Gigging vs Smallmouth conflict

[Al Agnew]

I agree that people should not be allowed to deplete a resource. I also believe that changes should be made incrementally and rationaly not drastically and emotionally. I have a hard time believing that giggers are any harder on SMB populations than pollution, introduction of predators such as otters or other fish species and destruction of habitat (construction and 4 wheelers).

I think the introduction of Otters and exploding Racoon populations (people don't keep their numbers down by hunting them like they used to) are very hard on crawdad populations which in turn is hard on SMB populations.

I think there are other problems that cause a lot more damage to the SMB populations than the giggers are doing. If the giggers were so damaging to the resources I really can't see why the MDC would increase the season length. It just looks to me like the giggers are getting a bad rap.

I have not studied much on it but it seems quiet a stretch to say jet boats are more damaging to streams than any other motorized propulsion system.

Yes, there are lots of other problems we should address on Ozark streams. But that doesn't mean we should ignore one problem (if it IS a problem) until the others are fixed.

And Gonefishin', here is my standard jet boat rant, slightly abridged:

MDC did a study when it first became obvious that jetboats were getting popular, and they made the same mistake in their study that you just did. They compared jetboats to regular prop boats. That is IRRELEVANT. Prop boats were never abundant on Ozark streams. It took somebody who was very experienced and knew the river very well to run a prop boat on ANY of the Ozark streams, and even then they were limited to just the biggest ones. Sure, you'd see the occasional 14 ft. johnboat with 6 HP motor chugging up and down one or two pools, and a few old rivermen commonly ran the Current and Gasconade, but on any given weekend there probably weren't 10 boats big enough and fast enough to throw a significant wake on all the streams in Missouri combined until the advent of the jetboat. Now, you have jetboats running rivers that were NEVER run before, and you have huge numbers of them on summer weekends.

In MDC's study, they ONLY investigated the damage to the bottom beneath the track of prop boats and jet boats. Surprise, they found that prop boats did more damage to the bottom! Duh! It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. But the study was flawed in that they didn't take into account the repitition. To do an adequate study that was a true comparison, they should have run the jetboat over their 10 ft. square study plot 100 times and the prop boat 2 or 3 times, and they should have run the jetboat over another plot in water about 10 inches deep instead of the 2 feet they studied--and of course they couldn't have run the prop boat in water that shallow, which is the whole point. The study was also flawed in that they didn't study the effects of wakes, no matter what kind of boat was making them.

I know a lot of "old timers" who are convinced that the riffles in streams like the lower Current River are much wider and shallower, with less defined chutes, than they used to be. One guy I know who WAS an experienced riverrunner before the advent of jetboats, and who now owns a jetboat, says there is no way he could run the lower Current in his old prop boat, the riffles have changed that much. And I know from my own experience that the Meramec has changed significantly since jetboats first appeared. I stopped fishing the Meramec for several years back in the early 90s, and when I started fishing it again I was amazed at how the riffles and runs had widened in many places. Floods were eating away even some tree-lined banks, which I had seldom seen happen before. Why? I think it is because boat wakes, the like of which the Meramec had never before seen, were weakening banks and allowing floods to do more damage. Yes, a boat wake is miniscule compared to a big flood. But that "miniscule" energy, multiplied by many times a week throughout much of the year, and concentrated on one very narrow zone at water's edge, might just weaken that narrow zone and give the flood a weak point to attack. Streams evolve with floods, and healthy stream corridors change surprisingly little with a major flood. But give the flood a weak point to do damage and the damage it will do is amazing. Streams like the Meramec, with it's abundant mud and clay banks, are probably much more susceptible to damage than a stream like the Current or Eleven Point, which has a lot more rocky banks.

Limiting HP and thus speed is not the solution to the problem of wake damage, unless you make it like it is on reservoirs...no-wake zones. The problem is inherent to big boats on narrow waterways. We need boats with designs that minimize wakes, and just maybe it would be a good idea limit the use by big, high speed boats on some of the smaller but still runnable streams.

Having said all that, I feel more than a little hypocritical in planning to buy a jetboat! But I do plan to only use mine on the larger rivers and stay off the narrower ones, and I intend to try to figure out which size and type of boat throws the least wake on plane. I plan to use mine strictly for fishing, and if you see me run by you more than twice in a day, once upstream and once down, shoot me.

[gonefishin]

There may be some truth to what you say AL. I have also heard that people who rent to float trippers and the floaters intentially widen and deepen the riffles to make easier passage. There may be some of that going on too.

I admit that speeds should be limited of course I think they should be limited on lakes too. The wakes that big powerful boats make can be terrible.

I am 46 years old and I have RA. Physical limitations keep me from walking up and down river banks like I used to and from doing much wade fishing. The only way I can enjoy the shallower rivers is in a jet boat. Of course I can't afford one so I don't own one and have to wait until someone who does invites me to go with them. I do have a couple of questions about this issue. Because I have RA should I be kept from enjoying the outdoors? Becasue I suffer a disease should I be confined to the local handicapped dock? Or should I just stay home? How would you address the issue?

[flyingeagle]

gonefishing

Just like anything in life, some people will take more then their share. I have a 16x48 with a 40 hp jet. I'm not the fastest board on the water. This is not my wish. I go one trip up stream and float back to the ramp. Just like Al said why make multi trips up and down the water.

But also on canoes (I own one) I have seen a river full get out of the canoes and stomp every inch of the bottom. What happened to float to see nature or the swim in pools? Just like the 2 lanes ozark hiways the rivers are too crowded.

Al -- if I want to do some fishing and some pleasure riding, I take the nitro out to one of the lakes. But there is nothing on earth, ( other then having the grandkids with me ) then just floating down one our ozark streams. Seeing Nature at every bend. Deer, turkeys, small animals, fish, all a person has to do is blend in.

gonefishing most time I go by myself (the son grew up and moved) and I have an extra seat in my boat.

[Al Agnew]

Gone...that's always a sticky question. Whether it be motorized travel in wilderness areas or on wild rivers, do you allow it so that the handicapped, elderly, etc. can enjoy the resource at the expense of those who go to the place in order to get away from motorized traffic?

Life ain't always fair. There are always going to be areas that some people can't get to due to either physical limitations or monetary limitations. If it's supposed to be a wilderness area, then it means no motorized access, period, in my opinion. But your question is a little different since Ozark rivers are not "wilderness" rivers. I guess if I was the emperor of the Ozarks I'd keep a few stretches of stream COMPLETELY free of motorized traffic, allow ONLY those who are in your type of position to use motorized craft on others that would be damaged by a lot of motorized traffic, and then have the larger streams pretty much open to everybody.

And about canoe traffic--and rafters and tubers and all the other weekend river lice that infest our beloved streams...it would be nice if we could limit canoe traffic, but it kinda goes against the ol' American free enterprise system. Some streams can stand more canoe traffic these days, while others definitely would benefit from less traffic. Maybe a surcharge on rentals to make them a little more expensive, but the surcharge would be refunded at the end of your trip if you brought back a bag full of litter (could be your litter or could be that you picked up somebody else's litter). Maybe a limit on the number of rental canoes and other craft that can be put on a given stretch of river. I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting for either to happen.

There's no doubt that the weekend river lice can do some damage to the streams. I'm not too concerned about the tearing up of the bottom, nor the litter problem. I'm a little more concerned about the elevated levels of bacteria due to the thousands of bodies and the bodily wastes going into the rivers. But I think the Courtois and Huzzah are case studies in how tremendous numbers of canoes and rafts and kayaks and tubes and drunken idiots affect a small, clear Ozark stream. You DON'T want to be on these creeks Friday to Sunday unless you are looking to see some real interesting and sometimes disgusting human behavior. But then you get on them Monday through Thursday and they are still Ozark jewels.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Gone...that's always a sticky question. Whether it be motorized travel in wilderness areas or on wild rivers, do you allow it so that the handicapped, elderly, etc. can enjoy the resource at the expense of those who go to the place in order to get away from motorized traffic?

I think those are things that fall under "You can't have your cake and eat it too". I know there were places when i was in the Northwest that were off limits too me, because of preservation regulations. I suppose the bottom line is as Al say, Life isn't always fair.

I hate to start on the canoe situation because my blood pressure rises when I think about it. I watched the explosion on the Niangua and to add insult to injury, the state jumped on the bandwagon and was one of the first. I still think the DNR could pull the plug and let those who got into the show after about 1990 depreciate their boats out and then fall back to a predetermined number.

[gonefishin]

gonefishing most time I go by myself (the son grew up and moved) and I have an extra seat in my boat.

I would like to take you up on the offer sometime

gonefishin

[gonefishin]

There's no doubt that the weekend river lice can do some damage to the streams. I'm not too concerned about the tearing up of the bottom, nor the litter problem. I'm a little more concerned about the elevated levels of bacteria due to the thousands of bodies and the bodily wastes going into the rivers.

The raw sewage cannot be good for the fish at all. If the DNR were to do a stream monitoring on those really busy days I wonder what they would find.

We fishermen and hunters already pay more than our share of expense to maintain the rivers and lakes in the Ozarks. Personally I think the MDC should spread the burden around a bit and earn a little extra money by making the canoers purchase a river usage licence and make the people doing the renting pay a surcharge for earning money from a natural resource.

[flyingeagle]

I would like to take you up on the offer sometime

gonefishin

River or lake --- spring or fall we will try to wet the waters.

[gonefishin]

Yes, there are lots of other problems we should address on Ozark streams. But that doesn't mean we should ignore one problem (if it IS a problem) until the others are fixed.

Having said all that, I feel more than a little hypocritical in planning to buy a jetboat! But I do plan to only use mine on the larger rivers and stay off the narrower ones, and I intend to try to figure out which size and type of boat throws the least wake on plane. I plan to use mine strictly for fishing, and if you see me run by you more than twice in a day, once upstream and once down, shoot me.

AL:

I keep re-reading this post and I have to ask a couple of questions.

First: I agree that we shouldn't ignore problems but, doens't it make sense to tackle the worst problems first? Especially if it is a problem of ethics?

Second: I agree that is hypocritical. It is not only hypocritical it is downright egotistical. In light of the jetboat armagaddeon you described how can you even concider supporting their use by purchasing one? Isn't that a good for me but not good for anyone else attitude?

[Wayne SW/MO]

It takes many years for a SMB to mature in a stream to spawning size, it then takes a certain weather pattern for them to be successful in the spawn, and then a few might make it to spawning size and repeat the process, but they will be susceptible to extermination for several years before that occurs.

Given the fact that any recovery will take years, it can't be put aside while lesser problems are addressed.