eric1978

Perhaps the average muskie angler is of a somewhat different ilk than your average homegrown Ozark river rat. It'd be an interesting demographic study. Just gotta dig up the archives...they're in there. I like Al's ideas and I think they make a lot of sense. But my problem with his proposal is there's no way on Earth MDC would be inclined or able to implement such a complicated set of regulations. Would be great, but ain't gonna happen. We can hardly get them to bump up the minimum length or reduce the creel limit. Reasonable? Well, like I've said before, to me personally, making one species in the state purely C&R is perfectly reasonable to me. And that's what I would do if I were king. But again, it's obviously not realistic, so what I could live with is a slot, 3 under 14" and 1 over 20", or a 1 fish over 18" limit. I would actually prefer the slot, and that would give those poor starving people food on their tables but still leave some good fishing for the rest of us. And yes, I would make it state-wide (southwest and all...sorry Chief) simply to make it easier to understand, implement and enforce. I agree, there are idiots everywhere. But I'd bet my dollars to your donuts that the percentage of "deep-woods" locals keeping their limit (and more) is much higher than the percentage of "city slickers" doing the same. Of course not all of them are that way, and I'd never declare that, but the majority of abuse happening on the rivers I frequently visit is inflicted by the locals. I'm not stereotyping...it's just a fact.

Say WHAT? Cricket lets his fish GO. Remind me again...who acts like it's MY river? Who thinks the river belongs to him? The selfish people are the ones who diminish the resources by killing everything they catch, not the C&R anglers. Nothing says "I own this" like tossing it in a cooler and removing its flesh.

But here's my point, F&F...the builders didn't have anything to do with protecting the gopher tortoise; the "only good snake is a dead snake" type of person had nothing to do with the protection of the rattlers; and swamp people don't have anything to do with the protection of gators. The government mandated the protection of these animals, and the locals bitched and moaned but begrudgingly complied...for the most part. Eventually they got used to it and maybe even a few can now actually see that it was a good move. But you're not gonna win a majority of their hearts and minds...that kind of Cinderella story only happens in Disney movies. The popularity of C&R has rapidly grown in the last few decades, and that's great...and let's keep educating, I'm all for that. But it doesn't seem to penetrate deep into the woods. These people are cemented in tradition, and no one is gonna tell them what to do. Facts, science and reason are no matter to them. They don't care. And I'm living on the planet NOW, so I don't have the time to wait for these people to catch up with modern conservation science. They need to be led by the hand. And the other thing is, since when does someone lobbying for ANYTHING worry about what other groups of constituents want? We all have a particular interest, and keeping as many smallmouth in Ozark rivers is mine. Why would I care what some greedy meat hunter wants? That would be like a pro-life lobbiest worried about upsetting Planned Parenthood.

I wish your way could work, F&F, I truly do. But sorry, it's pretty naive to think it will. There are many people (and we all know who they are) who will NEVER look at a resource through the lens of conservation. They see it as theirs for the taking, nothing more, nothing less. It's theirs. And they'll do what they want. Those city boys who catch fish and let them go are just stupid, and they ain't gonna tell me what to do with my river and my fish. I think we've reached critical mass among sportsmen...it's time to enact change. Some people won't like it, but you can't please everyone. May as well err on the side of responsibility.

OB, I almost always agree with you, but I think your rationale here is a little...irrational. We shouldn't change laws and regulations because we're afraid of retaliatory vandalism from locals? That's just ridiculous.

Well this isn't the 1800s, and there's lots of cheap food available. Aren't Ramen noodles about seven cents each? You can make about ten pounds of spaghetti for the cost of a suspending jerkbait. And if they're so broke, how do they afford gas to get to the river and who bought their boat? I've had enough of the "it's legal" argument. So is adultery.

I'm not advocating strict C&R, although that's what I'd prefer. Obviously it's not realistic because we have to consider the irrational and shortsighted among us. I'm open to a slot or a 1 fish 18" or 20" per day. That's enough. There are dozens of other species that can be caught and eaten. We're talking about ONE species. It's not too much to ask. If they want to trash streams and slash tires, then local LE needs to be more present. The people we're talking about are ALWAYS resistant to new laws and regulations, even though it's usually in the interest of the greater good or even their own personal interest. They'll get over it eventually. I admire your optimism, Tim. But the reality is some groups of people won't do what's right unless they're made to. As Gavin just mentioned, 70% of anglers who returned their surveys are in favor of tighter regs...that's as close to consensus as we need to be. I don't know how scientific that poll was, but it doesn't matter. There's always going to be a base of people who are too selfish to realize that if everyone kept fish like they did, there would be no fish left. They're like children, and even though they'll go down kicking and screaming, we adults have to do the right thing even though they don't like it. If they want to rape a body of water, let them take white bass or crappie or catfish or trout park fish or any other abundant species. There's lots of 'em and they grow fast. I'm sick of halfass laws that cater to the morons among us just because they'll throw a tantrum. How about doing what's right for the sake of doing what's right, and they can just deal with it? It's called progress, and it's a good thing, even if some people don't think so.

Yeah, you guys are right. Better to do nothing at all. Wouldn't wanna upset some rednecks.

Humans have proven time and time again throughout history that they can't be trusted to do the right thing on their own. That's simply undeniable. And that's why, on occasion, the government has to step in and put restrictions on idiotic behavior. This is one of those cases. There are too many people fishing for smallmouth for the current regulations to make sense. Sorry, but I don't care what the people who keep smallmouth want. They are exploiting a resource while we C&R anglers are conserving the resource. Who should be pissed off, us or them? If one species of fish was deemed off limits for keeping, they'd still have dozens and dozens of other species to catch and eat, and I wouldn't have the slightest shred of sympathy if they were upset that our will was imposed upon them...because they have no sympathy for us at present...never have, never will. They don't care, they just do what they want without a single thought of anyone else. They're selfish, and they need to be regulated for the benefit of all.

That's funny stuff there, man! But let's add a few to even things out... Georgia Rig: Fat body and enormous head. Good for catching anything that lives on the moon. Pennsylvania Rig: Best suited for catching uptight Ward Cleaver types in sweater vests. Ironically phallic shaped and covered in a mysterious goo. Five-State-Quarter-Billion-Rig: It's whatever you want it to be and it looks great, but regardless, no one seems to like it.

Until some trespassers cause a stampede and the cattle plow right through it.

Thanks for making me nauseous! Yuck.

Mitch is basically my neighbor, and it's pretty safe out here. But it only takes one wacko to do something horrible, and it doesn't have to be five miles from here...could be right around the corner...or in the area around Lake O...or anywhere else. And I don't think we have any more nuts than we had 50 years ago, I just think we hear about every one of them now as soon as they do something nutty. It's a fine line you gotta walk with your kid between independence and protection. Hope I'm able to do it right.

I don't take any crap from inanimate objects.

I agree. Now how do you suppose we fix that? Unless you tell me you're a state Senator or Congressman and you're about to propose some legislation, I'm a little dubious about your ability to do anything about it. It's easy to point out the problems...the solutions are what elude us.

Well then I suggest you stop taking your truck to the access, too, because all that glass from your windshield is about as likely to end up in the river. Only hoosiers leave glass in rivers, and we don't have any hoosiers. So you can breathe easy now.

You might see the occasional glass bottle in our pics, but it will always be at an access and the glass doesn't leave the truck. And we leave the river with more garbage than we came with. You don't wanna get into the "conscientious outdoorsman" argument with us...you'll lose that one hands down...by your own admission. You should return your attention to cleaning the fish out the rivers, we'll worry about the glass.

Haha, very funny. But in reality you can draw the conclusion, based upon our knowledge of Native American cultures and their propensity to use resources in strictly need-based, responsible and thrifty ways, that they had little to no impact on fish populations. Couple that with the fact that there were so few of them in the area compared to the current population, and their presence assumes even less significance. And in light of the rightful concern of habitat degradation, tightening regulations, in my mind, is even more critical than if the streams were in perfect health. But instead to say, "The streams are in bad shape, might as well keep more fish," makes no sense to me. We need to do both...why not start with the easy part while we figure a solution to the hard parts?

You're certainly right about that, F&F, and it's been discussed quite a bit here in the past. I think the trouble is most average Joe anglers and outdoorsmen are a little bit at a loss about what to do about it. Protecting habitat is a much tougher battle to fight since private interests have so much influence in government and legislation. So even though I'm extremely concerned about habitat degradation, I often find myself scratching my head over it, throwing up my hands, and then focusing on problems that have easier solutions...like creel regulations. That's a much easier fix as I see it. And let me clarify about the trout regs...I'm totally in favor of tightening regulations there as well, especially on the wild fisheries, even though the trout don't technically "belong." I'm an angler and I enjoy catching them, so I favor protecting the resource since we have it. And tighter regs in the put and take fisheries would cost us less money and offer us better fishing. What I find hardest to understand is why it seems so difficult to be discriminating with regulations. Why not apply strict regulations to those species that are most coveted by anglers, i.e. smallmouth, brown trout and wild rainbows, and keep the more relaxed current regulations on the other species (and trout park fish) more typically pursued for table fare? There are so many species out there that are more abundant (and frankly tastier) and less valuable to "sporting" anglers. It sounds like a fair compromise to me...here, you can eat the other 95% of species, but leave these few prized fish for the sportsmen. We've been down this road so many times. Been a while, though.

I think the more important question is: how are today's fish compared to 300 years ago? That is the standard to which we should be striving and for which we should be designing regulations. To say that it is better now than at any time in recent history, for as long as whitey has been around at least, is insufficient. What is an "unnatural amount of trophies?" How many trophies would a river produce if it was untouched by this massive population of man? Because that's the natural amount, and that should be MDC's goal...anything less than strict C&R is "unnatural," an arbitrarily chosen level of man-made mediocrity dictated by man-made regulations in order to please those who prefer exploitation over conservation. There are simply too many people fishing the rivers to allow them all to keep a few fish a day and still have a population of fish that is demographically "natural." This argument obviously only applies to native fish. The debate over MO trout regs is totally subjective, since there is no baseline of what is "natural," and therefore only needs to be argued within the context of the "cost to angler satisfaction" ratio. The regulations require no conservational consideration, only what is financially and recreationally acceptable to anglers.

My old slice of heaven on the upper Huzzah. Pie-shaped 100 acres bordered on one side by the river and the other two sides by MT National Forest. Small water, and generally small fish, but enough 15-16 inchers to keep things fun, and occasionally a bigger one. An average day: get out of bed, have a cup of coffee, and make my way down the bluff to the river as soon as there was enough light to do so. I spent my summers wading up and down from the house. Unfortunately we had to sell the place a few years ago, so it's someone else's baby now, but it'll always be mine in my mind. My dad built the house with his own hands. I sure miss that place.

There's good and bad, civilized and uncivilized in the city, suburbs and the country. And there's stupid everywhere, too, which is what worries me. You give a friendly moron a gun it's still trouble. Moron trumps all.

LOL Uh, no, that one I believe is titled "How to Ruin Your Political Career and Lose Your Family at Once...Tips From a Southern Governer."

No problem. I just like to give JD trouble about his utter lack of compassion for animals. Given that I posted my spoof torture right below his actual torture, I can understand the confusion.

I think you need to make a little adjustment to your "sarcasm radar."