One More Poll On Smallmouth Management Areas

[drew03cmc]

"Effort, yes. Complete eradication is not an effort worthy of dumping the millions necessary into.If you want the fish eradicated, petition your MDC biologists to use rotenone."

I don't think most people are advocating complete removal of spotted bass from the river system- as you mentioned, it'd be extraordinarily expensive, publicly unpopular, and likely ineffective.

" They (spotted bass)are not going to leave the river without being KILLED, so you should try to deal with the spotted bass, or fish waters which have been sheltered from the influx of spotted bass. "

As I've said, the population of spotted bass could be managed through harvest.

"The river was a great smallmouth fishery, with numbers and size, but now, you catch more spotted bass than smallmouth, and with some management of the spots, they could attain trophy sizes along with the smallmouth.

That's highly unlikely. The growth rate of spotted bass in the Meramec drainage is well below the growth rate of smallmouth from the same drainage- as said before, you typically don't catch spots in those rivers greater than twelve inches. Management of the spotted bass as a sportfish doesn't change the species' growth rate, and you'd likely just get tons more dink-sized spotted bass than any wall-hangers. Aside from that, I really can't understand the benefit of turning an excellent smallmouth fishery into a spotted bass fishery that's mediocre at best. Sort of like trading in your Jaguar for a Ford Fiesta.

"I would embrace the spots cohabitating with the smallmouth as well as they can.Keep your dozen a day, however, acknowledge that it will be awhile before the Meramec reaches equilibrium with the species."

One species outcompeting, hybridizing and replacing another is not cohabitation. One species being replaced from its native range by another is not "equilibrium." Smallmouth and spotted bass apparently, obviously, can't cohabit in these systems- that's sort of the whole point.

For every spot in that river, there is seemingly one less smallmouth, and since that is not the river's natural predisposition, passing regulations to protect spotted bass is the exact opposite of what should be done. It makes no sense through the lens of conservation, and it makes no sense practically for angling opportunities...I don't know this as fact, but I have a feeling that spotted bass cannot reach large sizes easily in the Meramec system. A fish kill would make no sense because the spots would eventually find their way back and repopulate, and therefore MANAGEMENT through REGULATION seems to be the only way to HELP the river.

Farther upstream there are far more smallmouth than spots, but their march continues, and that's why I think it's important to implement protection NOW to help the rightful inhabitants of the stream fight their battle against the invasive species. If your favorite smallmouth stream was being taken over by some invasive species of little catfish, and for every catfish you lost a smallmouth, would you just say, oh well, guess I'll fish for catfish? Or would you say, something's wrong here and something needs to be done to fix it? I'm guessing the latter.

And look, I don't know how this conversation turned back into the old smallie vs. spot debate, but it's just one of the issues that concern me on just one of the river systems that I believe need help. I want to see new regulations and better management on ALL streams, including the ones closer to you, not just the ones that I fish frequently.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the growth rate of spotted bass in Big River.

But to answer your question in a roundabout way, the White River is a poor example. Yes, some water went from smallmouth to trout fisheries. But thousands of acres of land was impounded, providing much more smallmouth habitat that would have otherwise been present. Sort of a wash, in my mind.

If I had my way I'd be able to paddle from Springfield to Arkansas, fishing the White River for big smallies- but that's completely out of my control. But those dams were put in well before my time, and they're not going away. Spotted bass in the Meramac, however, is a fishery I feel people have more control over.

I'm not opposed to non-native sportfishes. I've fished for trout in the Ozarks, for muskies in Pomme de Terre, and farm ponds for bass and bluegill. What I am opposed to is destruction of fisheries- be it by gravel mining, pollution, or invasion and replacement by other species.

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. Here's my thoughts

It's definitely possible spotted bass are expanding their range due to shifts in climate. But the Ozarks have been exposed for hundreds of millions of years, right? And in those hundreds of millions of years, the climate has shifted- sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler- right? That means it's likely that the temperature regimes of Ozark streams likely shifted as well, right? Sometimes warmer, sometimes cooler?

And yet for hundreds of millions of years, spotted bass never colonized the Meramec or Missouri River watersheds or at least, if they did, they never established themselves. If it's as easy for them to move around and colonize new rivers as easily as you assert, how come they waited till the 1980's to do so?

I think I've shown pretty good evidence this situation isn't no way "natural"- spotted bass clearly were not native to north-flowing Ozark streams, spotted bass were stocked into the Missouri River system, sometimes by public agencies. Those fish replaced native smallmouth populations, hybridizing and outcompeting the natives. The problem with spotted bass in these streams isn't that their an inferior sportfish. They have poorer growth rates compared to smallmouth in the same streams, and don't reach a large size.

If you have evidence that it is a natural process, I'd love to hear it, as opposed to re-hashing the same talking points over and over.

If anyone has empirical evidence that spotted bass did not migrate to the Meramec River, I want to see it. How long have records been kept of fish populations? I am sure there are none from hundreds of millions of years ago. Spotted bass in the north do not historically reach a large size. Dams are not natural, but can you fault a species for taking advantage of something? A similar example is the proliferation of large blue catfish below the dams on the Mississippi River. They may have been there before, but not in these concentrations. I am against invasion from other species as well in my streams, but that is part of evolution in my opinion. I could see where if it were something like redfish colonizing the Meramec River system or bull sharks, but we are talking about fish of the same genus here, not fish that are alien to the region or even the state.

Management through regulation is a great theory, but what is regulation without enforcement? If nothing is enforced, then I fail to see how adding another regulation will help. I think a mandatory kill regulation on spotted bass would help out with what everyone is looking for, but the MDC will not do that for a game fish.

My comments about the Taney and White Ribbon fisheries was in response to this from Gypsy: One species outcompeting, hybridizing and replacing another is not cohabitation. One species being replaced from its native range by another is not "equilibrium." Smallmouth and spotted bass apparently, obviously, can't cohabit in these systems- that's sort of the whole point.

Forget that he said hybridizing, but one species being replaced by another is where I was going with it. Off base, maybe...partially correct, maybe.

[eric1978]

If anyone has empirical evidence that spotted bass did not migrate to the Meramec River, I want to see it. How long have records been kept of fish populations? I am sure there are none from hundreds of millions of years ago. Spotted bass in the north do not historically reach a large size. Dams are not natural, but can you fault a species for taking advantage of something? A similar example is the proliferation of large blue catfish below the dams on the Mississippi River. They may have been there before, but not in these concentrations. I am against invasion from other species as well in my streams, but that is part of evolution in my opinion. I could see where if it were something like redfish colonizing the Meramec River system or bull sharks, but we are talking about fish of the same genus here, not fish that are alien to the region or even the state.

Management through regulation is a great theory, but what is regulation without enforcement? If nothing is enforced, then I fail to see how adding another regulation will help. I think a mandatory kill regulation on spotted bass would help out with what everyone is looking for, but the MDC will not do that for a game fish.

I don't know how many more times I can beat this same dead horse, but I guess I'll give it one more try.

Yes, the spotted bass migrated to the Meramec, but only after man made that possible for them to do so by tinkering with the waterways. It's not natural. It's not evolution. And it's not okay to turn a blind eye to it. If it's not a problem that can be "solved," then we have to live with that, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the situation any way we can, which means new regulations that say you can take few to no smallmouth and all the spotted bass you want...that's good for the fishery.

And what good are regulations without enforcement? Better than nothing. It's better than nothing, isn't it? Yes, it's better than nothing, and unless you have another idea of how to solve this real problem, I suggest you either get on board, or stay neutral instead of standing in opposition to people who only want the same things for the streams they fish as you want for yours.

Your argument about the spots that, well, they're there now, so that's the way it is...you might as well just embrace them...it doesn't hold any water, so to speak. It's a problem, and an attempt needs to be made to remedy that problem, period. Letting it go at its own peril is irresponsible and frankly just plain dumb since there are things we could at least try before giving up on it altogether. Let's see what happens after we try X and Y, then we can have another conversation.

[KCRIVERRAT]

You're forgetting about the dams. Nothing natural about dams.

Should've dammed the Meremac and not dammed the White. darn if you do, darn if you don't...

[drew03cmc]

I don't know how many more times I can beat this same dead horse, but I guess I'll give it one more try.

Yes, the spotted bass migrated to the Meramec, but only after man made that possible for them to do so by tinkering with the waterways. It's not natural. It's not evolution. And it's not okay to turn a blind eye to it. If it's not a problem that can be "solved," then we have to live with that, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to help the situation any way we can, which means new regulations that say you can take few to no smallmouth and all the spotted bass you want...that's good for the fishery.

And what good are regulations without enforcement? Better than nothing. It's better than nothing, isn't it? Yes, it's better than nothing, and unless you have another idea of how to solve this real problem, I suggest you either get on board, or stay neutral instead of standing in opposition to people who only want the same things for the streams they fish as you want for yours.

Your argument about the spots that, well, they're there now, so that's the way it is...you might as well just embrace them...it doesn't hold any water, so to speak. It's a problem, and an attempt needs to be made to remedy that problem, period. Letting it go at its own peril is irresponsible and frankly just plain dumb since there are things we could at least try before giving up on it altogether. Let's see what happens after we try X and Y, then we can have another conversation.

The two ways to help the situation over there without exception is to have a kill reg on spots and c&r on brownies or to kill everything in the stream from the spring branch to the Mississippi. I don't see a twelve fish twelve inch limit helping at all as from what I hear, there are few twelve inch spots.

[fishgypsy]

I am against invasion from other species as well in my streams, but that is part of evolution in my opinion. I could see where if it were something like redfish colonizing the Meramec River system or bull sharks, but we are talking about fish of the same genus here, not fish that are alien to the region or even the state.

I'm trying not to be disparaging, but I'm having a hard time figuring out how you can hold both the position that invasive species are bad, but that we should roll over and accept whatever alterations occur in the ecosystem as a result of invasive species. As Eric said- if there's the possibility of at least maintaining high quality smallmouth fisheries in streams being invaded by spotted bass, what's the harm in trying? What's the harm in trying to keep spotted bass populations low through harvest and regulations in order to maintain viable smallmouth fishery? Particularly if anglers and the public generally prefer the native smallmouth fishery over the smaller, slower-growing spotted bass?

Whether the fish is native to the state is immaterial- it's not native to the north-flowing watersheds of the Ozarks, smallmouth bass in those streams haven't evolved to a scenario where spotted bass are present, and there's no evolutionary mechanism in those smallmouth bass populations to coexist with the spots. That spots have all but replaced smallmouth in some reaches of these rivers attests to that- there's no mechanism for the two species to exist. One or the other will win out.

As for the argument, I think we've hit a brick wall. You seem to believe it's a natural process, that the invasion of spotted bass isn't an issue, and you're content to sit back and watch the shift. I think there's been a lot of human influence in the expansion and invasion of spotted bass, that it is a serious issue affecting smallmouth fisheries, and I'll do what I can, and what is asked, to insure a good smallmouth bass fishery. I don't think those disagreements will be resolved on an internet

[fishgypsy]

The two ways to help the situation over there without exception is to have a kill reg on spots and c&r on brownies or to kill everything in the stream from the spring branch to the Mississippi. I don't see a twelve fish twelve inch limit helping at all as from what I hear, there are few twelve inch spots.

The regulation is twelve spotted bass of any size. No length limit.

[Al Agnew]

Any theory of how spotted bass got into the Meramec and Gasconade river systems has a huge human-causation component, so it's simply not a natural occurrence. The real question is, as drew has alluded to several times, what can be done about it?

Complete fish kill by rotenone is impossible and certainly undesirable...there are simply too many other kinds of fish in these rivers that would also be killed. It would take many years for all these fisheries to return, no matter how the whole spotted bass/smallmouth thing turned out. The spotted bass are here to stay. So the next question is whether anything can be done to keep their numbers under control. Every indication is that spotted bass directly replace smallmouth in these streams. The biomass of bass species remains fairly constant--X number of pounds of bass per acre, no matter what the species. So if you have a whole bunch of little spotted bass, it means a LOT fewer smallmouths (and perhaps largemouths as well--some studies have shown declines in largemouth in these streams).

So the only thing that really makes sense (given that the likelihood of MDC shocking and killing every spotted bass they can is nil) is very liberal regulations concerning harvest of spotted bass, and very restrictive regs on smallmouth. Reduce the biomass of spotted bass as much as possible, and give the other bass species a chance to a larger share of the biomass. The 12 fish limit on spotted bass and one fish, 15 inch limit on smallies in Big River is on the right track, but doesn't go far enough. Given two very inconvenient facts--too many anglers never keeping any bass, and the heavy infestation of yellow grubs in the spotted bass which discourages even meat fishermen from keeping them--the only thing that really stands a chance of working regulation-wise is mandatory kill of every spotted bass caught, along with complete protection of smallmouth, and probably largemouth as well. Since as Drew also said, it's highly unlikely that MDC, or at this point even the general angling public, would embrace those regulations, at least remove all limits from spotted bass and give the smallies complete protection...and strongly encourage anglers to kill every spotted bass they catch. I think that MDC could have done better at educating the general angling public on the consequences of spotted bass in these rivers, and still could. So like Eric, I'm not ready to throw in the towel and accept that what we have now on these rivers is all we can look forward to in the future...although I'm afraid it is.

[Dan Kreher]

My post does not relate the spotted bass direction that this thread seems to grativating towards, but I believe that the one poll question that asks voters whether they prefer changes in the statewide/Ozarks-wide SMB limits on streams OR more special management areas. I voted for statewide regs changes because I firmly believe that Missouri needs to raise that bar, but I am also strongly in favor of significant expansion of special regulations on selected waters. I feel that my answer is in no way ambiguous as both approaches can work wonders on improving the overall quality of Missouri's stream SMB fishing as well as helping to elevate this wild and precious game fish (and its required habitat) to the position of prominence it deserves. With more attention paid to improving Ozark SMB stream fishing quality, perhaps more emphasis will be placed by governmental agencies and by private landowners in protecting and improving riverine habitat.

The 6 fish/12 inch statewide limits have been around since the early 1960s and mid 1970s, respectively, and represented pretty cutting edge fisheries management by the MDC back in the day. Statewide MLL of 15" and a reduced creel limit of 3 fish a day would once again put Missouri towards the head of the pack on SMB management and would be more congruous with both the threatened state of our SMB stream fisheries and what I believe are the overall best interests of most serious stream SMB fishermen today.

The 17-year special regs initiative that resulted in sections of 12 Ozark streams (about 350 miles of water) under special regs is a good step in the right direction. The MDC has proven that the science works. They simply need to keep things rolling and look at SMB management in a more creative fashion (slots, high MLL, etc) as suggested elsewhere on this forum.

My name is Dan Kreher and I am a founding member of the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance and am currently helping to organiize the MSA's Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel's efforts to directly address the vital role that more restrictive and enlightened fisheries regulations can have on improving the average sizes of stream SMB populations (proportional stock density in MDC biologist terms). Our panel includes nearly 20 "angling influentials" such as Al Agnew, canoe outfitters, fishing guides, concerned anglers, fisheries biologists, and others who are passionate about smallmouth bass and making the Ozarks home to world-class SMB stream fishing once again. We are working closely with the MDC and anxiously awaited (for more than a year) their recent issuance of the two SMB management reports.

I am new to the Ozark Angler forums but have seen lots of insightful and passionate discussion about the results of the White Paper, assessments of the candidate streams, potential future regulations proposals, etc. on this board. MSA's Blue Ribbon panel will be convening again shortly to discuss these reports amongst ourselves before then sitting down face to face with the MDC to better understand both the results of the study, but more importantly, where the MDC is headed with stream SMB management in the state. In preparation for this process, I will closely monitor the conservation forum threads on the Ozark Angler site and include a summary of those observations in the panel's discussion.

There have recently been a host of interesting SMB-related threads created that I need to separately comment/provide input on when time allows. The MO Smallmouth Alliance website and newsletter have included articles/pieces that directly address many of the topics being discussed. I will need to dig up the links to that material and direct interested readers/posters to those online locations.

For example:

Al Agnew wrote a well-researched article on the history of Spotted Bass in the Eastern Ozarks that would be of interest to many.

I conducted a nationwide inventory of SMB (stream) fisheries regulations/limits/special management areas to gain insight on how MO stacked up against the rest of North America. There's a power point presentation on that which I will post on Ozark Anglers soon.

Articles on MSA's Blue Ribbon panel's genesis and its developments may also be worth reading for some background.

As far as the MO Smallmouth Alliance is concerned -- we are largely a St. Louis-based organization (about 230 active members in total per Matt Wier) with a handful of members hailing from SEMO, Central MO, SW MO and western Illinois. We had a SW MO chapter back about 15 years ago that had about 25 members. Unfortunately, it disolved when its small leadership team became burned out. Very hopeful that with help from guys on this board, Al Agnew, et al that something can get going again in that important area of the smallmouth's native range. Love to have some guys from Arkansas hook up to make it a regional effort. There's lots of great SMB tradition and future potential there for sure. Arkansas Game & Fish dept seems to think so with those blue ribbon regs designations on Kings, Buffalo and Crooked Creek. Those are 3 of my favorite fisheries and they aren't anywhere close to St. Louis. Our membership dues have been $20 for at least the past 10 years. With the great Tryon book, magazine subscriptions, etc. thrown in, I'd say that first year's membership is free at worst. As a registered non-profit organization, any surplus funds held by the group are put right back into supporting its mission to educate anglers and to protect and improve our Ozark SMB fisheries.

I think that despite some differences in philosphy we smallie fans are all working for the same goals. More opportunities to catch larger numbers of quality (15=18") SMB in their native moving water environments. Can we one day expect to catch boat loads of 20 inchers in Ozark streams? Very doubtful given their slow growth rates, stresses from low/high water, stream fertility, habitat pressures, etc. These aren't lake fish with little stress and an unlimited forage base after all. But things can surely be much better than they are with better management. Certainly habitat/water quality are vitally important factors that will ultimately determine just how successful our stream fisheries can be. Unfortunately, both of those multi-faceted issues are far-reaching in nature and are well beyond the control of a group of bass fishermen. We can, however, as an organized voice of concerned anglers either through affiliation with the MO Smallmouth Alliance, bass club, stream team or simply socially networked through a well-crafted online forum such as Ozark Anglers, have significant influence on helping to shape the future of Ozark stream SMB management going forward.

Sorry this post is so long but the interest shown in this topic among the forum posters has me pretty enthused that folks do indeed care about the quality and reputation of our native fisheries and appear ready to be part of the solution.

Our gripes here as group do not seem to be with the MDC, rather they are against the status quo and angler apathy. We need to stand up and let our state fisheries managers know what we want from our natural resources and that we are willing to actively work to achieve it. I know that we're just talking about fishing when there are many more material statewide issues for folks in Jeff City to address. But, with additional angler education and insihgtful fisheries management practices, I think we can really achieve something here that can create a lasting legacy to be enjoyed by all SMB anglers who like to wet a line in the Ozarks.

I'll try to get those links to those articles mentioned above set up soon on the forum.

Thanks for reading.

[eric1978]

The 12 fish limit on spotted bass and one fish, 15 inch limit on smallies in Big River is on the right track, but doesn't go far enough. Given two very inconvenient facts--too many anglers never keeping any bass, and the heavy infestation of yellow grubs in the spotted bass which discourages even meat fishermen from keeping them--the only thing that really stands a chance of working regulation-wise is mandatory kill of every spotted bass caught, along with complete protection of smallmouth, and probably largemouth as well.

The grubs...for me, it's so disgusting that I can't bring myself to clean a fish I see has even one. So for a while I was just killing the spots and tossing them on the bank, even though I hate killing any animal and not harvesting the meat. But then I found out that was actually illegal. The law says it is illegal to waste the edible portion of a fish.

After I found that out, I would bring along a stringer and drag the darn things along with me all day, even though I had no intention of cleaning them when I got home. I hate to admit it, but there were several occassions last year that I actually released some spots because I was just too lazy to keep them and I also didn't want to break the law, as stupid as it is according to this particular situation. I plan to harvest every spot I catch next year, grubs or not, but it would be really nice if they could also change that law about wasting fish for just this one case on these few rivers.

[Dan Kreher]

Here's a power point presentation I gave to the MO Smallmouth Alliance back in February 2008 concerning stream SMB regs throughout North America. Although a tedious project, it did reveal how MO stacks up with the rest of the states/provinces in regards to management practices. Overall, about 75th percentile or so back then, but many nearby by states were quickly catching up (IL, AR, TN). My findings on fisheries regs reflected a very positive trend in managing smallmouth bass as a separte unique species from both lake populations or black bass as whole. Most recently, Tennessee has made some bold moves on smallmouth management on both its top rivers and impoundments.

See attached. Note: the findings for the MDC management areas noted in article were obtained from article written by lead MDC smallmouth biologist Kevin Meneau based on data avaialble for selected streams; actual statewide results published in recent MDC reports varied.

PS -- site did not let me upload powerpoint. I'll need to attach word file.

Tennessee Implements New Quality SMB Regs.doc

Imagine the Possibilities.doc