Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[Chief Grey Bear]

Yes, I absolutely do. You don't?

I'm baffled that I have to argue for game fish protection on this site.

Hell no! It was because of those people that we have the MDC. And what a hell of job they have done turning it around and keeping that way. All without much thanks.

Speaking of those old river guides, there was a bend in the James River, just up from Galena I think, that was giving a name that escapes me at the moment, due to all of the stinking fish carcass' that were thrown there by their clients. The fish were not cleaned, that is just what they did.

Maybe if Al will address this, you will believe it. I'll be very surprised if he is not in agreement that fish conservation is many times better today than it was in the early to mid 1900's.

[Al Agnew]

This stuff probably deserves its own thread...

The big logging boom in the Ozarks started around 1900. By the 1930s, the hills were pretty much denuded. That's where a lot of the gravel that is still in the Ozark streams came from. And by the Great Depression, not only were the trees gone but a few years of trying to farm the hillsides, with burning to clear out the weeds, made matters even worse. The Ozarks actually saw a big population decline during the Depression, and the U.S. Forest Service came in at that time and bought most of the land for the National Forests--cheap.

So, sorry, Eric, I have to agree with Chief on this one, at least to some extent. At the same time, however, the Ozarks had become a fishing destination. In fact, it was THE smallmouth float fishing destination. Which may say a lot about what kind of shape the rest of the country was in, if the Ozarks was the "best" place to go and fish for smallmouth.

There's no doubt that the natives in the Ozarks took all the fish they could, any way they could, until MDC got started and began to institute regulations and actually police the streams. Back then, up until the 1950s and 60s, the Ozark streams were almost the only bass fishing in the state. Lake of the Ozarks and Taneycomo were the only two real bass lakes. So the streams probably got a lot of policing.

In a way, that history somewhat supports my contention that smallies can thrive even in poor habitat. The streams suffered first from the logging, and can you imagine the damage to banks and bottom that just one of the big log rafts did? Then they got filled in with the gravel from logging and slash and burn agriculture. Yet they still produced what was evidently decent fishing.

You can thank a lot of factors for improvement in the streams starting in the 1950s. The forests, protected by the Forest Service, grew back--nothing like they were before, but good enough to stop a lot of the gravel from continuing to enter the streams. MDC furnished some protection for the fisheries. The environmental movement began and resulted in laws stopping raw sewage entering the streams. The hey-day of float fishing as a business ended, and the big lakes were built, and the streams didn't get as much fishing pressure as they had before. The 12 inch length limit made a big difference. By the 1970s and early 1980s, the bigger rivers like the Meramec and Gasconade were probably better smallmouth fishing than they'd been since the beginning of the century, and most of the smaller streams were just as good. There WERE streams, and areas, where the fishing was still pretty mediocre, and I believe that was because those areas got a lot of legal and illegal fishing pressure.

But it's been downhill since then. Jetboats arrived on the scene in the mid-1980s, and had a tremendous impact. I believe the first big impact was on spawning success. The numbers of small bass on the streams that are big enough for lots of jetboats declined precipitously and have never really come back to anything like they were before, although I believe that by now the fish have learned to cope with jetboat wakes during spawning. Then the next big impact was with gigging. Jetboats made gigging real easy compared to what it was before. And finally, fishing pressure. That double whammy, fishing pressure and illegal gigging, are, I believe, the two main factors limiting the production of big smallmouth. (I was out on the Meramec today. It's finally gotten clear enough to gig. I only caught six smallies, and the first two had fresh gig marks. AARRGGHH!) And I still believe that the jetboat wakes have damaged and destabilized the banks in places.

Couple that with other bad things going on. Gravel mining. Industrial chicken farms. Development. A ten year drought. And of course, spotted bass in the Meramec and Gasconade river systems. The situation is declining. The fishing is getting worse in many streams.

Regulations could help offset the impacts of more fishing pressure. Some serious enforcement could help with the gigging problem. The other problems will have to be addressed by other avenues.

[eric1978]

Hell no! It was because of those people that we have the MDC. And what a hell of job they have done turning it around and keeping that way. All without much thanks.

Speaking of those old river guides, there was a bend in the James River, just up from Galena I think, that was giving a name that escapes me at the moment, due to all of the stinking fish carcass' that were thrown there by their clients. The fish were not cleaned, that is just what they did.

Maybe if Al will address this, you will believe it. I'll be very surprised if he is not in agreement that fish conservation is many times better today than it was in the early to mid 1900's.

So because I criticize MDC all of a sudden I don't give them any credit? I do! I guess I should stop envisioning what a stream was like 500 years ago and wishing that we could return it to that state.

Look, guys like you and Al know way more about the history of our streams than I do, and I'll readily admit that. I don't have an ego problem. I learned something today. But the fact remains streams need a lot of help and tighter regulations is one thing that could help.

Think I'll drop out of these threads for a while, since we've pretty much hit a wall and it's just going in circles. I get it, regulations aren't the only solution to the problems.

[drew03cmc]

Drew, The state vehicle inspection centers don't check to see if your car is equipped with seatbelts, and that they are in good working condition, either.

Not here they don't. In Missouri, they are supposed to.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief, Mark Twain said, "Patriotism is loving your country all the time, and loving your government when they deserve it."

That's how I feel about the MDC. I'm happy we have some organization to try to conserve and improve our fisheries, but I'm only going to give them credit when credit is due. I think MDC tends to forget that we pay for the services they provide, and they are not a self-sustaining entity, so they should take the voices of the anglers into more consideration since, let's face it, we care more than the average tax-payer.

I'm not going to hammer the MDC in sweeping generalizations like some do, but here are some criticisms based on the White Paper.

It's no secret that this is total BS. The Bourbeuse is in BIG trouble because of the spotted bass invasion, and they are either oblivious to this fact or simply neglecting to address it...either way they are wrong, period. That comment set the stage for me thinking they are either making stuff up or they don't know what they're talking about.

Some of the criteria makes absolutely no sense to me. In fact, some of the evaluations of the criteria would lead me to the exact opposite conclusion of MDC's, and instead of eliminating streams for consideration in light of those evaluations, I would find a SMA would be even more befitting to apply.

8) Geographic Diversity? What the hell are they even talking about? Who cares? This is just total political nonsense.

Or better yet, I'd like to see a study and evaluation performed by some group that is not influenced by "politics." The fact that they even include "regulatory support" should disqualify MDC from making the decisions. That basically tells me that something, anything can and obviously does trump biological and ecological need.

The White Paper is simply DISHONEST, in my opinion.

Greg, I think the main reason that trout come up in the smallmouth discussion is not because smallmouth anglers are concerned about encroachment, but we scratch our heads about the fact the MDC will spend millions on trout programs, but have to be driven basically at gunpoint just to do a "study" on smallmouth. The problem that I have is the irony that they will throw the vast majority of their resources at a non-native species, and won't even assert themselves enough to change some regulations to conserve a native species, which wouldn't cost them a dime.

Wayne, I'm not an MDC basher by nature. I don't have a problem with them simply bacause they are a government run beauracracy. But let's face it, they are. Unfortunately, MDC, just like every other organization on the planet, looks at the money. And they are influenced by the money. There's no other way to explain their obseesion with the trout programs. If they were that obsessed with trout from a purely biological perspective, how do you explain their relative apathy toward smallmouth? It's totally incongruent, and the only conclusion I can reach is that the programs that are more financially beneficial are the ones that get the most attention. And looking at that fact through the lens of conservation is not only disappointing, but unethical and immoral if you ask me.

And if the current MDC biologists lack interest or enthusiasm for conserving Missouri's favorite native game fish, then they should be fired and replaced with biologists who will do their job.

Exactly!

I don't know whether or not they trust the biologists...I think the main problem is that MDC doesn't like to make tough choices that will draw heat from one group or another. They are afraid of the political ramifications of changing the regs if you ask me...has nothing to do with what the biologists say. We all know that most streams could use some additional support, and so do the biologists, but those opinions are gagged by the beauracracy side of the department. That's why I'd like to see a study done by a group that is uninfluenced by anything except science.

This thread is not about slamming MDC. Its only goal is to identify the problems that many people feel the Smallmouth Management Area program has. In many people's opinions, including my own, thus far the approach being implemented is, while better than nothing, quite insufficient.

Most streams could be improved, however, MDC is only interested in improving those that are already a draw. The smaller or lesser known streams will receive the same amount of MDC support they have always received. I want to see streams improved, however, I am a realist, seeing that MDC does not have the resources to do what we all want to see.

They have the resources, I'm just not sure they have the gumption.

So because I criticize MDC all of a sudden I don't give them any credit? I do!

And I am sure you do eric, I just couldn't find it.

[ozark trout fisher]

While this has nothing whatsoever to do with the "conversation" above, I'll throw it out there anyway.

What if the MDC instituted a "Smallmouth Stamp". It would work just like the trout stamp we already have in place, you'd pay $8 or $10 for an annual kill stamp if you wanted to keep smallmouth bass. Just like the trout stamp, you wouldn't need one if your were fishing catch and release.

If this was brought into existance, and it had the intended effect, it would reduce (maybe only slightly) the harvest of smallmouth bass, and secondly, it would bring in some extra money for the MDC to spend on habitat improvements and more enforcement. Personally, I would support an overrall rise in the price of fishing licenses to bring in these funds, but that wouldn't fly with a lot of folks. Maybe this is a bad idea, but then again, it may help.

My personal opinion is that this would need to be coupled with more restrictive regs, or at least a slot limit, to have the intended effect.

[eric1978]

And I am sure you do eric, I just couldn't find it.

I'm happy we have some organization to try to conserve and improve our fisheries...

Specifically, I'm happy they allocated the funds to pay for ONE biologist to study smallmouth in Ozark streams, for what it was worth, and I'm happy that they implemented SMAs on the few streams that they did. There's some credit, now I'd like to see them do better.

You know where I stand politically Chief. I'm not a blanket anti-government kind of person, and I don't have a problem paying taxes to accomplish the things we all want and need but aren't willing to pay for voluntarily. I'd just like to see the money spent wisely and efficiently, and go toward the things it's meant to pay for. I don't mind paying personal property tax, but I have to say I'm disappointed that the pothole in front of my house has only grown in the last couple years. I pay to have my street maintained, and they're not doing it.

We're on the same team, Chief. My wife is a public school teacher, and I support the public school system and its employees. But it has its problems, too, and I'm not averse to acknowledging them. I don't think you have to blindly defend every shortcoming of the MDC to be generally supportive of their existence and the implementation of their programs, which I am.

[eric1978]

While this has nothing whatsoever to do with the "conversation" above, I'll throw it out there anyway.

What if the MDC instituted a "Smallmouth Stamp". It would work just like the trout stamp we already have in place, you'd pay $8 or $10 for an annual kill stamp if you wanted to keep smallmouth bass. Just like the trout stamp, you wouldn't need one if your were fishing catch and release.

If this was brought into existance, and it had the intended effect, it would reduce (maybe only slightly) the harvest of smallmouth bass, and secondly, it would bring in some extra money for the MDC to spend on habitat improvements and more enforcement. Personally, I would support an overrall rise in the price of fishing licenses to bring in these funds, but that wouldn't fly with a lot of folks. Maybe this is a bad idea, but then again, it may help.

My personal opinion is that this would need to be coupled with more restrictive regs, or at least a slot limit, to have the intended effect.

This idea was raised in the "enforcement" thread.

I would support it, too, but it would never happen. It would be much tougher politically to get something like that done than to simply change regs. I wouldn't hold my breath.

[Wayne SW/MO]

No one on here should misunderstand the pressure that the MDC faces on some subjects. Catch and release ain't happening, but I believe some regulations will be more successful than they think. The agency doesn't always read the public right. If you don't believe that then attend one of the meetings held periodically to discuss proposed changes. The majority simply want proof that the proposal is needed and will be beneficial. If people intended to ignore changes they wouldn't attend meetings.

Trout fishing , stocking etc has nothing to do with the financial end of smallmouth management, its supposed to be self supporting and historically does. How much attention it gets in the time allotted by biologist might be a different matter. I do question how much time, and desire, was put into the decisions of the biologist in different areas. Did they see it as more work with little recognition, at least compared to other fisheries?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Specifically, I'm happy they allocated the funds to pay for ONE biologist to study smallmouth in Ozark streams, for what it was worth, and I'm happy that they implemented SMAs on the few streams that they did. There's some credit, now I'd like to see them do better.

Do you have link to confirm that only one biologist worked on this project?

I did a small bit of resreach yesterday and found that there is in excess of 300 endangered species, plants, animal, and incects, 66 of those being fish, in the state of Missouri. Some of these are only found in Missouri, nowhere else on earth.

Smallmouth bass were not on the list.