Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[Al Agnew]

MDC recently came out with a "White Paper" on their smallmouth bass special management areas and the selection process of choosing stream stretches for special management. I have been a big supporter of special management areas, though I've had some beefs with both the selection of areas and the regs instituted in those areas, so I studied the White Paper with great interest. After reading it, some things struck me (more like ticked me off).

The first three areas were the Big Piney from Slabtown to Ross Bridge, the Meramec from Scotts Ford to Bird's Nest, and Big River from Mammoth Bridge to Brown's Ford. These were instituted back in 1992, and then studied to see if the management goals were met. The original management goals were to double the numbers of 12-15 inch smallmouth, double the numbers of smallmouth over 15 inches, and increase the numbers of smallmouth over 18 inches. In addition, they wanted to do this while maintaining or increasing the amount of angling pressure on these stream stretches. In other words, they wanted to make sure that special management didn't run anglers off those stretches, and they found that while the total angling pressure did decrease on those stretches, especially on the Meramec, the number of bass anglers, after a small decrease right after the regs were instituted, came back to at least what it was before. As for the other goals, they found there were significant increases in the numbers of all three size classes of smallmouth, but the numbers of 12-15 inchers and 15+ inchers did not double.

Soon afterwards, in 1995, they instituted an 18 inch, one fish limit on the Gasconade from Riddle Bridge to Jerome, and the Jacks Fork from Hwy. 17 to Alley Spring. Results from studies of these two streams after the special regs showed an increase in 18+ inch fish on the Gasconade, but little change on the Jacks Fork, which they attributed to light angling pressure on the Jacks Fork both before and after the regs.

In 1996, they added the James River from Hootentown to Hwy. 13 to the 15 inch, one fish limit special management.

They also began a statewide study of 35 stretches of 33 streams, with an eye to choosing further special management areas. This eventually resulted in adding eight more stream stretches to special management. These are Big River below the original SMA to its mouth, Big River above the original SMA to Leadwood Access (these two effectively put nearly all the floatable length of Big River in special management), Eleven Point River from Thomasville to the state line (effectively putting all the floatable length of the Eleven Point into special management), the entire length of Elk River under a 2 fish, 15 inch length limit for all black bass, Joachim Creek from Hwy. V to Hwy. A, Mineral Fork from Hwy. F to Big River (the entire floatable length), Osage Fork from Skyline Drive Bridge to the Gasconade, and Tenmile Creek from Hwy. B to Cane Creek.

In addition, all of the streams in the Meramec River system were put under a 12 fish, no length limit reg on spotted bass.

I have no quibble with the stream sections chosen--I think they were all worthy of special management. However, I do have some real questions about those which weren't chosen, AND many which weren't even considered, and I have questions about the criteria used for evaluating those streams.

The process was that they chose 8 different criteria, plus angling success for smallmouth (CPUE--catch per unit of effort). The other eight criteria were:

1. Species composition--smallmouth should make up the majority of the bass population.

2. Growth potential--whether the stream is capable of growing larger fish.

3. Access--the thought was that access should be readily available.

4. Present amount of use--how much angling pressure for bass; more angling pressure was better.

5. Habitat quality--was the habitat good enough to support a thriving smallmouth fishery.

6. Regulatory support--whether local judges and prosecutors are willing to prosecute and levy serious fines for wildlife violations.

7. Other management--whether there are other special regs like rock bass regs, or possible effects on species of special concern.

8. Diversity of management areas--whether there are already sections nearby under special management.

Let's talk about those criteria for a bit...

First of all, the CPUE. If anglers weren't already catching a lot of smallmouth, that apparently meant that there weren't many to be caught. If the stream section simply wasn't smallmouth habitat and smallies were scarce, I suppose that makes sense. However, that criterion was used in part at least to disqualify sections of the lower Gasconade and lower Meramec from consideration. Those two streams historically had good smallmouth populations, but now smallies are a lot scarcer due to the invasion of spotted bass. So it isn't like they simply weren't smallmouth water. They were, and it would seem to me that protecting the remaining smallies in them would be a very important management goal. Of course, that didn't fit their original goals, exactly, but in my opinion protecting an endangered population of smallmouth should be of paramount importance.

1. Species composition--this is similar to the CPUE. Just because smallmouth make up a smaller percentage of the bass population shouldn't necessarily be a factor in disqualifying stream sections. All over the northern Ozarks, the smallmouth populations have suffered due to spotted bass encroachment. Tavern Creek and the Meramec both scored very low in this criterion, yet both were historically good smallmouth streams. And just because smallmouth aren't the dominant black bass species doesn't mean they can't grow big and furnish a better trophy fishery.

2. Growth potential--In theory this makes sense. However, I question the evaluation of a couple of stream sections, and I also don't think there's really enough difference in growth potential in a lot of Ozark streams to use this as a qualifier.

3. Access--It makes sense that more easily accessed streams might need better protection. On the other hand, if the goal is to maximize potential for big fish, stretches with less access would probably have more potential for success.

4. Present amount of pressure--This goes along with number 3. Stretches with more pressure need more protection, but stretches with less pressure may have more potential to produce big fish.

5. Habitat quality--this criterion has two parts, I think. One, is the habitat so degraded that it can't produce many big fish? It might make sense that there is no use trying to make a stream stretch that has very degraded habitat produce more and larger fish without addressing the habitat issues. Still, I know of a number of streams with very degraded habitat that produce very good fishing mainly because they are not heavily pressured. I believe that with adequate protection, smallies can do very well even in degraded habitat. Two, is the stream NEVER going to be good habitat because of geography and geology? The lower sections of some streams are just too slow and lack a lot of rock and gravel bottoms to be good overall smallmouth habitat. However, the lower Gasconade and Meramec, good examples of this, still have spots that are high quality smallmouth habitat. You won't catch many smallies in the long, dead pools that predominate on these stretches, but when you get to the more infrequent riffle areas, you find excellent smallie habitat and smallies.

6. Regulatory support--This makes sense. No point in instituting special regs if they are going to not only be ignored but not enforced because the local authorities don't care. However, this really ticks me off because in effect you are giving up on those areas simply because some of the locals are not on your side. Maybe if you did put special regs on them, it would make some of the local people realize a bit more that they are a valuable resource deserving of protection. And maybe if somebody really publicized the lack of regulatory support in these counties, it might just put a little pressure on those judges and prosecutors to get serious about it.

7. Other management goals--special rock bass regs disqualified a few stream sections from consideration for smallmouth regs, because the biologists didn't want more regs affecting their ongoing studies of the rock bass regs. The spotted bass regs in the Meramec River system also were cited as a possible conflict (?). And protection of the Niangua darter, an endangered species of small fish, were a factor in disqualifying the Niangua, Little Niangua, and Weaubleau Creek. I don't know exactly how much increasing the population of big smallmouth would affect the Niangua darter, since there are plenty of game fish in these streams right now eating darters. And as for the rock bass regs, get the studies done and get on with protecting the smallies. I hope that just because there are rock bass regs doesn't mean that these stream sections are forever disqualified from consideration for smallmouth regs.

8. Diversity of management areas--I can understand spreading out the special management areas so that they don't dominate any one area. Maximizing different opportunities makes sense. But on the other hand, if a stream section is otherwise a high quality candidate, I don't think the proximity of an existing special management area should automatically disqualify it.

So let's look at the different streams that were considered, and why they were disqualified...

Apple Creek

This is small wading size stream in southeast MO. It lacks smallmouth habitat and is full of spotted bass in its lower half, but the upper half is decent habitat. I don't think it was seriously considered, but apparently that was mostly due to a perceived lack of regulatory support. So the judges and prosecutors in Cape Girardeau County don't care about wildlife violations? Hmm.

Beaver Creek

It got high scores in every criteria except that it was perceived to not be used very heavily. Even there, it got a middle score. So why was it disqualified?

Big Creek

This, the largest tributary of the St. Francis, is a high quality stream that is fast, clear, and beautiful. It got a very low score on access, yet the lower sections are often floated and are even served by a canoe rental, so I question the very low score for access and use. And it got a very low score for habitat, but the lower section that I'm familiar with has pretty darned good habitat, so I don't understand that at all.

Black River

The Black above Clearwater Lake got a zero for regulatory support, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Reynolds County is probably the worst county in the state for prosecuting wildlife violations. The county officials are certainly keeping up with the Ozark tradition of disdaining wildlife laws. And that's a real shame.

Castor River

The Castor is a smallish, very clear stream which got average scores for everything except regulatory support. The lack of regulatory support in Bollinger County was its biggest disqualifying factor. It's a nice stream that can be floated and can produce some big fish, but was probably not one of the best candidates for special management.

Cole Camp Creek

I don't know this stream, having never fished it. It got low scores for habitat, species composition, access, and regulatory support. It flows into the upper part of Lake of the Ozarks from the north. I suspect it once furnished smallmouth fishing but is now mostly spotted bass water.

Crooked Creek

This is wading-size stream in southeast MO. Its smallmouth water is limited, the lower portion having always been mostly spotted bass water, too slow for good smallmouth habitat. It was probably not seriously evaluated, and probably deservedly so.

Finley Creek

It's big enough for floating, it's traditionally been a good smallie stream. It got a very poor score for growth potential, which doesn't make sense to me, although I'm not really familiar with it. It also got a low score for habitat. Some of you who fish it might have a different opinion. I suspect the major reason it was disqualified was because it's so close to the existing James River SMA.

Flat Creek

This James River/Table Rock tributary apparently was never seriously considered, though the report says it was disqualified due to access problems and poor habitat. Really? I don't know Flat Creek well, but I thought it was pretty decent habitat.

Gasconade River

The sections considered were somewhere in the lower parts of the Gasconade. The lower river was traditionally some of the best big smallie water in the state, but has suffered greatly from spotted bass encroachment. It got low scores for habitat and for regulatory support. The regulatory support is a shame if true. The habitat is like I mentioned above--lots of non-smallmouth water, but the smallmouth spots are excellent habitat. And it seems to me that if the smallmouth are suffering from spotted bass, why not give them a lot more protection?

Glaize Creek

I'm not familiar with this tributary of Lake of the Ozarks. Apparently it was not seriously considered due to the lack of smallmouth in it. I'd bet it once had a lot of them, but was gradually taken over by spotted bass from Lake of the Ozarks.

Gravois Creek

Another one I'm not familiar with. It was apparently not seriously considered, either, though it got very poor scores for habitat, use, and access. It's a wading size stream, and most of it is under Lake of the Ozarks.

Huzzah Creek

It got an average score for growth potential, yet the Huzzah CAN produce some big fish. I thought that score was low. It got an average score for habitat, and it does suffer from a glut of gravel, but many sections are pretty good habitat. It was apparently mostly disqualified due to ongoing studies of rock bass regs on it, and due to its proximity to other special management areas. Yet the Huzzah is a real gem that really deserves more attention in the regs. I would hope that neither of those criteria permanently disqualify it for further consideration.

Indian Creek

Another one I'm not familiar with. It got good to average scores on everything but access. I don't think access alone should disqualify a stream section.

Little Niangua

It was apparently never seriously considered due to the fact that it's one of the last strongholds of the Niangua darter. You have to wonder how much increasing the size of smallies in it would affect the darter.

Meramec River (St. Louis County)

This stretch got an average score for growth potential. Are they serious? The lower Meramec has historically produced some of the best big smallmouth fishing in the state, and it's only because of spotted bass that it doesn't these days. Until the spots moved in, the Meramec was excellent smallmouth fishing down to about Glencoe or Castlewood, well within the confines of St. Louis County. Yes, it lacks smallmouth habitat, with long, dead pools and slow water, but the infrequent riffles still produce some big smallies.

Meramec River (Franklin County)

Much of the best water on the Meramec is in Franklin County. I don't know exactly which sections they evaluated, but the Franklin County stretch is from Meramec State Park to Pacific. Of all the streams in MO, that was probably the best big smallie stretch of river before spotted bass moved in. Yet it wasn't even scored for growth potential, and got an average score for habitat. The river down to the mouth of the Bourbeuse is some of the better smallmouth habitat in the state. Both for protection from spotted bass and from the standpoint of potential to regain its status as a trophy fishery, the Franklin County section of the Meramec should have been the perfect candidate for a one fish, 18 inch limit. I hate to think it, but I suspect that one reason it was declined was because it's a popular section among local tournament bass anglers, and putting a restrictive limit on smallies would have crimped their tournaments.

Niangua River

The Niangua got a low score on growth potential, which I think is ridiculous. I've caught big smallies from the Niangua and I know others who believe it to be excellent fishing for big fish both above Bennett Spring and below the trout water. Its other disqualifying factor was apparently the Niangua darter.

Osage River

The Osage lacks smallmouth habitat, which was reflected in its score, and smallies make up a very small percentage of its bass population. Still, protection for the small numbers of smallmouth might have been a good idea.

Plattin Creek

This wading-size close to St. Louis stream has poor access and limited amount of smallmouth habitat, somewhat like a smaller version of the nearby and already a SMA Joachim Creek. It probably didn't need to have SMA status.

Pomme de Terre River

This stream is still in the process of being evaluated. We'll see what happens.

River Aux Vases

This is the closest candidate stream to where I live. It's a small wading stream with a limited amount of smallmouth habitat. Probably not worth an SMA.

Saline Creek

Another close to home stream, this one has very good habitat and is marginally floatable. It got poor scores for access and use, although it certainly seems to get a lot of use to me. It also got a very poor score for regulatory support. Since I play basketball with the county prosecutor, maybe I can find out what that's all about!

Shoal Creek

It got a poor score for growth potential, and in my limited knowledge I think that may be right. Still, it certainly produces 15 inch plus smallies now, so should be able to produce more of them with better protection. It got pretty good scores otherwise. I found it interesting that species composition was not listed as a disqualifying factor, even though smallies don't really dominate in this stream.

Tavern Creek

It apparently wasn't seriously considered because smallmouths don't dominate the bass population, but I know that Tavern has a good mix of all three bass species, and before the invasion of spotted bass it had a lot more smallies.

West Fork Black River

It was interesting that this stretch, which is also in Reynolds County, got an average score for regulatory support while Black River got a zero. Hmm. It's a marginally floatable stream which got a good score on habitat which was probably not deserved, since it is greatly choked with gravel. You have to wonder how seriously it was really evaluated.

Weaubleau Creek

It got pretty bad scores on everything. I'm not familiar with it to know if they were deserved.

Whitewater Creek

This is a southeast MO stream that has always been more of a spotted bass stream than a smallmouth stream, though smallies are pretty common in the upper portions. It apparently wasn't seriously evaluated, except for noting a lack of regulatory support.

So there you have my opinions on the candidate streams. But another question needs to be asked...why were some streams not even candidates? Look at the missing streams. Current River. St. Francis River. Courtois Creek. Other stretches of the Big Piney. The upper Gasconade. Upper North Fork. Bryant Creek. Bull Creek. Swan Creek. Big Sugar Creek. Turnback Creek. Bourbeuse River. Maries River. Moreau River. Other stretches of the Meramec. And a whole host of wading size streams, many of which could probably benefit from better protection.

Thoughts?

[Gavin]

Thats one heck of a write up. Not sure where to start, but here are some comments.

The Huzzah & Courtois ought to be managament areas given the pressure they recieve...Lots of sub 12" dinkers, but I've caught some really nice bass on those creeks. Pretty rare when I dont hook up with one or two better than 15".

I really dont think that the Meramec SMA is in the right area....I've always caught better smallmouth above and below the current SMA.

Current River ought to have a management area.

Black River ought to have a management area.

Big Piney...wouldnt mind seeing the area expanded up to Mason or Higher.

Bourbeuse River grows some nice ones..But it doesnt seem to get much pressure.

[Guest]

deleted

[Wayne SW/MO]

And protection of the Niangua darter, an endangered species of small fish, were a factor in disqualifying the Niangua, Little Niangua, and Weaubleau Creek. I don't know exactly how much increasing the population of big smallmouth would affect the Niangua darter,

This very questionable, at least where the Big Niangua is concerned. I don't understand how increasing the smallmouth is bad, but introducing two other predators, neither native, is not a problem?

A couple of creeks on the list have public access, and in fact rank with some waters that are on the list.

The size of potential smallmouth should not be a criteria, at least not without some serious management and law enforcement.

I'm always disappointed in these "papers" because all too often I think they lack the sensitivity that many Missouri natives would give are most popular native stream gamefish.

[fishinwrench]

They appear to be making up the rules as they go. I know all of the Lake Ozark tribs very well, and I can't see any consistency or actual thought being displayed in that White Paper.

Big Buffalo was made a SMA a long time ago. But Gravois cr. and Cole Camp cr. do not exceed the required criteria ? C'mon !

These streams needed a designation such as that to help protect them and to make folks aware of their importance.

Both Gravois and Cole Camp are excellent little smallie factorys ....Big Buffalo on the other hand is too small, except in a few isolated pools, to support more than a few fish over 10-12 inches.

But nevertheless they have closed the book on it, and the odds of it being re-opened and re-evaluated is not in our favor.

[Wayne SW/MO]

It does all sound back assward. We can't have more protection of our native smallies, unless they can become 15" or better, but they don't blink an eye in rushing to drop thousands of 10" Bows in a stream. Makes no sense, the rush to create trout waters while hmmm hawing about whether its sporting equal, and native, is worth a simple designation.

[Wayne SW/MO]

For those who may have missed it.

Smallmouth Bass White Paper Summary <==LINK

[Gavin]

21% eliminated for "lack of regulatory support". Thats a big who cares to me. It doesnt that the county wont prosecute because its doubtful that any one will be there to write a ticket in the first place, even in the spots were they say regulatory support is good.

12% kicked for "Diversity". Who cares if their is a nearby management area, there are plenty of places to fish. If we they are truly serious about improving the smallmouth fishing, they need to set aside the spots with the best growth potential & habitat. So what if its near another area with good growth potential & habitat.

9% kicked for "Other Mgt Goals". Who cares about rock bass studies....they are fun to catch & tasty, but I dont need to know much more.

I'm disappointed to say the least.

[Chief Grey Bear]

My thought is the MDC is darn if they do and darn if they don't. You bitch cry and whine when you thought they were doing nothing. When apperently in reality they were devising a plan ot implement. But the plan is not what you want. It doesn't do to your local waters what you want or think should be done. At least they are trying to do something. It is better than nothing.

I use the term "you" and "your" in a generic sense. I am not pointing any one person out.

[Wayne SW/MO]

You bitch cry and whine when you thought they were doing nothing. When apperently in reality they were devising a plan ot implement.

Maybe its just me, but it seems to me they simply issued a paper supporting the "plan" we've been bitching about.

What did I miss Chief?