Mdc's Smallmouth Management Area Selection

[eric1978]

MDC will not radically change anything pertaining to smallmouth bass in the near future without empirical evidence that action on their part will impact the fish populations of larger fish in a positive manner.

Per MDC:

"The success of the management areas led to a statewide effort to identify, study and improve Missouri’s best black bass streams."

Missouri, historically, does not produce large numbers of smallmouth of those sizes. You can catch the rare 20" fish from a Missouri stream, but do not expect trophy sized smallmouth from our Ozark streams.

Ozark streams are perfectly capable of producing greater numbers of trophy-sized fish, given that they are managed correctly. Have you ever seen the stringers in those old black and white photos? Guess the old-timers just knew something we didn't.

[fishinwrench]

Hi Kathy, Excellent ! Glad to see you're still on the mission.

Glen

[Chief Grey Bear]

Per MDC:

Have you ever seen the stringers in those old black and white photos? Guess the old-timers just knew something we didn't.

Yeah I have a few books with a lot of those old photos. There was no management back then.

But in reality though, if you look closely at those stingers, as Al has stated here on another thread, most of those fish were not very large. Though they would have an occasional bigun thrown in. Much like today.

[drew03cmc]

Per MDC:

"The success of the management areas led to a statewide effort to identify, study and improve Missouri’s best black bass streams."

Ozark streams are perfectly capable of producing greater numbers of trophy-sized fish, given that they are managed correctly. Have you ever seen the stringers in those old black and white photos? Guess the old-timers just knew something we didn't.

They have spent more time identifying the "best" black bass streams on the eastern half of the Ozarks than in the Ozarks as a whole.

Unfortunately, there are many things that have changed on these streams to hinder trophy production. Depending upon who you listen to; spotted bass have invaded, habitat has degraded and MDC has dropped the ball.

To grow a trophy fishery of any species, they have to have ideal conditions and apparently, there is something missing.

[eric1978]

Yeah I have a few books with a lot of those old photos. There was no management back then.

No management was needed back then because there were very few anglers harvesting fish, in comparison with today's numbers. The fish could easily sustain their populations without protection.

To grow a trophy fishery of any species, they have to have ideal conditions and apparently, there is something missing.

I'm sorry Drew, but making the case that most of Missouri's streams couldn't be improved is an excercise in futility. Maybe we don't have what it takes for "trophy" status, but there's just no denying they could be better. I don't understand why a devoted angler like yourself wouldn't want to fight for that.

[drew03cmc]

I'm sorry Drew, but making the case that most of Missouri's streams couldn't be improved is an excercise in futility. Maybe we don't have what it takes for "trophy" status, but there's just no denying they could be better. I don't understand why a devoted angler like yourself wouldn't want to fight for that.

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.

[eric1978]

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.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

It doesn't take a lot of money to change regulations. Just a bit of guts. I don't know of many good trophy fisheries for any species that don't have restrictive regulations. We need to at least take a good stab at making our streams better before we give up on it. Whether that means a slot limit, catch and release, or a restrictive length limit, I believe regulations can have a major effect. It would be best if it was coupled with habitat improvements (buffer zones, etc) and better enforcement (both of which do cost money), but more restrictive limits are at least a start. It is the easiest, and least costly first step in making our smallmouth streams better. It should not the last step, just a good stepping stone to making things better.

[fishgypsy]

I just finished reading the white paper, and it sure seems to me like it was phoned in. Don't get me wrong, I like the MDC and I think they do a good job in most aspects, and I understand the workload of biologists and the difficulties of field sampling. It left me with a whole host of new questions, and in the end, with what I've seen presented...it seems to me this venture had the potential to be some truly excellent science, which would've allowed biologists (and the public) to learn quite a bit more about Ozark smallmouth streams. But it looks like that chance was all but wasted.

I don't intend to sound overly sarcastic and demeaning, it's just my nature. Please don't take offense

1.) I guess my first thought, after reading the whole thing, was: "This is it?" Nine years spent studying 35 different stream segments, and the best they can do is produce a twelve-page paper with two citations? These guys have Master's degrees, right?

2.) CPUE and species composition- seems simple enough, but I would've liked to see them compare their data with previous work on these streams, even creel reports. If it looks as though smallmouth are dropping out of the population, I think those streams and stream segments should get some priority. Also, they mention the substantial increase in smallmouth populations in SMA's, but disqualify potential SMA's because the CPUE and species percentage of smallmouth is too low. To me that doesn't make sense- if the regs were in place, isn't it possible to turn some of these reaches into decent smallmouth water?

3.) If growth is the same between SMAs and non-SMA stream segments, it seems like you could rule out water quality/nutrients and prey base as variables restricting the growth of smallmouth bass in Ozark streams; either that or they're all on the same page compared to one another, but not compared to smallmouth streams of other regions. So play scientist and implement the regulations, then determine whether they've had the desired impact. Try to remove another variable.

4.) Big Creek is a pain to access, but no more so than Mineral Fork. Access to me is a non-issue- MDC should be in the business of protecting the resource, I'll decide whether it's worth my time to figure out a way to get there. I can understand their fear of upsetting streamside landowners, and I think that's more where this criterion came from than any interest in the resource. If so, I wish they'd simply call it what it was.

5.) Present use is another non-issue, and seems to defy logic. If I was picking two streams I'd never heard of, one an SMA and the other not...I'd pick the SMA.

6.) The habitat suitability makes sense, but I think it falls far short of what it should be. Using a simple 1-5 rating system seems awfully subjective, especially since not every fisheries biologist is an avid smallmouth angler. To me it should've been something more rigorous, more detailed, and something which allows you to compare between different stream systems. Something concrete, like gradient, riffle stability, pool:riffle ratio, things like that would be nice. Even a simple habitat characterization in pools and riffles (% vegetation, woody cover, boulder/chunk rock) per each, would I think be more applicable than simply having a biologist decide whether X stream rates a 2 or a 3 while sitting in his boat.

I also wanted to know how this criteria was affected by the others- Species composition and CPUE. IF the smallmouth habitat was there, but it was being occupied by spotted bass...how does that rate?

7.) Other species- I'm all for maintaining biodiversity, and nongame species are close to my heart. I love snorkeling ozark streams, snapping pictures of all the fish I see. But this one seems a bit arbitrary. First off, if we can't establish an SMA on the Niangua River because of fears of Niangua darters being preyed upon by smallmouth bass..how can we stock brown trout there every year? And how come presence of Niangua darters didn't disqualify Tavern Creek, which is a stronghold for the fish? And what about the Western Fanshell, a state-imperiled freshwater mussel which resides in the Niangua and uses smallmouth bass as a host? If SMA regs were implemented on the Niangua and the darter population began showing declines, would it not be possible to simply rescind the regs? The noodling regs were rescinded early because of fears of damage to the resource, why couldn't the same thing be done in this instance?

8.) The diversity of opportunities defies any logic I can think of. I can't see how having a SMA on the Elk River benefits smallmouth bass in Finley Creek, or how a SMA on the Big River benefits smallmouth bass populations in the proposed Meramec reach. Don't designate (or not-designate) SMAs to fulfill some geographic balance, designate SMAs because the potential is there to produce quality fishing, regardless of where in the state that water is.

I think that's it. Sorry for the long rant. I've read over the entire thing, but if I've just rehashed it all, I'm sorry.

Tom.

[Gavin]

Thats a very thoughtful post....good work.