drew03cmc

Yeah, I completely understand your viewpoint on this matter, but honestly, unless the state is going to educate these buffoons on the ruling making these waters public, it is up to us.

Crick, they are illegally posting public water. If the water is floatable, it is public. I am with Tim. I am printing out that SCOM ruling and putting it in the boat, vest and my waterproof box. Hey, that isn't the Hwy 5 bridge. Which bridge is that? I am on Google Maps, and near Evergreen, there aren't that many crossings.

Really? You are going this way? No. Sport fishing is NEVER going to be closed. It is too big a financial boon to this country, and too big a tradition. Eric is talking about the Summary book you can pick up that is about 25 pages long which is just a booklet. People do NOT stay home because of complicated regulations. They stay home because of things like XBox, air conditioning and a lazy society. I am sick of people saying that the regulations are too complicated for people to understand so they stay home. That is the biggest cop out that I have ever heard. I was raised during the Nintendo/Sega Genesis days and I never sat inside in the summer. I was outside playing soccer, baseball, fishing or anything else I could do to be outside. I want you to reconsider your thoughts on this before blaming regulations. Hell, there are a lot of hillbillies who never buy licenses and still get out in the outdoors and enjoy the bounties available (illegally, but still). You mention the trout limit going down to 4. If you recall, they lowered that to save money. They could then stock fewer fish each day in the trout parks saving millions of dollars per year. What Al and I have proposed for smallmouth is nothing short of simple. I have spelled it out below in simple terms. A statewide* slot from 14-20" and a lower limit (be it 3 or 4, with one over 20") is pretty dang simple. *-In the Elk and Spring River drainages (including tributaries of these rivers) the slot would be from 13-18" with a 3 fish limit, one of which can be over 18". If you think these are not simple, you should look at trout regulations since you seem to think that those are a good yardstick to go by. On different waters there are different regulations, then couple that with winter regulations and length limits. Oh yeah, figure in brown trout on top of all of that as well. Now, that can get confusing, but you don't see people crying about it, they deal with it and have accepted it.

Not sure where your going with this Mitch. Those are three that information is readily available for for anyone coming to Missouri from out of state that may or may not know anyone with information on other areas.

Again, you wish to place MORE restrictions on a non-native species? I would be all for the trout program being disbanded if it didn't fund itself. There is nothing natural about catching trout here, and as such, they have the most restrictive regulations of any fish in the state. It is not right. You can still catch big rainbows from the wild trout streams, but the habitat is not as good as it is in their native freestone streams, therefore, you are not going to catch the same amount of 12-20" trout. Any wild trout in Missouri should be looked at as unique, which they are. To increase regulation on them suggests they belong. Nobody is advocating catch and release smallmouth fishing in Missouri, just protection on the fish we all wish to catch more of. I would love to see more fish over 15", and with a slot, it would protect those fish. It is so simple to protect these fish via regulation that it is almost foolish not to enact regulations that allow the fish over 14" the protection to help them continue to grow rather than get released into lake Crisco.

Disregarding your bias towards destination streams, Missouri's major smallmouth streams can, indeed, be world class streams. First, we have to define world class. In my opinion, world class is a designation given to a water containing a large number of fish above average, which in this case would be over about 12" to 17". Over 18" would likely be a superb fish, with 20" as a nice round designation as a trophy-sized fish. There are two or three stream stretches which are capable of trophy designation right now. The upper Gasconade, the middle Big Piney and the James, above the lakes. With a slot limit, which I am a huge proponent of, from 14-20" on all streams except the two SWMO drainages, it would protect the above average, superb and trophy fish, while allowing the fisherman with his kids to keep a couple of sublegal fish to fry up at camp that night. Simple regulations are not enough for our situation in Missouri. Whether you know it or not, we are fortunate to have a rare strain of smallmouth bass in two drainages in Missouri. The Elk River and all of its tributaries, along with Spring River and all of its tributaries contain the Neosho smallmouth bass. They deserve special regulations to preserve and enhance those fisheries. The Neosho is visibly different than the northern strain, they inhabit slightly different areas in the stream than northerns and they do not grow as large as a rule. To catch a 16" Neosho or larger is a special occurrence. I had a hook in one last summer, but my largest is a fat 14" fish from Shoal Creek. You mention that you think fishing should be illegal on the wild trout streams, and I have to ask why. Those fish are not native to those streams, they don't belong there, and if they didn't sustain themselves, I would be an advocate for allowing native species to return to these waters. I think the 1/18 regulations on our Blue Ribbon Waters is excessive for non-native fish, but I do enjoy taking a short fly rod down there and chasing them as they offer a different challenge.

I, personally, would support a 12-18" slot with a three fish limit in the Elk and Spring drainages for smallmouth. We could even extend that to all species of bass. Gavin, the Neoshos are runts, but only compared to the top end of the Northern strain. There are large Neoshos, but they are RARE. My largest Neosho is 14", I think Chief's is about 16, maybe 17, so a 12-18, would protect the upper end of the size structure, while allowing smaller, (good eating size) fish to be kept if someone wished to.

You aren't dealing with rare species there FnF. Here, we are talking about a fish that is present in 10 counties in the world. That is a little different.

My issue is that other states do not have the luxury of having two strains of smallmouth in their waters. The only three others that do are Kansas (not much access to said fish), Arkansas and Oklahoma (will not stock northerns because of Neosho presence). We are very lucky to have this problem, but this problem necessitates a little extra regulation for two drainages, a lower slot or lower limit, but we can debate that later. I think for the 90% of the state where the northern strain smallmouth dominates, we should have a simple regulation (I would prefer a slot though).

I like your thinking on simple, but honestly, when does a bureaucrat ever go the simple way?

Buzz, did you skip the last 12 pages? We have hashed out regulations that would work, but the issue is getting across the barriers that organizations and bureaucracy have placed before us. You are against a slot limit, but I fear that you don't understand the concept of a slot. By proposing a 14" length limit, it does nothing more than the 12" limit that we currently have, other than let the fish spawn ONE more time. Catch and release isn't a viable option in Missouri. It will never happen for a species that is so common. You do realize the distinction that I want to have for our fish in the two drainages in SWMO, right?

Yes. Why? You can call the offices of the local railroads, see if they have any used anchors that they wish to scrap. Otherwise, lookup a railroad supply distributor like A&K out of Kansas City, and see if they will sell you a single anchor. The cheapest way would be to call the local railroad offices. I could probably get you a few if I go back to work soon, but there is no telling when that will be.

Gigging needs to not be outlawed, but regulated a bit more, with enforcement during prime gigging hours. If they cannot get the current agents to patrol these waters after dark, during gigging season, they should hire some new agents that can and will patrol these waters after dark to put a stop to this. I am all for minimizing the amount of light they can use, as well as further restricting the waters available. Get them off of all special management areas, be they white, red or blue ribbon trout areas or SMAs, get the giggers off of those waters. Hand out massive fines to outfitters who allow giggers to launch in these areas during gigging season to put a stop to that practice.

Mic, if I had to choose though, it would depend upon which waters, which fish, etc...I don't normally carry ANY dries or surface flies. I would actually substitute those two surface flies that I listed with BH san juan worms and a woolly worm in black with grizzly hackle.

I live with a Chickenhawk fan...hell, I married one.

BCG, would you be using a DT or WF line?

I like to fish coldwater streams in the summer...it is rather nice to go in shorts and sandals, but the waders were too good a price to pass up, so I have retired my neos, thank goodness.

Warmwater or coldwater, it is the same. My dries are a #12 Chernobyl and a #16 tan foam ant My nymphs/wets are #12 rubber leg BH prince and a #12 partridge and orange My streamer is a black #10 BH bugger I will catch bass, bluegill, trout and anything else on these.

Yep, I was willing to try to make that work with Gary, but when the meetings are on a Wednesday or Thursday night, that doesn't work for anyone who has to drive from any distance and work the next day. If the meetings were on weekends, it wouldn't be a big deal, and honestly, Monett is an ideal location for a get together to see about setting something up. I talk to Chief about it on a weekly basis and we are both looking at ways to get things organized. The MDC needs to get some genetic testing done, because just looking at the fish, you can tell the difference. I do understand geography dictating priority, and honestly, that is why something needs done in the western Ozarks, specifically the Elk and Spring drainages. Ness, how dare you ask about those Chickenhawkers. I live close to their campus up here and honestly, their fans are only sports fans from November, after Mizzou kicks their butt in football until April, or after they lose to VCU or Davidson in the tournament.

I am glad that you support slot limits. I, personally, think they are the way to better smallmouth bass fishing in the Ozarks, but when people are saying that slots mean the fish need thinning out, they don't seem to understand a slot limit. We can protect bass from x-y length while allowing harvest of shorts or of one big fish without hurting the resource. Al, how does a natural distribution of size break down in percentages, approximately? You know what I want. I want a group, namely, the MSA, to at least support regulations that offer a modicum of protection for Neosho smallmouth bass. Everytime it comes up, we are told they aren't different, they don't need protection, etc. Now, yes, I will go so far as to say that the MSA is a self-righteous group, believing their own interests to be better than another. I also believe that the MSA has a good motive for their beliefs. They obviously love smallmouth bass and there is no fault in that. When someone doesn't believe in your methods, it doesn't mean you tell them to shut up, pay their money or go away. There are ways to avoid doing that.

Well, I have the butt of a black chick...it doesn't help me much to buy anything small. It doesn't matter. In the summer, I lose about 35 pounds from work and I can fit into some smaller stuff, but in winter...lardass is me.

Al, what you and your boys club want is catch and release. That will never fly, and contrary to your opinion as a fisheries biologist, will not work. What are you and the bass club from St. Louis looking to do? Do you want every fish you catch to be 20" long and weigh three and a half pounds? Guess what, that isn't going to work either. What we have happening over 12" is a natural drop off in size. You cannot have the majority of your population be over 12" long. It doesn't work that way. There is a natural drop in numbers from 12" to maximum size, and it is almost an exponential inverse, much like the deer population, you can have fifty 8 point bucks in a county, but there might only be ten ten point bucks, three twelve point bucks and maybe one over 12. That is the way of nature. If every fish were created equal in size, it would be boring, would it not? You can continue to propose your regulations to benefit yourselves, which is all you are going to do anyway, and see little to no change in fish size demographic in the immediate future or you can get onto the MDC about getting some agents on the water in the winter time to cut down on gigging, which is the latest horse you are riding. Returning to the regulation discussion, the state of Missouri has a history of residents eating the fish from the streams and lakes, but to maybe produce one more 20" fish, you would be willing to damage that history and tradition? I think that is a very selfish and single-minded thing to think. Do you know why the 12" minimum was enacted to begin with? What difference do you think a 15" length limit will have? Really? Do you think the numbers of 15" fish is going to skyrocket because it is no longer legal to keep anything smaller? Do you think the number of 20" fish is going to increased markedly? I know you all are against a slot, but listen to this. How about a 14-20" slot, four fish limit, one of which over 20". Anything in that range has to be released. That will allow people to keep some of the 10" smallmouth that are so common in Ozarks waters, along with their one big fish. Wouldn't this protect the fish you are trying to protect, while reducing competition for food that the smaller fish, being much more common, can easily outcompete the larger fish? Wouldn't this also, minimize harvest as the 14-20" fish are those that are most commonly kept anyway? I don't know what you want, but catch and release isn't a viable option in the state of Missouri. Yours and the MSA's attitude regarding all of this is a little excessive. People are not allowed to disagree with you or the MSA, otherwise they get told to pay their money, join the MSA or shut up. if this is the MSA's attitude toward finding new members or recruiting members it will get them nowhere. I respect your years on the water as well as your experience but your attitude regarding regulations is a bit much. Several members of the MSA have been quoted in this thread saying just that, either pay your money and join or shut up. It seems that several MSA members have an issue with dissenters, which is part of a discussion. Having one side forced down your throat, when you don't agree with it, isn't conducive to a good discussion on the matter.

Eric, how are you a medium? I figured that your gut would necessitate a large, like my butt does me. Oh well, just had to poke you for a minute there.

That's right Duane. Academy had Hodgman for half price. I got the Wadelite Wading Pants for $24 to go with my Korkers boots. I am set for this felt ban.

If you layer up appropriately, breathables are good all year long. I just bought a pair of new breathables for $24 from Academy and wouldn't trade them for anything. They also came with a prepaid TU membership, something I would never pay for myself living in Kansas. My primary need for these waders is for the creeks up here that I am a bit leery of touching the water with my most important part of my anatomy.