Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[ozark trout fisher]

I agree that the "regulatory support" provision doesn't seem right. It kinda seems like they're just throwing in the towel on the smallmouth streams where regulations are not enforced well. The fact of the matter is, if a regulation is put into effect, most people will follow, just so they don't have to look over their shoulder. Of course not everyone, but most. I want this not to be a political issue, but a biological one rather.

I think when they are evaluating a stream for SMA status, there should be only two factors considered. 1. Will it positively affect the smallmouth bass population? 2. Will it negatively affect any other native species in the stream?

The ones about regulatory support, and angler use really need not be considered. They are not biological factors, and this is a biological issue.

[eric1978]

The only thing I'll add is that I don't know why oftentimes when smallmouth management is brought up - that MO trout fishing/stocking is bashed? I just don't get that? Both are important and fill different niches.

Greg

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. I think for the most part it is agreed that trout populations in native smallmouth streams are not that great a detriment to the smallmouth population, although some people are more concerned than others. 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.

I don't think the MDC is that political, in fact that's one of it strong points and has been back as far as I can remember. I think the problem is, as it pertains to this, the fact that not all biologist are that interested, especially in a new workload. The other is this tendency towards pushing some species that aren't really native or are semi native at the expense of some native species. I think a lot of this brought about from biologist who are imported from other areas of the country and who possess different experiences and motivations.

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.

I think when they are evaluating a stream for SMA status, there should be only two factors considered. 1. Will it positively affect the smallmouth bass population? 2. Will it negatively affect any other native species in the stream?

Exactly!

[fishinwrench]

I suspect its because its not suppose to have any smallies. I'm not familiar with the upper end, although I've heard there are some in it, there were a few in the lower end before Truman flooded it. We used to pick up an occasional small one when White bass fishing the shoals above Fairfield

ok, but they "evaluated it"....then for some reason have decided to RE-evaluate it.

My thinking is that they should not refuse to RE-evaluate the whole darn plan.

I've gotta say I'm in awe of the depth of knowledge some of you (like Al Agnew) have on this subject. One can only hope that MDC employees are so well informed.

Don't count on it. The difference there lies between educating yourself to earn a wage, VS. educating yourself out of passion for something.

As an example, I have a much greater desire to educate myself on river and fish related issues than I do Outboard motor design and function. On the first topic I can't get enough info to satisfy myself....but on the later I don't study any deeper than I need to.

[Wayne SW/MO]

but we scratch our heads about the fact the MDC will spend millions on trout programs,

That one normally won't fly because according to the commission the trout program must be self sufficient. I think it was in the red this year and I don't know the consequences of that. There are some programs that I think could be questioned, and maybe parts of the trout program.

The thing about smallmouth and the MDC that irritates me is that the plan always seems to be dependent on some other species, guaranteed success, or a myriad of other excuses. I don't even buy the "will it positively affect them", at least not if that means gains, preservation of the status quo should be enough in some instances.

I would like to see them simply put some strict, but reasonable, regulations on the stream fish for a period of time and then evaluate for the affect. No educated guessing, but evaluation of facts.

[eric1978]

That one normally won't fly because according to the commission the trout program must be self sufficient. I think it was in the red this year and I don't know the consequences of that. There are some programs that I think could be questioned, and maybe parts of the trout program.

I have no interest in eliminating or diminishing any of the trout programs, or shifting funding from one program to another. Changing the smallmouth regulations wouldn't cost any money, and that's all that's being asked of them. I don't see why it has to be an "either or" thing between the smallmouth and the trout or any other species for that matter, and even if it was, why does the smallmouth always seem to finish second?

[Al Agnew]

The mindset (there's that word again) of the bureaucrats at MDC is to not change things if they don't appear to be broken. When the first SMAs were being decided upon, there was considerable opposition within MDC to the whole concept. The same was true, even more so, with the spotted bass regs in the Meramec Basin. The opposition is based upon several factors.

One, like it or not, the commissioners have the final say in all such decisions, and like somebody said above, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Change something, anything, and it's going to tick off some people, and a certain subset of those people are going to be calling the commissioners at all hours of the day and night complaining. Commissioners don't like that sort of thing. So their initial inclination is not to change anything unless it can be shown to be necessary. When it comes to IMPROVING an already decent fishery, that ain't necessary if it's going to cause somebody to complain.

Two, the enforcement division of the department has a lot of say over new regulations, because they are the ones that are going to have to enforce them. They were seriously against the spotted bass regs because they didn't think anglers could correctly identify spotted bass. They weren't real happy about the SMAs at first. If there is one really major beef I have with MDC, it's with the enforcement division, which I think is not only understaffed and underfunded, but which has a goal of catching the bad guys that sometimes overrides the goal of preventing the crimes.

Three, there have been some biologists in the past that have not been all that interested in the goals of the SMAs. They were also not interested, or didn't believe it was a problem, when spotted bass were becoming a real problem. And the biologists DO have workloads and don't want to have a lot more stuff piled upon them. The biologists I have spent time with and talked to in the last few years are serious, dedicated people who really care about this whole issue, but that wasn't always the case in the past, and may not be true of all the biologists today. It makes me a little uneasy that in the report it said that there was considerable sentiment among the biologists that LAKE smallmouth should be getting more attention.

Four, MDC has always taken the position that conservation means wise use, and wise use means some consumption of renewable resources, like fish. In other words, they have always been for as much harvest of fish as the populations will support without going downhill. So there is some philosophical opposition to catch and release or very restrictive limits. You have to remember that a lot of these guys were educated with a couple of very important mantras--you can't stockpile fish, and overpopulation is as dangerous as over-harvest. And a lot of them have dealt with people all their careers that have been mainly interested in catching fish to eat.

For all these reasons, it took real gumption to get the whole SMA program started in the first place, and it isn't as easy as it would seem to add stream stretches. In my opinion, what is really necessary is for all of us to band together and speak loudly with one voice on this whole issue. It seems like there are an awful lot of stream smallmouth anglers who aren't joiners and don't want to get involved with anything but catching fish. The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance membership hovers around 150-200, with only a small percentage of them really active, and mostly concentrated in the St. Louis region. They tried to get going with chapters in Springfield and Cape Girardeau, and those chapters never really got going. Again in my opinion, one thing that needs to be done is for somebody to get their act together, get a good organization going that covers the whole state, and go all over the Ozark region giving programs on how smallmouth fishing can be improved with better protection. It's gotta be a grassroots deal that gets a lot of local anglers on each stream really interested and involved.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I think the MDC's main objectives are increasing opportunities and protecting wildlife and fish. But they don't have to accomplish both and its likely that smallmouth opportunities in streams can't be increased. Streams are subject to too many variables that reservoirs aren't to predict a solid future, but I still contend they should try harder, or try period. If they make the effort and fail, there will be answers instead of theories.

[eric1978]

This is a pretty interesting power point presentation for those of you who haven't seen it.

http://www.bigindianabass.com/big_indiana_..._Regs____sv.ppt

And another tidbit of info:

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/68.pdf

[msamatt]

Guys:

My name is Matt Wier and I’m the current President of the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance. I’m going to finally chime in. I’m more of a reader than a writer but I figure it’s time to add my two cents to this whole thread. I’ll start by quoting Al Agnew:

“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”

I’m part of the Smallmouth Alliance’s Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel and was awaiting this report just as eagerly as Al and I’m probably just as disappointed in its lack of any discernable suggestions for future direction. I simply can’t accept that this is as good as it gets. The only reason I’m a member of the Smallmouth Alliance is to work to do something to help make sure that Missouri Ozark Stream fishing is as good as or better for future generations than it is for me. There are all sorts of other benefits to being a member but that’s the bottom line for me. To quote Al Again:

“It seems like there are an awful lot of stream smallmouth anglers who aren't joiners and don't want to get involved with anything but catching fish. The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance membership hovers around 150-200, with only a small percentage of them really active and mostly concentrated in the St. Louis region. They tried to get going with chapters in Springfield and Cape Girardeau, and those chapters never really got going. Again in my opinion, one thing that needs to be done is for somebody to get their act together, get a good organization going that covers the whole state, and go all over the Ozark region giving programs on how smallmouth fishing can be improved with better protection. It's got to be a grassroots deal that gets a lot of local anglers on each stream really interested and involved”

I think that a fairly accurate assesment and I’m not taking it personally. Would we love to have more members from throughout the entire state? Sure. How many people participating in this thread are current members for example? Just Al and I as far as I know. What is the MSA going to do about all of this? Well, for starters we’re going to reconvene our Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel and then talk with Bill Turner and whomever else about what we believe are some of the problems with this process and offer them some suggestions. This whole process takes time. Having read several MDC reports about smallmouth bass in the Missouri Ozarks over that past few years I’m frankly surprised that the MDC published this White paper and the Stream Black Bass Special Management Areas Summary for Smallmouth Bass Project and Data Summary http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/21369.pdf

as soon as it did. As far as starting a grassroots movement is concerned I’m all ears. It’s going to take work from folks at the very local level to work to change some perceptions. Take a look at the list of those streams which didn’t get included in the SMA studies because of “regulatory support”. How did they judge the perceived lack of regulatory support? If it actually exists, how can we change that? I don’t think that the MDC has surveyed public opinion about the quality of our Ozark Stream smallmouth fisheries for at least ten years and they admit that this lack of information is a problem

“Existing information about smallmouth bass angler use, perceptions and attitudes is highly localized and incomplete. Significant input from St. Louis angling clubs and Big, Big Piney and Meramec rivers’ SBBSMA angler surveys provided very local information, but limited statewide applicability. Improved statewide understanding of smallmouth anglers would aid in MDC planning and prioritization efforts, as well as define angler interests in smallmouth management outcomes” p. 29 Stream Black Bass Special Management Areas Summary for Smallmouth Bass Project and Data Summary http://mdc4.mdc.mo.gov/Documents/21369.pdf

If perceived resistance to regulatory changes is a legitimate impediment to making those changes then the MDC should figure out what people actually want. Like Al wrote, the MSA is a just one small organization which appeals to a pretty niche group of anglers. I glad to say that we recently added some new and younger members to our board of directors but I’m not exactly seeing large number of 30 year old and younger anglers flocking to join our ranks and I’d like to figure out how to attract them. Look around, how many young guys do you know who are serious river and stream smallmouth anglers and want to dedicate some time to working to do something about t he future of our Missouri Ozark stream fisheries. Heck there are hundreds of members of this particular discussion board and so far there are less than 40 of us who have taken the time to respond to this thread. I’m not despondent or anything and, given the fact that I’m President of the MSA, I do believe that even a small group of concerned citizens can work to change things, but getting this effort underway isn’t an easy or small proposition. I welcome your ideas and thanks for taking the time to read what I have to say.

[fishinwrench]

Matt,

While it may be true that alot of us here live too far away from Kirkwood to be active meeting/outing attending members of MSA, there are plenty of us who are active MDC Stream Team members with most of our work aimed at protecting smallies and their habitat. I considered joining MSA several years ago but I couldn't see how my silent membership in MSA would benefit the cause much....even though I still thought the tee-shirt looked really cool

If increasing your member list creates a louder voice then I'll gladly join up.

One question first though....Did your latest newsletter give reference to this "White Paper" ? This was a document that I had no idea even existed until Wayne stumbled across it and posted it here. I also got the impression that Al wasn't aware of it until then either.

Stream Team headquarters had left us with the impression that the "study" had not even made it to Gravois cr. yet, even though the completion date was posted to be in 2004. So, was MSA "on top of this" so to speak, or were you as suprised as I was ?

Wrench