Al Agnew Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 As far as MDC having data from years ago on these streams...unfortunately, for most streams there ISN'T much data. MDC did some serious studies of Courtois and Huzzah back when they were deciding what kind of length limit to impose...the 12 inch limit was the result. But as far as I know, there is no good data on larger streams like the Meramec and Gasconade from back in the 1980s and earlier to compare current conditions to. For a long time, Ozark streams weren't very high on he priority list.
gonefishin Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Al, A group of some buddies of mine were able to form a small group, and with a little properly applied pressure, (letter writing campaign to the right people, and a website) . . . we probably appeared bigger than we really were . . . I like to think we had at least SOME impact on MDC's recent changes in the trout regulations. A few of us had discussions with the trout biologists and even got some #'s from shock-surveys down on the STMA of the Current, 11 point, Meramac, etc. The biologists blamed a lot on recent years drought conditions, and they stammered and hee-hawed about resistance that locals will put up to reg changes . . . but in the end, I think they saw the light that a LOT of concerned trout fishermen want to see more enforcement, less harvest, and tougher regulations on those areas where the fishing clearly had not been all it could be. The same could be done with smallmouth. If we've got our facts straight and go about it right. We could form a pressure group and get some stuff done!! Its a game of inches. Eventually we can seek the all-out ban on jet-boats from all unimpounded waters, but not just yet ; ) This post gets to the very heart of what we, or at least I, have been concerned with in this debate. The whole point is there are some who want an outright ban on gigging and jetboats. These few are willing to take a tactic proven by the anti-gunners which is for a minority of people to make themselves seem a larger group than they are and to purpose seemingly innocent changes in a regulation (to make it better for everyone) when the whole intention from the start is to do away with a regulation these few don't like. CWF appears to want jet boats done away with so I have a question for him. I have never been a gigger but, say I bought a jet boat back when Bass Pro was pushing them and paid nearly 10 grand for that boat. If Jet boats are to be banned there obviously will be no re-sale value for them so are you going to give my money back? How bout the money of all the other people who own jet boats that would be banned just because you don't like them? In light of your post I can see why Forsythian said he would fight tooth and nail for his rights. People like you leave him no choice he has to fight dirty becasue people like you are. gonefishin PS: thanks for being so instrumental in getting the trout limit lowered. I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
ColdWaterFshr Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Simmer down Gonefishin. My final comment about banning jetboats was in jest . . . hence the winky symbol ; ) I believe any attempt to ban jet-boating would be about as likely as me winning the bronze, silver, and gold medals in the womens figure skating short program. Do I get a sick feeling in my stomach everytime I'm fishing and hear a jet-boat headed my way? Yes sir. Would I vote for their outright banishment? Absolutely, no question, in a heartbeat. Am I holding my breath for that glorious day to come? Absolutely not. Am I sick of answering my own questions like Donald Rumsfeld? You betcha. Is Forsythian a hammerhead? Yes he is, but we love him.
Wayne SW/MO Posted February 23, 2006 Author Posted February 23, 2006 The often mention of a jet boat ban is for certain locations within Missouri, not in Missouri. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
gonefishin Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 I know the proposed jet boat ban is not statewide.............at this point. When the seatbelt law was proposed it was promised that law enforcement would never be able to stop people just to check for a possible seatbelt violation either. How long did that last? The road to pergatory has always been paved with good intentions so it is prudent to be careful what is being asked for and intentions should be carefully examined becasue the good intention may come to pass and may not be exactly what was initally intended. Just as happened with the above mentioned example of seat belt laws. I am not a gig fisherman, nor am I a hardcore fly fisherman, I rarely wade when fishing, I never noodle (hand fish) I don't snagg for spoonbill anymore, I don't bow fish and I don't specifically target gar, carp, stripers or sharks. I do however support other peoples rights to pursue these sports. Some of the above I dont do because I dont want to and some I am physically unable to do but one of these days I might want to try something new and it would be a sad day if I wasn't able to because it had been outlawed out of hand. I figure there are enough people attacking our rights to fish and enough threats to fishing habitat (pollution, constructon on our lakes and streams ect) to keep us busy without us fishermen attacking each other because of the particular way we pursue the sport. If we continue fighting among ourselves (Ban gigging, ban jet boats, make fishing C&R only, ban all forms of fishing except my preferred method, ban bait fishing, allow all the float trips that want to go and build malls on the river/lake with no regards to the enviroment because we are making lots of money and so on) it won't be long before the only way we will be able to enjoy the sport of fishing will be on video games. I'll get off my soap box now. gonefishin' I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Al Agnew Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Gonefishin', the way I look at it, if it's a conflict between resource users, then you either live and let live, or you figure out a way to divide up the resources so that everybody will have their own place to go. I don't like the noise and commotion of jetboats, but that isn't enough to make me want to ban them, because I figure I can still go to places they can't get to and get away from them. But if it's a matter of harming the resource itself, then it's a different ballgame. If we find out that jetboat wakes are causing a lot of bank erosion on smaller, narrower streams, then yes, they should be banned on those streams. If we find out that gigging IS seriously depleting the population of adult bass on a given river, then SOMETHING should be done about it. Of course, it has to be proven to the satisfaction of a reasonable person that the resource IS being harmed. I can't just say jetboat wakes are widening and shallowing parts of some streams (even though I believe that to be true). I have to be able to prove it. I don't want anybody's sport banned. I do want some controls on it, so that it doesn't harm the resource unnecessarily. Like you, I want to be able to do whatever I take a notion to do, within the law and my own personal ethics. I want to be able to gig if I want to, I even want to be able to use a jetboat...I have ideas about using one that won't conflict with my own ethics. I wish the things had never been invented and if I could turn back time I'd advocate that they should never have been allowed on some streams in the first place. But you can't put the genie back in the bottle so the only thing I'd advocate now is some sensible controls on both gigging and jetboats.
Kicknbass Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Oh the Jet boats. The NPS has on the current river has done a fairly reasonable job w/ the jet boat issue. There is a HP restriction on the entire stretch of river that is in the ONSR. This doesn't restrict the numbers, but it does limit the speed to a reasonable level. The rivers themselves place a ban the jet boats, some have chuck rock, some are too small, and some have low water bridges that limit use area. There are many rivers that are inviting to jet boat use. Current, Gasconade, Meremac are all streams where the jet boats are popular and if you don't have one, I can see you being annoyed by them. However, if you’re a fisherman, they are a great means of transportation to run the Honey holes. I hate to admit it on this website, but I have a jet boat and like to gig. (Sorry, I don't drink corn liquor) There are several streams that I frequent due to the rivers ability to support Jet boats. Many streams are not good jet boat streams. Some of the streams are too small, or have chunk rock bottoms, that tear holes in the bottom of an aluminum boat. (AKA Norfork in Ark). I have a $400 repair bill for trying to come up river after the dam shut off. My point is in the summer during prime river use, there are many factors that annoy various use groups. I stop using the meramec above Stanton in the summer do the vast number of canoes. Do I like the canoes, NO. But I change my habits and fish this area in the off-season I don't believe changing the law would be fair to the folks that enjoy canoeing. The same goes for the jet boat areas. If you don't like them, there are several streams that do not get much jet boat traffic. Fish them and be peaceful. In the spring and fall, the river use falls off and can be extremely enjoyable not too many canoes, and not too many Jet boats but plenty of SMB. Lets face it, there are only about 20 days per year that the rivers are over crowded, Summer time weekends when we all want to use the river....Just not together. " Too many hobbies to work" - "Must work to eat and play"
gonefishin Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 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. I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Kicknbass Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 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. Thank the anti fur groups for this. I think this is a big reason the Quail numbers are down as well, too many predators that eat quail. I remember my uncle selling coon hides back in the 70's. I think they brought more then than they do now 30 years later. The trappers and coon hunters were more prevelant and kept the predators in check. Now the market for furs is way down, and the predator numbers are up causing the quail numbers to be down. I would think this formula would be similar for other prey. Thank PETA and like thinking folks for their help w/ conservations issues. " Too many hobbies to work" - "Must work to eat and play"
gonefishin Posted February 24, 2006 Posted February 24, 2006 Thank the anti fur groups for this. I think this is a big reason the Quail numbers are down as well, too many predators that eat quail. I remember my uncle selling coon hides back in the 70's. I think they brought more then than they do now 30 years later. The trappers and coon hunters were more prevelant and kept the predators in check. Now the market for furs is way down, and the predator numbers are up causing the quail numbers to be down. I would think this formula would be similar for other prey. Thank PETA and like thinking folks for their help w/ conservations issues. Back in the 70's I used to hunt coons a lot. I got as high as the mid $70 range for good coon furs. Of course I couldnt get that from the local fur buyer. I had to ship them to get those prices and I wasnt the only one doing it. They sure dont bring that now, more like mid teens. You are right it is the anti fur crowd who caused teh declnine. It is interesting to note that rabies and distemper are becoming problematic again. Quail hunting was my favorite fall and winter past time for many years. I can't bring myself to hunt them now. Predators are a big problem for bird populations. One of the biggest predators of quail is stray house cats. There are millions of house cats that have been dumped. A house cat will kill a whole covey of quail and walk off and leave them, I have seen it happen. Loss of habitat is another big problem. I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now