Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[Wayne SW/MO]

They tried to get going with chapters in Springfield and Cape Girardeau, and those chapters never really got going.

Hi Matt, you may not remember me,, but we talked several years ago about this very thing. I'm glad you brought it up, given the fact there are a lot of smallmouth fishermen on this site and its probably the best vehicle for information that has existed to date.

Maybe this will rekindle some interest in forming a chapter in this area and the forum can provide a source for communication. I know your yearly Alliance fishing trips on the James and Gasconade were aimed at gathering more members in areas to the west. Maybe times have changed.

[catman70]

I'm in agreement with there being a 15" statewide length limit with 18 or 20" for trophy areas on certain waters. Also, I would like to have seen Bryant Creek and North Fork of the White River in the studies. However, I suspect the enforcement issues would have come to bare on both. That being said, I'd like to put forth a couple points of view that I've not seen considered throughout the thread:

• It seems the creation of the SMAs was done under the pretense of growth studies – to see if such action would encourage a greater population of larger fish. As it should be obvious that it would, I speculate there is a considerable amount of pressure to avoid increasing length limits. Reading other blogs on other topics it always seems that a particular group talking believes itself to be in the majority.

• The MDC should be, in part, commended for advancing the timetable of the study. What was initially to be roughly a 20-year study was moved up and now additional bodies of water are being considered and added to the list ahead of schedule.

• If the biologists at MDC are taking a purely scientific approach to the growth study than it makes sense to limit the bodies of water included for a couple of reasons. First, it's important to focus enforcement on those bodies so that the results aren't being negatively affected by poachers. The worst thing to have happen would be no difference in populations. Second, some streams with equally good habitat would have to be left unchanged so as to establish a control group(s) for the study. Otherwise, who's to say environmental conditions (i.e., more rain) didn't play a role in increasing populations.

• There may be an interest by the scientists to continue the study (rather than convert all bodies of water) simply because it's a means of work and income. Not to say it's not valuable information – it just is what it is. As noted in the Power Point posted earlier, other states may be improving their fisheries based on the findings of the MDC study.

• MDC has to balance the wishes of of the public as a whole. It would be very interesting to place a initiative on the ballot of the next statewide election, or somehow poll individuals not directly invested one way or another. We assume we are in the majority because to us our logic makes sense. I've thought that way about a great many political ideas. However, why is our belief any more justified than the man who helps feed his family by taking small bass form the local stream? Going the other direction, wouldn't the populations of smallmouth get even bigger if we restricted fishing to every three years? What about from March to October when the heaviest pressure is applied? Certainly there is a unintended kill rate simply do to foul hooks or the stress of being caught. The point is that we're not arguing on behalf of the fish, but rather for our desire to use the resource how we want.

• I've said this before and I'll say it again: Trout are an invasive species as much as zebra muscles and big head carp. The difference is that they're placed here intentionally. While rainbows typically prefer water that is colder than what smallmouth will tolerate, the same cannot be said for browns. Both species of trout compete with bass (and may very well out-compete them) in the winter months with the salmonoids tend to remain more active. Not only does the MDC support the trout program, they discourage research that seeks to quantify or qualify the degradation to native species population due to trout stocking. My brother ran into this problem. Therefore, I'd suggest that if one is serious about restoring smallie populations to their full potential, that same person cannot be in favor of trout stocking on the same stretches of water.

• Perhaps what needs to be done is to make the smallmouth bass the official state fish, create a blanket 15" limit, and compel anglers to purchase a stamp (similar to the trout stamp) if said anglers wishes to fish in the trophy areas or to keep smallmouth throughout the state. The funds from the stamp could be used to increase enforcement throughout the state.

[msamatt]

Wrench:

I'd love for you to join and be a vocal rather than a silent member. Just because you don't live close to St. Louis doesn't mean that you couldn't help out. Our latest newsletter didn't reference this white paper or the other document because it wasn't published until 12/03/09 which is when I made my Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel aware of both publications. As far as being "on top of" the study we were actively awaiting the white paper but I'm as suprised/disappointed in its conclusions or lack thereof as others seem to be.

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

[msamatt]

Hi Wayne:

I remember you very well. If you and maybe one other guy are willing to put in the time to start a chapter in SW MO, let's talk. I'm sure I could convince some guys from the "home office" to take a trip down to Springfield sometime this winter to kick things off but if this is going to work it will have to be sustained by you and your fellow anglers. All I'm asking for is hours worth of unpaid labor to support a worth cause. Let's talk.

Hi Matt, you may not remember me,, but we talked several years ago about this very thing. I'm glad you brought it up, given the fact there are a lot of smallmouth fishermen on this site and its probably the best vehicle for information that has existed to date.

Maybe this will rekindle some interest in forming a chapter in this area and the forum can provide a source for communication. I know your yearly Alliance fishing trips on the James and Gasconade were aimed at gathering more members in areas to the west. Maybe times have changed.

[Wayne SW/MO]

• If the biologists at MDC are taking a purely scientific approach to the growth study than it makes sense to limit the bodies of water included for a couple of reasons. First, it's important to focus enforcement on those bodies so that the results aren't being negatively affected by poachers. The worst thing to have happen would be no difference in populations. Second, some streams with equally good habitat would have to be left unchanged so as to establish a control group(s) for the study. Otherwise, who's to say environmental conditions (i.e., more rain) didn't play a role in increasing populations.

I don't think they can make the argument that populations won't increase. The study seemed aimed at whether they could increase size and fish available. Enforcement shouldn't be the determining factor in my opinion, because enforcement in itself is a slow moving deterrent. There are probably few waters with more enforcement then Taney and the Parks, yet who hasn't seen violations? We simply don't have that many regulations that are enforced. Its one thing to cruise roadways, but quite another to oversee millions of acres with little or limited access. Might point out that the no fishing for smallmouths in the spring has been on the books forever, and there are and will continue to be violations of it.

There's also the method of evaluating the streams, it seems to be an unknown. I know I have NEVER been approached by a creel checker on a smallmouth stream.

How do you conduct a 20 year study in today's environment? Nothing in the Missouri outdoors remains unchanged from 20 years ago.

[Gavin]

Not sure if I'm a current member of MSA or not..I havent found a newsletter in the mailbox in awhile...guess I better renew.

[msamatt]

Catman:

You're the second person who has brought up a ballot initiative and I just want to chime in and state the the Missouri State Government doesn't create our game and fisheries regulations, the Missouri Conservation Commission does and that's the way it should stay. Just take a look at other states, say Illinois for example, where the state legislators control Conservation. Its a mess. If we're interested in chaning regs, then the we need to convince the Missouri Conservation Commission to do so. There's more than one way to do this but when we do so the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance is most likely going to work with the Conservation Federation of Missouri. Working with the CFM seems like the approach which is most likely to help us succeed.

As far as your comments about the MDC's need to balance the needs of the public as a whole are concerned I agree with you, they do. I just don't think they have polled the public's attitudes abou the quality of our Missouri Ozark Steam smallmouth fisheries anytime this decade. The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance conducted our own survey at last years St. Louis Boat and Sports show and we're going to post those results on our website before the end of this week. The MDC has the resources to survey public opinion about this issue, the MSA does not.

I still think there's work that the MDC can and should do to help manage the quality our Missouri Ozark Stream smallmouth fisheries. As you and others have noted; however, the MDC's mission is to help protect all fish and wildlife and not just our smallmouth fisheries. I too would like to see them reallocate more personnel and money to improving our smallmouth fisheries wherever possible. Its up to us, and by that I mean all passionate smallmouth anglers and not just the MSA, to persuade them the continue to work to that end. Write a letter to Bill Turner and let him know how you feel.

I'm in agreement with there being a 15" statewide length limit with 18 or 20" for trophy areas on certain waters. Also, I would like to have seen Bryant Creek and North Fork of the White River in the studies. However, I suspect the enforcement issues would have come to bare on both. That being said, I'd like to put forth a couple points of view that I've not seen considered throughout the thread:

• It seems the creation of the SMAs was done under the pretense of growth studies – to see if such action would encourage a greater population of larger fish. As it should be obvious that it would, I speculate there is a considerable amount of pressure to avoid increasing length limits. Reading other blogs on other topics it always seems that a particular group talking believes itself to be in the majority.

• The MDC should be, in part, commended for advancing the timetable of the study. What was initially to be roughly a 20-year study was moved up and now additional bodies of water are being considered and added to the list ahead of schedule.

• If the biologists at MDC are taking a purely scientific approach to the growth study than it makes sense to limit the bodies of water included for a couple of reasons. First, it's important to focus enforcement on those bodies so that the results aren't being negatively affected by poachers. The worst thing to have happen would be no difference in populations. Second, some streams with equally good habitat would have to be left unchanged so as to establish a control group(s) for the study. Otherwise, who's to say environmental conditions (i.e., more rain) didn't play a role in increasing populations.

• There may be an interest by the scientists to continue the study (rather than convert all bodies of water) simply because it's a means of work and income. Not to say it's not valuable information – it just is what it is. As noted in the Power Point posted earlier, other states may be improving their fisheries based on the findings of the MDC study.

• MDC has to balance the wishes of of the public as a whole. It would be very interesting to place a initiative on the ballot of the next statewide election, or somehow poll individuals not directly invested one way or another. We assume we are in the majority because to us our logic makes sense. I've thought that way about a great many political ideas. However, why is our belief any more justified than the man who helps feed his family by taking small bass form the local stream? Going the other direction, wouldn't the populations of smallmouth get even bigger if we restricted fishing to every three years? What about from March to October when the heaviest pressure is applied? Certainly there is a unintended kill rate simply do to foul hooks or the stress of being caught. The point is that we're not arguing on behalf of the fish, but rather for our desire to use the resource how we want.

• I've said this before and I'll say it again: Trout are an invasive species as much as zebra muscles and big head carp. The difference is that they're placed here intentionally. While rainbows typically prefer water that is colder than what smallmouth will tolerate, the same cannot be said for browns. Both species of trout compete with bass (and may very well out-compete them) in the winter months with the salmonoids tend to remain more active. Not only does the MDC support the trout program, they discourage research that seeks to quantify or qualify the degradation to native species population due to trout stocking. My brother ran into this problem. Therefore, I'd suggest that if one is serious about restoring smallie populations to their full potential, that same person cannot be in favor of trout stocking on the same stretches of water.

• Perhaps what needs to be done is to make the smallmouth bass the official state fish, create a blanket 15" limit, and compel anglers to purchase a stamp (similar to the trout stamp) if said anglers wishes to fish in the trophy areas or to keep smallmouth throughout the state. The funds from the stamp could be used to increase enforcement throughout the state.

[catman70]

With regards to population: I was referring to the population of trophy-class fish. Sorry for not being more explicit.

Matt, I recognize the pit-falls to placing such decisions on ballots, and you're right in that it's not a good idea. I was merely trying to illustrate that there should be a more effective way of polling the public rather than speaking to the parties listed in the White Paper. Perhaps the questions is how to allocate additional resources to enforcement? You would think that the sales tax that funds MDC activities is dynamic enough to increase revenue relative to inflation and population. Maybe wasn't needed is an audit of programs and activities, followed by a prioritization of resources? But then we get into a "who watches the watchers" sort of thing.

By the way, Matt, I chaired our Stream Team chapter for the Water Environment Federation group here at MS&T in Rolla this semester. Every semester we try to have an individual come in and talk to our group as well as the American Society of Civil Engineers as a whole. This fall a gentleman spoke about mine tailings. If you (or anyone else out there) would be interesting in speaking about the resources in Missouri streams this spring we'd certainly be welcoming. I think environmental engineers (such as myself) would be interested in a broad array of topics, but to involve the other civils the focus should probably be on damns, gravel mining or the like.

Thanks!

Tim

[msamatt]

Tim:

I would love to see more MDC enforcement; however, I know that, based on my brief conversations with MDC enforcemnt officers, they often spend quite a bit of time, for better or worse, writing tickets for non game law violations. That said, if there are more agents enforcing out-of-date regs is that really helping improve the quality of our smallmouth fisheries? I don't know.

As far as speaking to your group in Rolla is concerned shoot me a p.m. to wierfish@yahoo.com and we'll talk.

With regards to population: I was referring to the population of trophy-class fish. Sorry for not being more explicit.

Matt, I recognize the pit-falls to placing such decisions on ballots, and you're right in that it's not a good idea. I was merely trying to illustrate that there should be a more effective way of polling the public rather than speaking to the parties listed in the White Paper. Perhaps the questions is how to allocate additional resources to enforcement? You would think that the sales tax that funds MDC activities is dynamic enough to increase revenue relative to inflation and population. Maybe wasn't needed is an audit of programs and activities, followed by a prioritization of resources? But then we get into a "who watches the watchers" sort of thing.

By the way, Matt, I chaired our Stream Team chapter for the Water Environment Federation group here at MS&T in Rolla this semester. Every semester we try to have an individual come in and talk to our group as well as the American Society of Civil Engineers as a whole. This fall a gentleman spoke about mine tailings. If you (or anyone else out there) would be interesting in speaking about the resources in Missouri streams this spring we'd certainly be welcoming. I think environmental engineers (such as myself) would be interested in a broad array of topics, but to involve the other civils the focus should probably be on damns, gravel mining or the like.

Thanks!

Tim

[msamatt]

Not sure if I'm a current member of MSA or not..I havent found a newsletter in the mailbox in awhile...guess I better renew.

Gavin:

We'd love to have you back buddy.