drew03cmc

Edited to say: Fine, you win. I can't say anything any clearer than I prefer C&R for smallmouth statewide, but it will never happen. Statewide blanket regulations are not a good thing for a fish such as smallmouth, IMO. A 15/3 or 15/1 would have to be ok since, that is apparently what is being pushed through. I am not for a 15 MLL, but obviously, the powers that be in Missouri smallmouth fishing, think that is best, without knowing about these fish and these streams.

You can't read either, I presume. I PREFER C&R, but could tolerate a 15/1 or 15/3 if that is all we could get. It is in that post you just quoted, which you did NOT read apparently. Blanket regulations for the entire state, based upon one region are not a good thing. I can't explain this any clearer for the fifteenth time.

17" is a very large Neosho. They might well top out at 18, as far as the rare instances go, but 15" is a more realistic top end for their size.

I misidentified the northern strain as the TN strain. My fault. As for trying to convince you all that I am not against the MSA, MDC or any other agency trying their damnedest to help our smallmouth fisheries, I give up. You all seem to thrive on making someone out to be the bad guy and all I wanted was to make sure that the Neosho strain got the acknowledgment it deserved in regards to regulations. I states that my preference was C&R statewide on ALL smallmouth, but that will not happen, so I said a 15/3 or 15/1 would be ok at the very least. Got attacked for that. Oh well. That is what happens when someone has not done their research on a subspecies that lives in their locale.

Wayne, do you research anything about the smallmouth bass in your own state and region? There are TN strain, Ouachita and Neosho in the Ozarks/Oklahoma's Ouachita Mountains. The TN strain is the most commonly stocked fish, due to their propensity for growing to a large size and their adaptability to river and reservoir environments. Please, before you are to call someone else's statements wrong, do your own research. You seem to talk a lot, with little knowledge of what you are talking about. Did you bother to read most of my post or just what supports your pissing and moaning? I said, I would support a 15/3 or 15/1 at the least. I would prefer C&R statewide, but that will never happen. You don't seem to have read the entire discussion on Neosho smallmouth. If you had, you would have seen that there are others extremely concerned with preserving the native Neosho smallmouth bass. I am sorry that you feel the way you do, but I am trying to straighten out what you seem to infer from reading a line or two of my posts. From -http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/bassmaster/conservation/news/story?page=b_bt_Con_preserving_smallmouth "Research done at Oklahoma State University found that the native smallmouth in northeast Oklahoma, in the foothills of the Ozarks, are a little bit different genetically than smallmouth native to southeast Oklahoma, in the Ouachita Mountains," Gilliland said. "And both of those groups are different from smallmouth bass in other parts of Oklahoma and Missouri." I guess these guys don't know what they are talking about either?

Eric, where the hell do you get that I am against MSA or the MDC? I am infinitely supportive of MSA and their attempts at conservation of the native smallmouth fisheries, including the Neosho smallmouth. I am against the MDC's indifference to the Neosho smallmouth. I would like to see a 15/3 or 15/1 at the least. C&R statewide is ideal, but it will never happen. I am for regulations, but not for blanket regulations based solely upon the other side of the Ozarks and that different strain of fish. Wayne, the Neosho smallmouth does not grow to the size of the TN strain smallmouth. Anyone that has spent time chasing both can see this. The average size of TN strain fish in the state, in my experience, is 12-13". The average Neosho, again, in my experience, is 9-10" with a top end size of 17" or so. The TN strain fish grows to 6+# in Missouri waters. Also, that is one of the resources that I have seen denoting the genetic difference between the TN strain, Ouachita strain and Neosho strain smallmouths. Al, I would like to see, in your proposal, some exception regulations for the SWMO streams. I want to see this, because the Neoshos deserve the special recognition they are currently being deprived of in Missouri. This is my position, and it has not changed.

Gary, tell her the garage needs cleaned and that you have to take the fly rods to the river to be able to do that Who knows, it might work.

Gary, we have spoken and you know where I stand.

Wayne, a 15" MLL does nothing, as the few fish over 15" are very old fish. 18" or straight C&R would be better. That will NEVER happen as the MDC does not see anything of worth on this side of the state as is evidenced by the lack of SMAs. A little attention from the MDC, NWF, etc would be nice. These fish exist in such a small portion of the country and deserve the extra consideration we are wanting for them. Gavin, you seem to think I accused you of needing to be an expert. I did not. I did, however, mean these regs are based upon a portion of smallmouth water of the state, not the state as a whole. They are going to be blanket regs, which again, are bad things for those of us who do not fish the Gasconade, Meramec, Big, Black, etc. Statewide regulations are great for species like catfish, walleye, bluegill, etc. which are the same from one side to the other, but smallmouth bass are not the same from one side to the other. MDC only recognizes one species, which there is, but there is a separate subspecies, classified as such, due to different genetics. The experts of the eastern Ozarks, know very little about these fish and proposed regulations based upon what they feel will help their own homewaters. Sorry if this all rubbed you the wrong way, but I am just trying to make it a point that blanket regulations, whether they are C&R or 15" are not a good thing at this point. Oh, and, Chief and I are on the same page, just with different approaches. Coldwater, you seem to think that everyone should view these new proposed regulations as gospel, but they are not ideal for many fish and anglers in this state. There is a whole other subspecies of concern in this state that requires additional attention.

Al, it has become apparent that you all on that side of the state, are not really interested in devoting MDC time, money and research on streams in 5 counties of the state. Anytime it comes up, we (Chief and I) get bashed for wanting to conserve a natural resource, specifically, a rare one. If the sign of passion is spending $20 to join a smallmouth alliance, then there are very few passionate smallmouth anglers in this state. Gavin, I love this statement from people who know nothing about this part of the Ozarks. You all seem to think that because things work on the Meramec, Current, Gasconade, etc. that they will work here. They won't. Neosho smallmouth seldom broach 15" in length. If they do, that is a trophy fish. So, a 15" MLL over here is darn near C&R. We have stated this in many places on this forum, yet, it has been written off as nonsense because smallmouth in other parts of the state (separate genetics), grow larger. Whatever we propose, will have to be done through the SWMO MSA, as the experts in the eastern Ozarks are really nonexperts on this area of the Ozarks.

Every time anyone who knows about the Neoshos and their needs/concerns, we get bashed by those who know absolutely nothing about them. I wish the MDC would spend some time in this part of the Ozarks and not write the entire region off as a mediocre smallmouth fishery. They come up with excuses to not put an SMA on Shoal Creek, rather than to do it and see if it helps. I would imagine they surveyed this area the same way they did the tribs of LOZ.

I, too, am not surprised that nothing has been proposed for any stream in the SW MO Ozarks. Those of us who fish this portion of the Ozarks, have been shortchanged, including with the White Paper and anything else that MDC has come out with. I second what Chief has said.

Gypsy, you can't inhabit a basketball court? I understand I am a little passionate about the Neosho situation, but you can't all say it is a bad thing. I want the natives to be protected as best they can. That is my primary feeling. Wayne, I have read that, I do understand, but in my mind, the classification was made for a reason. Oh well, apples and oranges, the price of oil in Thailand, whatever. I hope to see you all on the water chasing these abstractly named, subclassified, beautiful creatures.

They are a separate subspecies as recognized by the National Wildlife agencies. Micropterus dolomieu is the parent species, while the m. d. velox is a subspecies. They are genetically different, just as the fluvial arctic grayling is genetically different from the adfluvial grayling. How about rainbow trout and steelhead being considered different? They are both oncorhyncus mykiss, and as far as I can recall, genetically identical. Where is the difference? How about kokanee salmon and sockeye? They are the same species, but one is landlocked. Atlantic salmon and landlocked salmon, same thing AFAICR. The smallmouth subspecies also look different. The TN strain is a more girthy fish, whereas the Neosho is a leaner, more streamlined fish with the lower jaw extending beyond the upper far enough that the teeth can be seen from overhead. When did I say the Spring River is the only stream. The Spring, Shoal, everything in that area, including the Elk all go someplace. It is that parent drainage that deserves concern. You read part of my post, not the other. You don't see any attitude difference? They prefer different water. The Neoshos are more at home in more current than the other strain due to their body type. Also, in my experience, the Neoshos are more reckless when they hit something. Velox literally means swift, and that is the type of water Neoshos are at home in. You will NOT find a Neosho in a lake. They do not like big water. How would the gene pool be tainted? There are no TN strain fish in the watersheds in question. I would be unable to attend meetings due to the 4 hour drive required, but am considering joining for all the perks that go with it. When did I bring Gary down? I have repeatedly said that I am in full support of what they are doing, but don't go in blind without knowing about the area's streams and inhabitants. I am glad he is doing this. I have said this, but the word spam also got thrown around due to the 13 postings of the same message on this forum.

Not going to throw stones, just call names. There is no bigotry here, nor apartheid. Just wanting the native species in the SW Missouri Ozarks to get the treatment they deserve. They may be smaller in size, but are larger in fight. These fish are a real, natural jewel, and as such, we, as a whole, should be educated on them, their range and their history. The Neosho is only found in a total of something like a dozen counties (may still be a little high) in three states. I guess, though, that the MDC's championing of rainbow trout in a place where they are NON-NATIVE is ok, encouraged even. I have stated repeatedly that I support the MSA, with the provision that they do not group all smallmouth in this area as one species as the MDC does. I am hoping that the MSA does not focus on the bigger, more popular water, but rather on true conservation of a threatened species.

Wayne, as Saluki said, the spotted bass were native to the south flowing streams of the SW ozarks, and where did they come from? The Arkansas and White River systems, which collect the streams of the Flint Hills, including streams holding native micropterus punctulatus punctulatus (also a different strain of spot). Spotted bass catch the ire of anglers on the eastern side of the Ozarks, but in the SW, the spotted bass are a worthy, native adversary. The Niangua and its smallmouth already have the eye of MDC on them. Why not focus on the species/subspecies truly in need here. Conservation of a rare subspecies should be at the forefront of a truly conservation minded angler. C&R is the order of the day on streams where Neoshos are the only smallmouth bass species present.

You don't appear to have researched much on the streams in this part of the Ozarks apparently. Spotted bass are native to the Flint Hills of Kansas, and are not the invasives here that they are in the other regions of the Ozarks. It is also not out of the realm of possibility that spotted bass have migrated to the SW Ozarks. These streams all feed the Arkansas River, which not only collects the Neosho, but the Verdigris and Cottonwood, which are both full of native spotted bass. Shoal, Spring, Elk, Indian, etc are all members of this watershed as well, so migration isn't out of the realm of possibility. They are not displacing native fish. They, smallmouth and largemouth can coexist here through equilibrium reached throughout the centuries. I don't recall mentioning spotted bass however. I know that is a big talking point of the MSA, but not over here it isn't necessary as a general rule. Habitat degradation is a key for the smallmouth. Also, education is a huge factor for Neosho smallmouth bass. People as a whole are not aware that they are holding a genetically diverse species of smallmouth bass in their hands. These fish only live in a SMALL portion of the Ozarks of Missouri, Kansas and Oklahoma, and as such, should be treated as a threatened or endangered species with C&R regs and what not. Global warming? You don't want my opinion on that. I just hope that you can research the species of concern in that area before beginning this meeting in April. Micropterus dolomieu velox is a unique species and I hope you give it the respect it deserves.

Also, just to add, I am in support of the MSA's mission in SW MO, but I hope they can focus predominantly on the Neosho smallmouth in that part of the state, rather than streams like the Niangua and what have you. If I lived in an area where attending the meetings was a simple affair, I would join and be a very vocal member. What are the MSA's plans to protect the Neosho smallmouth?

Ronnie, my name is Andy afterall...I guess that shoe fits, but I preferred Barney. What makes me laugh is how people tried to say that it was not spam to post the same darn thing 13x in 13x different subforums. That is the definition of spam. Also, I believe someone said that money was not the objective, but rather to start a chapter of MSA...how do you start a chapter without money from new members of the new chapter? I guess you do it with well wishes and what not.

Rick, I can't disagree or agree, but I have to say that this crap I am reading in 13 threads about MSA is enough to turn one off to it.

Just because there are those fish present, does not necessitate intervention. I have Asian Carp on my local river...should I make a Bighead carp alliance? 13x, same post, a little excessive? YES.

No, Flysmallie, if we did it, someone would ride us for SPAMMING. This same thing is posted 8+ times on the board, and that is just stupid. Can we post it in ONE place and be done with it. Crane is not managed as a smallmouth fishery, but as a WILD trout fishery. People don't fish Crane thinking they are going to catch smallmouth, but rather to catch rainbow trout.

You had to post this on a Blue Ribbon Trout Stream's subforum? Honestly? This is almost forum spamming.

I didn't mention my license fees as I know how those work, but if the federal government is going to fund this project it is indeed our tax dollars funding this. It doesn't matter if you buy a rod, reel, pair of socks, underwear or a soda. Part of that federal sales tax is going to what they want to try up there.

I can't say I have laughed anything on this forum this much in a long time. Thanks Chief, way to brighten up a crappy weekend...