Sell Me On The M S A Matt.

[Gary Lange]

When you join you get the satisfaction of knowing that your contribution went toward the improvement of Smallmouth Habitat in Missouri Streams. I see that having the MSA in it's present location is a disadvantage to the cause as the main purpose of the organization should be to Promote Conservation and Habitat improvement for all the Streams and Rivers in Missouri. I belong to the Illinois Smallmouth Alliance and live here in Mo. I belonged to the ISA for many years and continue to support there work in Illinois. Do I get anything out of it? Well I do get the Bronzeback Bulletin which is a fine publication and I can keep in touch with the friends I made while living in Illinois. We have many members in Illinois and only a few actually participate in the programs presented by the ISA. That is not a problem as the money collected is for conservation and education and if that is what you want from the ISA you receive a thank you and the Bronzeback Bulletin. It is the dollars collected that help the Smallmouth not the number of active members. You don't join a Conservation Group to obtain anything from it but to support its work by your contribution. You can't have the St. Louis Chapter and the Southwest Missouri Chapter locking horns and fighting between themselves as that would do nothing but alienate the MDC and they would view the group as unprofessional and discount anything they said or proposed. It must be a Team effort on behave of all streams and rivers in the State of Missouri and not east vs west. The MSA can only be as strong as its members and a SWMO chapter would make it stronger. However, the conservation of streams must be such that all are included and not just those in any one particular section. It says Missouri Smallmouth Alliance not Eastern Missouri Smallmouth Alliance or Western Missouri Smallmouth Alliance. It must be all Missouri streams and Rivers. Strength will come with membership and also from dedication and showing that you are ready and willing as a group to do what you can and show your unity. Remember United we Stand and Divided we Fall!

[msamatt]

You can't have the St. Louis Chapter and the Southwest Missouri Chapter locking horns and fighting between themselves as that would do nothing but alienate the MDC and they would view the group as unprofessional and discount anything they said or proposed. It must be a Team effort on behave of all streams and rivers in the State of Missouri and not east vs west. The MSA can only be as strong as its members and a SWMO chapter would make it stronger. However, the conservation of streams must be such that all are included and not just those in any one particular section. It says Missouri Smallmouth Alliance not Eastern Missouri Smallmouth Alliance or Western Missouri Smallmouth Alliance. It must be all Missouri streams and Rivers. Strength will come with membership and also from dedication and showing that you are ready and willing as a group to do what you can and show your unity. Remember United we Stand and Divided we Fall!

Hey Gary:

I don't disagree with a single thing you write in your last post but I do want to clarify a few things

1. There is only one Missouri Smallmouth Alliance and we have been working to creating world class smallmouth fishing in Missouri since 1992 (We've been around longer than the ISA). We currently have members who live and fish throughout the entire state. While the majority of us do, in fact, live in the Metro St. Louis area that doesn't necessarily diminish our ability to work towards our mission. Do we want more members from throughout the state, sure.

2. While we've had a SWMO chapter in the past we don't have one now. I'm working to change that. 4.

3. Non MSA members have made most of the posts to this thread so please don't mistake some of the heated posts som sort of internal fractiousness within the MSA. Its not.

4. You seem like someone who should belong to the MSA, shoot me an e-mail (wierfish@yahoo.com).

[fishgypsy]

Matt, I do care about the western smallmouth streams in the Ozarks, and in my opinion, and I am sure that of others, these streams get the short end of the stick in Missouri. They are not the poster streams that you read about, but offer some darn fine smallmouth angling in their own right. About the protection of the western streams, the White Paper pretty much writes off the western streams in that there is a combination of black bass species in the streams, little enforcement, and the size is not on par with that of the eastern streams. I am sorry, the genetic makeup of those smallmouth make the fish in the western Ozarks unlikely to reach the magic 20" size that anglers judge the health of a fishery on in the east. The streams in the western Ozarks have a smaller following, but in my experience, offer an experience that trumps the eastern streams I have been on. I would like to see stretches of certain streams over here managed differently, as in an 18" length limit (meaning almost exclusive c&r) or a slot from 10-14.

I almost forgot, there are no bluffs here to add to the scenery as these streams are all spring creeks that have not cut through the rock over the millenia.

I should start off saying I'm not a member of MSA, but I think Drew's post really answers the question of why join. If smallmouth streams in the western part of the state are getting the shaft/ ignored by MDC, then perhaps you should organize a chapter and bring it to the agency's attention. Make them aware that there are people in the area (and outside the area) who are interested in protecting and enhancing those smallmouth fisheries. If you feel the Neosho smallmouth needs greater protection, tell them so. If you feel lead mining, CAFOs, and other potential vectors of environmental degradation need to be addressed, organize an MSA chapters and bring them to the attention of MDC and MODNR. Organize a group and make MDC aware you'd like to see more smallmouth fishing opportunities, and more SMAs, in that part of the state.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here, but it seems like a few of you guys want it both ways. You want protection of smallmouth bass fisheries, but take issue to protection of smallmouth bass fisheries in one part of the state instead of another. To me, that's not a productive mindset.

I haven't spent much time fishing the drainages around and west of Springfield- a couple tribs to Table Rock, James River, Finley and Flat Creeks, and Shoal Creek and some Spring River tribs over near Joplin. I've seen some pretty good fishing on those rivers, and I've seen a couple Neosho smallmouth, they're neat fish. I wouldn't feel at all bad about MDC working to enhance those fisheries, just like I don't feel bad when MDC works to enhance other fisheries which don't personally interest me- reservoir fisheries, for example, or paddlefish. It's all for a good cause, whether or not I'll personally see the results or derive specific, concrete benefits on my personal home waters.

So please, I implore you: start an MSA chapter in the western and southwestern part of the state. Work for conservation of those streams and those fisheries. Bring your issues to the attention of MDC biologists in the southwestern region. Hell, invite them to meetings gather their opinions of the local fisheries and their potential. In my mind, anything that's done to maintain, protect, and preserve the state's sport fisheries is time well spent, regardless of what part of the state it's spent in.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Matt, I do care about the western smallmouth streams in the Ozarks, and in my opinion, and I am sure that of others, these streams get the short end of the stick in Missouri.

There is simply no evidence to support this, none.

[ness]

Who are you quoting, Wayne?

You can't enjoy the game if you don't know who's playing.

[drew03cmc]

Ness, he is quoting me, however, I don't know which part he is saying there is no evidence of...if it is the part about MDC giving the west the shaft, well, read the White Paper again. Species diversity is a downfall? Hmm...

[ColdWaterFshr]

I've resisted chiming in here because I think many of the arguments are moot points. Especially the west side-east side one which is completely empty. And I glanced at the white paper, but like someone else said it seems "phoned in".

It seems to me that MO smallmouth bass, in streams anyway, are beyond the scope of MDC "management" in any sense of the word.

1) Way too many miles of streams to watch,

2) far too few of agents to patrol those many miles,

3) the reality is that SMB are lower on the popularity totem pole compared to other species - trout for instance or largemouth or crappie or walleye or white bass and so why would MDC devote much if anything to it, and they are relatively hearty anyway, and

4) how do you manage it EVEN IF everything is perfect?? I've heard Kevin Meneau talk about what a crapshoot a spawn can be. High water during a critical time can wipe out a year class. And given that MDC doesn't stock and cannot with any degree of success, stock smallmouth, how and what exactly are you managing?

If "management" means only putting up signposts declaring them to be a Smallmouth Management Areas, then whoop-tee-do! I'm not sure you're improving anything other than increasing the budget allocated to signs and thereby giving vandals more firewood or nice bright targets to shoot at.

I love smallmouth fishin in creeks and in that silly poll I voted for pure C & R reg change in all of the states streams, but the realist in me knows that probably wouldn't do much to improve anything in the short-term, at least not without better enforcement to go with it. I support the efforts of MSA and increasing AWARENESS of this important gamefish. They have their work cut out for them. End of the day . . . white papers are just papers, and whether you think MDC is to blame or is impeding progress . . . I just can't get behind either of those mules.

[eric1978]

I've resisted chiming in here because I think many of the arguments are moot points. Especially the west side-east side one which is completely empty. And I glanced at the white paper, but like someone else said it seems "phoned in".

It seems to me that MO smallmouth bass, in streams anyway, are beyond the scope of MDC "management" in any sense of the word.

1) Way too many miles of streams to watch,

2) far too few of agents to patrol those many miles,

3) the reality is that SMB are lower on the popularity totem pole compared to other species - trout for instance or largemouth or crappie or walleye or white bass and so why would MDC devote much if anything to it, and they are relatively hearty anyway, and

4) how do you manage it EVEN IF everything is perfect?? I've heard Kevin Meneau talk about what a crapshoot a spawn can be. High water during a critical time can wipe out a year class. And given that MDC doesn't stock and cannot with any degree of success, stock smallmouth, how and what exactly are you managing?

If "management" means only putting up signposts declaring them to be a Smallmouth Management Areas, then whoop-tee-do! I'm not sure you're improving anything other than increasing the budget allocated to signs and thereby giving vandals more firewood or nice bright targets to shoot at.

I love smallmouth fishin in creeks and in that silly poll I voted for pure C & R reg change in all of the states streams, but the realist in me knows that probably wouldn't do much to improve anything in the short-term, at least not without better enforcement to go with it. I support the efforts of MSA and increasing AWARENESS of this important gamefish. They have their work cut out for them. End of the day . . . white papers are just papers, and whether you think MDC is to blame or is impeding progress . . . I just can't get behind either of those mules.

All good points as usual from you CWF.

Now, let's just say that everything you just stated is true.

Which is better, tighter regulations, or nothing at all?

I agree.

[Gary Lange]

Nothing ever gets done overnight and it takes a lot of work to get anything done. In Illinois we got the DNR to change the regs so that during the Spawning period the Smallmouths in all Illinois Streams were catch and release only. We are getting some really nice fish out of the streams up that way with some 20" fish coming along with all other class sizes. I think it has improved the fishery in Illinois. It takes communication and working with the MDC to bring about change and the need to realize they are in charge and to change there way of thinking.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Ness, he is quoting me, however, I don't know which part he is saying there is no evidence of...if it is the part about MDC giving the west the shaft, well, read the White Paper again. Species diversity is a downfall? Hmm...

Drew if you have any clue at all about the topography of Missouri, south of the Missouri, you know that there are more miles of Smallie water east than west. The area is much shorter north and south on the west side than the east side. In spite of that the St Louis area only gains a couple of SMA'a more. The center SMA's are about the same distance and the southern ones very close. The truth is the eastern side could probably make a good argument that the area got shorted.

They should have an SMA on every stream, if for no other reason than to retain seed stock.

Laws are and always will be a deterrent, not a complete prevention. I don't see the reality in avoiding the the implementation of a regulation or law based on the ability to enforce it, not when it stands alone.