Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[ozark trout fisher]

Thanks for the great write up... I've got a few ideas.

Current River: There should be a special management area for sure. I think the stretch from Round Spring to Two Rivers would be best. This is one of the best smallie streams in the midwest, and no special management area. What gives?

Meramec- I agree the Franklin county stretch should be an management area for sure. St. Louis County may be too far gone, but I sure wouldn't be opposed to it. It might help somewhat.

Little Piney- Kind of gravelled up, but it sees way more harvest of smallies than it should. The habitat is there, but the fishing just isn't what it should be. I think it would be a good candidate, maybe from Newburg down.

Bourbeuse- With what's happening with smallie vs. Spotted bass ratio, I think this needs to be 18" and 1 for smallies, preferably catch and release. Those fish have it coming at them from both sides, between anglers and spots.

I really wish we could just have 18" and 1 for smallies statewide. But that will probably not happen in my lifetime.

Chief, I want to clear up that I'm not in any way attacking the MDC with this post. I think they do a good job, but suggestions never hurt.

[Gavin]

My main objection is that they evaluated over 25 stream sections and selected none. One or two of them should have made the cut, but I dont think there is a will to do that.....Joachim creek? C'mon....there is no access there. I'd gladly toss that one back for a new SMA on one of the larger rivers..

[Chief Grey Bear]

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?

Well, maybe it was me. I thought the biologist were constructing a smallmouth management plan. It was a couple of days ago when I read it. I thought I read that they actually completed it 8 years early. I will go back and reread it but, I assumed they, the MDC, was doing all of this.

Thanks for the great write up... I've got a few ideas.

.

Chief, I want to clear up that I'm not in any way attacking the MDC with this post. I think they do a good job, but suggestions never hurt.

I understand OTF. And the way you presented it, it comes across that way. I have, I guess, taken it upon myself to stand up for the MDC. It seems like all anybody wants to do is bad mouth and beat the snot out them.

I don't have anything against anyone personally that attacts the MDC but, I will probably fire back.

[Al Agnew]

Chief, I am usually a pretty staunch defender of MDC, and I think their head biologist for stream smallmouth, Kevin Meneau, cares a lot about it and does the best he can. Where I have a beef with them on smallmouth management has mainly been in the speed at which they've proceeded...lots of study but not as much action. But we in the Smallmouth Alliance who are on the Blue Ribbon Committee working for better smallmouth fishing in Missouri were hopeful that once this White Paper and the Summary of Management came out, we'd see a direction for future management areas and other options for management to maximize the smallmouth potential. What I'm seeing now is that it seems that what we have at this point is pretty much what we'll have in the future. And I'm also seeing what I think are errors of judgment in the evaluation of the stream candidates, and perhaps some apathy from some biologists. I hope not. But I'm not sure that finishing the evaluation well ahead of time is a good thing...could be that some streams were finished early because they weren't really studied well.

Perhaps MDC is caught in a no-win situation. Their angler surveys seem to consistently show that most serious stream bass anglers already release almost everything they catch, so they have a mindset that restrictive regulations don't really have much effect. But they also have a mindset that never seems to change much--that their job is to maximize smallmouth harvest on most streams, and the least restrictive regs are usually the ones they opt for. They've also got interest groups, including tournament anglers and locals who do want to catch fish to eat, that would kick and scream if some stream sections had much more restrictive regs.

Perhaps the SMAs as currently set up aren't the real answer. More and more, I'm thinking that slot limits on many streams might do a better job with less opposition. Put a 13-18 inch slot limit, with 3 or 4 fish under and one over, on streams that have excellent numbers of smallies but not a lot of big ones. On large streams that have the very best potential for producing big fish, make the slot 14-20 inches. One thing seems to me to be certain...the better smallie streams, other than those that have suffered from spotted bass encroachment, have no shortage of smallmouth, but the problem remains a lack of fish over 16 inches or so. The one fish, 15 or 18 inch limits help but have also been shown to slightly decrease growth rates, apparently due to even more small fish in the stream utilizing the forage base, so there is a little less food to go around.

If I had my druthers, the first thing I'd do would be to go with either complete protection or a one fish, 20 inch length limit on smallmouth on all the northern Ozark streams that have suffered from spotted bass encroachment. This would especially include the entire Bourbeuse, entire Big River, Meramec below Meramec State Park, Gasconade below Jerome, all of both forks of the Moreau, all of Maries, and all of Tavern. Since spotted bass directly compete with smallies and for every spotted bass there seems to be one less smallmouth, protecting the remaining smallmouth should be a major priority.

Second thing I'd do is look for the very best potential stretches for big smallies and put a 14-20 inch slot limit on them. This would include at least some of the Meramec between Steelville and Meramec State Park, more of the Gasconade above the present SMA, the Big Piney from Mason Bridge to the present SMA and from the present SMA to the Gasconade, the Niangua from Prosperine to Tunnel Dam, at least some of Current River between the mouth of the Jacks Fork and Doniphan.

Third thing I'd do is lower the daily limit to 4 fish or less on all wading size streams that have public access.

There is another paper out by MDC called the Stream Black Bass Summary, which goes into a lot more detail on what their studies have shown. I'll be reviewing it here when I get a chance, but it has some interesting stuff, along with some stuff that makes me question the effectiveness of some of the techniques used for the studies. But my initial examination of it is what has reinforced the ideas I gave above for what I'd do.

[KCRIVERRAT]

Regarding the Current River, I (like OTF), would much rather see a SMA on the Current somewhere above Two Rivers. Too many jet boats creating havoc from Two Rivers down to Donophin.

[fishinwrench]

My main objection is that they evaluated over 25 stream sections and selected none. One or two of them should have made the cut, but I dont think there is a will to do that.....Joachim creek? C'mon....there is no access there. I'd gladly toss that one back for a new SMA on one of the larger rivers..

I know exactly how they "evaluated" Gravois cr....

They pulled over at the TT bridge (which isn't even part of the creek, it is still backwater from the lake at that point), looked over the side, and made their decision. Had they taken a 2 mile trip on McCaslin rd. they would have looked over THAT bridge and saw Smallmouth, because they are always there in the bridge pool...among the boulders, logs, gravel and broken bedrock (ya know, smallie habitat). Further upstream from MsCaslin at the low-water bridge they would have seen more smallies, and more "habitat" in all directions. There isn't a single place to access the creek where you don't always see fish (including smallmouth) and plenty of habitat and deep pools. They simply did not evaluate properly, that's all there is to it.

But yet just over the hill, Buffalo cr. which is nothing more than a gravel lined ditch gets protected from gravel dredgers, atv's, and pollution. This is just a crock, screw it ! I don't even know why I waste my time trying to make this point, it's a done deal.

Somebody pull Dablemont in to this...He'll make some noise.

[eric1978]

I understand OTF. And the way you presented it, it comes across that way. I have, I guess, taken it upon myself to stand up for the MDC. It seems like all anybody wants to do is bad mouth and beat the snot out them.

I don't have anything against anyone personally that attacts the MDC but, I will probably fire back.

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. I don't know the majority of the streams, so I won't make assumptions about the MDC criteria evaluations...but I do have some real problems with the criteria itself...You don't have to be an angler to think a lot of it is simply illogical.

On one specific note just to begin with though, they got off to a really bad start right away when on page 3 they said:

"Some streams (Courtois Creek, Bourbeuse River and Spring River) were evaluated just prior to creation of the White Paper and their smallmouth fisheries were determined to be functioning well under existing statewide regulations. Consequently, they were not included in the White Paper effort"

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.

The CPUE criteria baffles me the most:

"Low smallmouth bass CPUE was a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

Uh...what? Isn't the point to increase the populations of smallmouth? Call me an idiot, but wouldn't these rivers be the first to be considered? Especially when you consider this:

"Smallmouth bass catch per unit effort (CPUE) data in new SBBSMA streams were found to be higher than in non-SBBSMA streams (Table 2)."

CPUE

SMA Streams 50.4

Non-SMA Streams 39.1

DUH!

1) "Low smallmouth bass percent composition of black bass catch was a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

Well maybe if you made it a SMA, that wouldn't be the case!

2) "Slow smallmouth bass growth was cited as a primary contributor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

This one I assume has more to do with habitat, but maybe you guys can tell me what would keep growth rates low. I also don't see how that would eliminate a river from SMA consideration...again I would think that would make it all the more eligible.

3 & 4) The access and stream use criteria I find almost makes sense since these rivers are less pressured, but wouldn't it be nice to see SMAs on them anyway to create some really great fisheries?

5) "Poor smallmouth bass habitat suitability was cited as a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

Again, these fish need a SMA more than ever. I don't get it. The habitat is poor, so what? Let the fishery die?

6) Regulatory support...I'm with Gavin on this one. There's no one handing out tickets anywhere anyway, so what's the difference? Change the laws, and some people will follow them...it's better than nothing.

7) "Other management considerations were cited as a primary contributor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:

1. Huzzah Creek (on-going rock bass evaluation)

2. Little Niangua River (Species of Conservation Concern)

3. Meramec River (Franklin County; on-going rock bass evaluation)

4. Niangua River (Species of Conservation Concern and trout management area)

5. Weaubleau Creek (Species of Conservation Concern)"

What does one have to do with the other? It's not like we're trying to conserve a non-native species to the detriment of another native species. Again, makes no sense.

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

The whole freakin' state should be a SMA if you ask me. The 18" kind, too. Forget it, clearly it's a waste of time.

[ozark trout fisher]

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. I don't know the majority of the streams, so I won't make assumptions about the MDC criteria evaluations...but I do have some real problems with the criteria itself...You don't have to be an angler to think a lot of it is simply illogical.

On one specific note just to begin with though, they got off to a really bad start right away when on page 3 they said:

"Some streams (Courtois Creek, Bourbeuse River and Spring River) were evaluated just prior to creation of the White Paper and their smallmouth fisheries were determined to be functioning well under existing statewide regulations. Consequently, they were not included in the White Paper effort"

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.

The CPUE criteria baffles me the most:

"Low smallmouth bass CPUE was a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

Uh...what? Isn't the point to increase the populations of smallmouth? Call me an idiot, but wouldn't these rivers be the first to be considered? Especially when you consider this:

"Smallmouth bass catch per unit effort (CPUE) data in new SBBSMA streams were found to be higher than in non-SBBSMA streams (Table 2)."

CPUE

SMA Streams 50.4

Non-SMA Streams 39.1

DUH!

1) "Low smallmouth bass percent composition of black bass catch was a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

Well maybe if you made it a SMA, that wouldn't be the case!

2) "Slow smallmouth bass growth was cited as a primary contributor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

This one I assume has more to do with habitat, but maybe you guys can tell me what would keep growth rates low. I also don't see how that would eliminate a river from SMA consideration...again I would think that would make it all the more eligible.

3 & 4) The access and stream use criteria I find almost makes sense since these rivers are less pressured, but wouldn't it be nice to see SMAs on them anyway to create some really great fisheries?

5) "Poor smallmouth bass habitat suitability was cited as a primary factor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:"

Again, these fish need a SMA more than ever. I don't get it. The habitat is poor, so what? Let the fishery die?

6) Regulatory support...I'm with Gavin on this one. There's no one handing out tickets anywhere anyway, so what's the difference? Change the laws, and some people will follow them...it's better than nothing.

7) "Other management considerations were cited as a primary contributor in eliminating the following streams from SBBSMA consideration:

1. Huzzah Creek (on-going rock bass evaluation)

2. Little Niangua River (Species of Conservation Concern)

3. Meramec River (Franklin County; on-going rock bass evaluation)

4. Niangua River (Species of Conservation Concern and trout management area)

5. Weaubleau Creek (Species of Conservation Concern)"

What does one have to do with the other? It's not like we're trying to conserve a non-native species to the detriment of another native species. Again, makes no sense.

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

The whole freakin' state should be a SMA if you ask me. The 18" kind, too. Forget it, clearly it's a waste of time.

I especially have a problem with the Bourbeuse not being an SMA. The regulations are not working at all. Smallmouth populations are becoming devastated, and we at least need to give them a break from harvest.

I was also wondering what studies on Rock bass have to do with smallie regs. I cannot see how instituted special smallmouth regs would in any way affect the rock bass population. Theoretically new regs could result in larger smallies, which theoretically could result in less rock bass. But the connection is so indirect. It just doesn't seem to be enough to rule a stream stretch out as smallmouth management area.

Eric, You know I agree with you on the 18" and 1 idea... But it ain't gonna happen any time soon.

Frankly, I need think we need to start putting the health of our fisheries above the complaints that will be made if regulations are changed. If new smallmouth regs can be given time to take effect, I would think they would produce larger (and more numerous) bass, and thereby happier anglers.

[eric1978]

Perhaps MDC is caught in a no-win situation. Their angler surveys seem to consistently show that most serious stream bass anglers already release almost everything they catch, so they have a mindset that restrictive regulations don't really have much effect. But they also have a mindset that never seems to change much--that their job is to maximize smallmouth harvest on most streams, and the least restrictive regs are usually the ones they opt for. They've also got interest groups, including tournament anglers and locals who do want to catch fish to eat, that would kick and scream if some stream sections had much more restrictive regs.

Why would they have the mindset to maximize smallmouth harvest? What's the benefit there?

My other question is, aside from tourney anglers, which can't be THAT big of an interest group...where's all the backlash coming from? I just don't see the hillbillies having that much pull. I mean, what do they care, considering they won't be following the creel regs for the most part anyway? Who's pushing MDC so hard in the wrong direction? I just can't see how all the anglers who want tighter regs, and all the regular folks who are ambivalent about it, are outweighed by a tiny sliver of the population who freak out because they can't have all of one particular species of fish they want. Eat some spots for God's sake. Or some largemouth. Or catfish, or....whatever. You're not gonna starve. Are they really gonna march on Jeff City with signs and banners over something so insignificant? There has to be a larger driving force of opposition, I just don't know what it is.

[ozark trout fisher]

Why would they have the mindset to maximize smallmouth harvest? What's the benefit there?

My other question is, aside from tourney anglers, which can't be THAT big of an interest group...where's all the backlash coming from? I just don't see the hillbillies having that much pull. I mean, what do they care, considering they won't be following the creel regs for the most part anyway? Who's pushing MDC so hard in the wrong direction? I just can't see how all the anglers who want tighter regs, and all the regular folks who are ambivalent about it, are outweighed by a tiny sliver of the population who freak out because they can't have all of one particular species of fish they want. Eat some spots for God's sake. Or some largemouth. Or catfish, or....whatever. You're not gonna starve. Are they really gonna march on Jeff City with signs and banners over something so insignificant? There has to be a larger driving force of opposition, I just don't know what it is.

Eric, as you have seen before, a small, loud, minority can, and often does slow or even stop things like this. Even though we are clearly in the majority here, that may not be the deciding factor. Whoever makes the most noise will get there way, and if the regs changed significantly, you can bet the catch and eaters will make themselves heard pissing and moaning to the MDC. It's worth a try attempting to change the regs though. I will make my voice heard on this one... I am going to respectfully email the MDC right now with some of my concerns right now.