do nothing, our fisheries are going to get increasingly worse for us and the generations to come. Let's not let that happen. Let's do SOMETHING. Let's hear some suggestions on WHAT TO DO NOW!!!

Or better yet, I'd like to see a study and evaluation performed by some group that is not influenced by "politics." The fact that they even include "regulatory support" should disqualify MDC from making the decisions. That basically tells me that something, anything can and obviously does trump biological and ecological need. I have a feeling that if the University of Missouri (any of them) biology department did the same survey of all the same streams, there would be not only drastically different evaluations, but drastically different recommendations for SMAs, since they would be based purely on scientific data and would not be influenced by other oppositional forces before the study even began. The White Paper is simply DISHONEST, in my opinion.

This might be a stupid question, but I wonder if something like SMAs could be turned into some kind of proposition to be voted on?

Why would they have the mindset to maximize smallmouth harvest? What's the benefit there? My other question is, aside from tourney anglers, which can't be THAT big of an interest group...where's all the backlash coming from? I just don't see the hillbillies having that much pull. I mean, what do they care, considering they won't be following the creel regs for the most part anyway? Who's pushing MDC so hard in the wrong direction? I just can't see how all the anglers who want tighter regs, and all the regular folks who are ambivalent about it, are outweighed by a tiny sliver of the population who freak out because they can't have all of one particular species of fish they want. Eat some spots for God's sake. Or some largemouth. Or catfish, or....whatever. You're not gonna starve. Are they really gonna march on Jeff City with signs and banners over something so insignificant? There has to be a larger driving force of opposition, I just don't know what it is.

Chief, Mark Twain said, "Patriotism is loving your country all the time, and loving your government when they deserve it." That's how I feel about the MDC. I'm happy we have some organization to try to conserve and improve our fisheries, but I'm only going to give them credit when credit is due. I think MDC tends to forget that we pay for the services they provide, and they are not a self-sustaining entity, so they should take the voices of the anglers into more consideration since, let's face it, we care more than the average tax-payer. I'm not going to hammer the MDC in sweeping generalizations like some do, but here are some criticisms based on the White Paper. I don't know the majority of the streams, so I won't make assumptions about the MDC criteria evaluations...but I do have some real problems with the criteria itself...You don't have to be an angler to think a lot of it is simply illogical. On one specific note just to begin with though, they got off to a really bad start right away when on page 3 they said: "Some streams (Courtois Creek, Bourbeuse River and Spring River) were evaluated just prior to creation of the White Paper and their smallmouth fisheries were determined to be functioning well under existing statewide regulations. Consequently, they were not included in the White Paper effort" It's no secret that this is total BS. The Bourbeuse is in BIG trouble because of the spotted bass invasion, and they are either oblivious to this fact or simply neglecting to address it...either way they are wrong, period. That comment set the stage for me thinking they are either making stuff up or they don't know what they're talking about. Some of the criteria makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, some of the evaluations of the criteria would lead me to the exact opposite conclusion of MDC's, and instead of eliminating streams for consideration in light of those evaluations, I would find a SMA would be even more befitting to apply. The CPUE criteria baffles me the most: "Low smallmouth bass CPUE was a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:" Uh...what? Isn't the point to increase the populations of smallmouth? Call me an idiot, but wouldn't these rivers be the first to be considered? Especially when you consider this: "Smallmouth bass catch per unit effort (CPUE) data in new SBBSMA streams were found to be higher than in non-SBBSMA streams (Table 2)." CPUE SMA Streams 50.4 Non-SMA Streams 39.1 DUH! 1) "Low smallmouth bass percent composition of black bass catch was a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:" Well maybe if you made it a SMA, that wouldn't be the case! 2) "Slow smallmouth bass growth was cited as a primary contributor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:" This one I assume has more to do with habitat, but maybe you guys can tell me what would keep growth rates low. I also don't see how that would eliminate a river from SMA consideration...again I would think that would make it all the more eligible. 3 & 4) The access and stream use criteria I find almost makes sense since these rivers are less pressured, but wouldn't it be nice to see SMAs on them anyway to create some really great fisheries? 5) "Poor smallmouth bass habitat suitability was cited as a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:" Again, these fish need a SMA more than ever. I don't get it. The habitat is poor, so what? Let the fishery die? 6) Regulatory support...I'm with Gavin on this one. There's no one handing out tickets anywhere anyway, so what's the difference? Change the laws, and some people will follow them...it's better than nothing. 7) "Other management considerations were cited as a primary contributor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration: 1. Huzzah Creek (on-going rock bass evaluation) 2. Little Niangua River (Species of Conservation Concern) 3. Meramec River (Franklin County; on-going rock bass evaluation) 4. Niangua River (Species of Conservation Concern and trout management area) 5. Weaubleau Creek (Species of Conservation Concern)" What does one have to do with the other? It's not like we're trying to conserve a non-native species to the detriment of another native species. Again, makes no sense. 8) Geographic Diversity? What the hell are they even talking about? Who cares? This is just total political nonsense. The whole freakin' state should be a SMA if you ask me. The 18" kind, too. Forget it, clearly it's a waste of time.

I'd go with number 1 also. You don't miss what you never had, plus he might live to fight another day. I hear they're tough to catch in dumpsters.

It didn't have to get nasty. They are only opinions and if they are treated as such, there wouldn't be a problem. I don't see why it's such a horrible thing to discuss angling philosophy. It's an aspect of the sport, and it's ridiculous that we can't have a conversation about it without people getting their panties all in a twist.

It would make sense that the bass spawn is greatly effected by photoperiod in Taney, since the water temperatures are more consistent than other lakes, generally speaking.

Geez OTF...You're the last guy I thought I'd have to explain it to. Read a little further, my friend.

Okay, I'll bite. It's been a rough day already so what the heck. The debate between fly fishing vs. spinning/baitcasting, the debate between artificials vs. bait, and similarly the debate between rifles vs. bows, to me, all boils down to how each individual perceives and enjoys angling or hunting. These issues are all a matter of preference. Some people are happy as a clam to sit on a dock and catch fish with live bait, or blast a deer with a high-powered rifle. Others are more fulfilled when they catch or kill game in more challenging ways. There is no right or wrong approach. It's all about what floats your boat, and everyone is different. The debate about C & R is trickier. It's also a matter of opinion, but it can get closer to "right or wrong," depending on the situation. For example, I think there is a major difference between keeping a big trout out of Taney and keeping a big smallmouth on a fragile stream. The trout will be replaced tomorrow, and as we speak another is growing into that fishes slot. They are replaced as fast as they are taken. The smallmouth on the struggling river are not. I think where the conversation gets stuck is when people say "It's my right under the law to keep this fish." And while he may be absolutely correct, that doesn't necessarily mean it is not detrimental to the fishery. Lots of gray area there. Sometimes you can put the artificials/bait debate somewhere inbetween, if fish are being guthooked and killed on a body of water that can't handle those losses. There are so many variables that there will never be a universal answer. So again, of course, it comes down to what you value. If you value angling, you'll probably tend to catch more fish on artificials and release more fish. If you value fish frys, you'll probably tend to catch fish however you can and keep them...and everywhere inbetween those two extremes.

Do you have any idea why that is? Is it purely monetary or do they have some ecological or biological reason to be unreceptive to the idea?

Fair enough. Stupid fish.

Yep, my Santa is made of plastic, too. Unfortunately he lives in my wife's purse and never pays me a visit.

I'm sure you're right. I don't know what I'm talking about. I just figured if a little shrimpy crustacean creature limped in front of a smallies face, he'd open his mouth and eat him.

A vise and about $500 worth of hooks and material New waders...Simms G3s Another Curado 200E7 St. Croix PS56MF Loomis 702C-TW Retirement and a few million bucks

Manley's Record Trout Hit On First Cast by Steve Wright from his book Ozark Trout Tales "The International Game Fish Association didn't recognize Manley's fish because it was caught on the combination of a treble hook and bait." What a bunch of jerks.

They're good points CWF, and the difference between a glo ball and a ball of Powerbait is not drastic. But they are different. Yes, I use Senkos, and yes they are scented and salted. But I'm not convinced the scent makes any difference. It looks like a creature that lives in the water and that's why they eat it. You can make the argument that Powerbait looks like an egg, but if it was no more effective than a glo ball, why would anyone use Powerbait? It clearly has advantages, and for me, they are advantages I'm not comfortable using. I think you're being intellectually dishonest to pretend there's no difference. If you don't see the difference between catching fish on bait and a fly or lure, then that's your perspective and prerogative to do so. If that works for you and you feel the same satisfaction taking a fish on either method, good for you. Like GloryDaze said, it's in the eye of the beholder. But yes, my base standard for respect when it comes to trout fishing is to take a fish on artificial lures. Whether it be a fly or a plug, or on a fly rod or spinning rod...there's room in my head for debate. Tying your own flies is not a prerequisite to me, but I think it would make the accomplishment more satisfying. Using a fly rod is not a prerequisite for me, but I think it makes the experience more fun. But that's just my take on it. There's no right or wrong here...it's just a matter of how you look at the sport. To me, the point is to trick the fish into thinking it's eating something that lives in the water, to stimulate its instinctual predatory senses, not to put a tasty, aromatic morsel of food in front of its face and wait for it to inhale it. It's not catfishing. Yes, I'm a fledgling fly fisherman, but I don't see how that's relevant to my perspective on valuation of method. I'm positive I would catch more smallmouth if I took a bucket of shiners or crawdad's in the canoe, but that's not satisfying to me.