Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[Chief Grey Bear]

Tim:

...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 That said, if there are more agents enforcing out-of-date regs is that really helping improve the quality of our smallmouth fisheries?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.

Can you elaborate on this a little more? What 'non game law violations" are you speaking of?

What "out of date regs" are you complaining about?

[msamatt]

Can you elaborate on this a little more? What 'non game law violations" are you speaking of?

What "out of date regs" are you complaining about?

Chief: I was referring to all "non game law" crimes. I know that MDC agents in certain areas spend quite a bit of time enforcing laws regarding underage dringking, possession of controlled substances, etc. I know they're obligated to do so if they see a crime being committed. They are law officers after all. I was not "complaining" about that I was just stating my opinion about any given MDC field agent's time may be spent tackling more than fish and wildlife violations. As far as my out of date regs comment, or complaint in your opinion, is concerned I was trying to make the point that while I'm 100% in favor of MDC agents enforcing all game laws I don't necessarily think that our smallmouth fisheries are suffering because MDC agents aren't enforcing the statwide 12" minimum.

[Al Agnew]

Guys, I'm also willing to give programs about the whole subject for any group who wishes.

As for the perceived conflict with trout and trout programs, I don't think this is a big deal. The stream stretches that can support trout are only a very small percentage of the streams that hold smallmouth. There is probably some effect outside the actual trout water, because it's quite possible that in the past, smallmouth from upstream, downstream, or both used the big springs and the area around their outlets as thermal refuge in the winter, but I can't imagine smallies from 20 miles downstream moving up to Maramec Spring, for instance, trout or not. And Wayne is right that the put and take trout programs are supposed to be self-sustaining.

One important factor that's been hit upon is the opinion of Missouri anglers. MDC's angler surveys, in my opinion, are not really hitting the mark, let alone the fact that it's been a decade since an extensive one was done on any of these streams. Is it really true that a huge percentage of anglers targeting bass are releasing everything? I wonder. And how important, really, are the "casual" anglers, those who are fishing for anything that will bite, and are looking to eat some fish? In reality, you've got dedicated bass anglers who release everything, dedicated bass anglers who keep a lot of fish, and the tournament guys. You've got casual anglers who keep most of what they catch (and often don't have a clue about game laws--I can't believe that a pretty fair percentage of anglers in MDC surveys can't even tell the difference between a smallmouth and a largemouth, just calling them all "bass"). And you have the serious meat fishermen who mainly fish with live bait for whatever will bite, and probably kill most every bass they catch. So as much as we'd like to believe we're in the majority, we probably aren't.

But how much does that really matter? If smallmouth are the most valuable game fish in most Ozark streams, it seems to me that they are deserving of protection, period. There are plenty of other kinds of fish in Ozark streams that should satisfy the meat fishermen.

I'm not advocating strict catch and release. More and more, I'm far from sure that the one fish 15 inch or 18 inch limit is the best solution. After seeing the growth rate studies, I really think slot limits are the way to go in the future. I wonder why MDC isn't considering them.

[cwc87]

Smallmouth Bass fishing is what I live for. MDC just needs to create a simple understanding that a common goal is to improve our smallmouth fisheries. What are they afraid of? Too big of work load on protection divison Not? Overpopulation of smallmouth on a section? Never will happen smallmouth will eat one another if that's the case.

Tournament anglers upset Not? Note this implies to river tournaments. Every tourny angler knows largemouth wins more river tournaments than a bag of smallies.

The public calling and writing letters cause of the change in smallmouth regulations? Come on everyone can take a butt chewing now and then for something they believe in!!

Where are MDC's fact's on how many angler's are smallmouth fisherman. And, when anglers bought their fishing license what zip code breakdown by county to see what impact area's get the most smallmouth fishing pressure? Seems like they could show us more info about smallie fishing. Are they keeping info from us?

I've read the report and actually provided scale samples to MDC. Kinda strange since I took time out of my fishing trip to contribute to their Data and yet the stream I helped gather the data on has been completed for FIVE YEARS and not one word. HMMMMN!! What's going on? As mentioned earlier all the letters and call's (like this thread) is just a brief butt chewing that MDC is going to shrug off and let nature take it's course. Our smallmouth are going to suffer and it is up too us to do the self policing on our smallmouth waters. I'm about to throw the towell in!

Last March as I was bridge fishing about an hour an half from the house. When I got there a young 20 year old had a stringer full of smallies. I told him that it wasnt' catch and keep season for smallies and he acted nervous and after about five mintues went to realeasing his fish. Back in July at a campground I noticed a older 40 ish man with a stringer of smallmouth One fish was a 20 incher but the others were in the 9-10 inch range and I said hey you know that those little smallmouth are under the legal lenght limith and that big one is about a 15 year old fish. And all he could say was "ther sure gonna taste good fur supper" I just drove off with tears in my eyes.

All were asking from MDC is better smallmouth fishing? Why can't they come up with a simple formula?

[Al Agnew]

Actually, I think they WERE trying to come up with the simple formula when it came to the SMAs. Pick a stretch of river, put a one fish 15 inch length limit on it, and see what happens. Problem is, I don't think that's good enough. In any other part of the country that is well-known for stream smallmouth fishing, a 15 inch fish is decent but far from a big fish. On all the better places around the country that I've fished, 18 inch fish are pretty common and 20 inchers are present in good numbers. If I can go to the John Day in Oregon, the upper Mississippi and St. Croix in Minnesota, the New and Shenandoah in Virginia, the St. Regis in New York, the Buffalo in Tennessee, the Penobscot in Maine...and catch 20 inch fish on each trip (most of them unguided), THAT'S world class smallmouth fishing, and we don't have it here. Most of those streams have more restrictive limits than the general rule in MO. The people in charge of regulations on those streams know they have world class angling and they want to keep it. Here in Missouri we know we have good fishing for numbers and it seems that's good enough.

The studies showed that the one fish 15 inch limit improved numbers of 15 inch plus fish by somewhere between 13 and 87% depending upon which stream and whether the data is from electrofishing surveys or catches from angler surveys. It improved numbers of 18 inch plus fish by between 21 and 35%. That all sounds good, but 18 inches should be the threshold for the kind of fish we should be shooting for. A good regulatory system should be able to at least double the number (100% increase) of 20 inch fish. And the fact is that the 15 inch length limit did work pretty much as designed--it apparently increased the numbers of under 15 inch fish considerably, because it also lowered growth rates. The studies didn't consider that very significant, but it was as much as an inch in older fish, and I DO consider that significant. Growth rates in MO streams, while rather slow, are fairly comparable to those in streams in other parts of the country, but lowering them is counterproductive. Which is why I'm thinking that slot limits are the way to go in the future...keep the numbers a bit lower while protecting fish up to 18 or 20 inches.

I have a number of questions after reading both these reports. One...I'd like to know the EXACT stretches of streams that were considered for special management. I couldn't find that in any of the papers, just vague descriptions like "Gasconade in Maries and Osage County", "Meramec in Franklin County". Two, I'd like to know exactly which sections of stream were used as control sections when they were studying the effects of the first few special management areas. For instance, the special management area on Big River is from Mammoth Bridge to Browns Ford Bridge. If they used an upstream section as a control stretch to compare with the SMA, Big River changes character considerably above Mammoth Bridge (actually above the mouth of the Mineral Fork, a couple miles above Mammoth). And, during the time of the studies, the Mammoth to Browns Ford section was in the process of being invaded by spotted bass, while sections above the Mineral Fork were mostly spotted bass-free. How much could that have skewed their numbers?

Don't get me wrong...I'm happy they instituted the SMAs, and the 15 inch one fish limit is a lot better than nothing. But there simply has to be more they can do.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief: I was referring to all "non game law" crimes. I know that MDC agents in certain areas spend quite a bit of time enforcing laws regarding underage dringking, possession of controlled substances, etc. I know they're obligated to do so if they see a crime being committed. They are law officers after all. I was not "complaining" about that I was just stating my opinion about any given MDC field agent's time may be spent tackling more than fish and wildlife violations. As far as my out of date regs comment, or complaint in your opinion, is concerned I was trying to make the point that while I'm 100% in favor of MDC agents enforcing all game laws I don't necessarily think that our smallmouth fisheries are suffering because MDC agents aren't enforcing the statwide 12" minimum.

I would be curious to know if these crimes are being commited on MDC properties? I get the impression from your post that they are doing patrols around the county looking for these types of violations instead of enforcing the Wildlife Code. I agree that most of their time should be spent on enforcing the Wildlife Code but, should they turn a blind eye to other violations? I can just imagine the beaing they would take if they did. Everyone would then be complaining that they are not doing enough to keep the riff raff out of the MDC CA'S.

[fishinwrench]

I've known MDC officers to enforce Littering, arson, and trespass laws, but I don't think they would investigate or pursue drug or DWI issues unless it coincides with a game law, or is a blatant violation right under their nose. Even then they should just take down some info and report it to the "proper" authoritys.

In my area the main problem isn't poachers, my #1 concern at this time is excessive Gravel dredging and landowner misuse of the streams. And I feel that if a stream is designated as a SMA it would help make it more than just a gravel source, cattle pond, and dump site to people in the area that don't care about fishing and are creating permanant damage.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Lets face it, the MDC agents will never do a good job of enforcing game laws, the sate is too big and they are too few. My problem with it lies in considering the ability to enforce laws as a criteria.

I also, as I've stated, take exception to preconceived results that are dependent on so many factors. Fishing pressure, weather, changes in stream ecology and a host of other factor I've probably overlooked makes it impossible for any biologist to predict the future years down the road. The only way to do it realistically is to put a plan in place and them let biologist use their training to do what they are paid to do, tweak it.

[Gavin]

How can you tweak inaction?

I think a slot might be the answer....The New River in Virginia is one of the top smallmouth streams in the country, and they manage it with a slot...5 bass in the aggregate, 14"-20" protected slot, and only one bass over 20" in your daily limit...I think its worth a shot.

[eric1978]

How can you tweak inaction?

I think a slot might be the answer....The New River in Virginia is one of the top smallmouth streams in the country, and they manage it with a slot...5 bass in the aggregate, 14"-20" protected slot, and only one bass over 20" in your daily limit...I think its worth a shot.

I think that would be ideal for most of our streams. I would personally like to see a state-wide slot limit of 1 fish over 20" and 2 or 3 fish under 14. Some streams I would like to see pure C & R, but I would take anything over what they have now.