Sell Me On The M S A Matt.

[timinmo]

I wonder about several parts of our discussion. Whether MDC has done everything they can to improve smallmouth fishing or not, they have put forth the effort of instituting some SMA. We could argue for more or different locations. They also put out the White Paper, like it or not. It seems to me both of these show a willingness on the part of MDC to try to improve smallmouth fishing. What can we do to improve the same? Apparently the SMA have improved the fishing where they were instituted, whether they have the staff to patrol and enforce the rules or not so why are we arguing about more staff? As far as no interest on their part, it seems to me the SMA and the White Paper shows interest on their part.

I am surprised to see the animosity of some to a group that happens to be located in St. Louis. I'm sure the MSA never intended to slight the SWMO area it is just not where they are located. I think we are all after the same thing, whatever part of the state you live. I for one would love to fish some of the SWMO streams but I would have to drive over a lot of good water to get there. Given an extra hour of drive time or an extra hour of fishing I think we would all chose the fishing. Do I want better fishing in eastern Mo at the expense of SWMO? Of course not, I wish it was better everywhere. I just think we would have a stronger voice if we all joined together. Look at what Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, NWTF, and any number of other organizations have done. Not by fighting with the conservation organizations but by working with them to improve the lot of their chosen cause.

I really admire the energy and enthusiasm that many on this site show whether I agree with every view or not. The discussion and dialogue are important. There have been several points brought up that I have never thought of and I for one value most of what is has been presented.

Tim

[Dan Kreher]

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.

I hate to speculate on why there seems to be much more emphasis by the MDC on special SMB management areas in the Eastern Ozarks than in the West, but I believe that this condition is a reflection of the somewhat decentralized approach that the MDC took with respect to the White Paper. Selection of stream sections to study and their evaluation was led by the various MDC field office biologists located throughout the Ozarks. Seemingly, those bioglogists with a greater interest in SMB stream fisheries were more inclined to get behind the initiative. While those that may be more concerned with other species management or impoundments, perhaps failed to drive these evaluations as hard. I'm not trying to insinuate that the MDC didn't put forth a solid effort here, I'm just saying that the management program might reflect some inherent biases that were completely unintended.

The overall SMB program was led by Kevin Meneau a very well-respected fisheries biologist whose office was in the St. Louis area during the period of the studies/evaluation. Kevin's primary water was the environmentally threatened and increasingly spotted bass populated Big River -- one of the three original SSMBMAs instituted back in 1992. First came the 15"/1 fish section Mammoth Bridge to Browns Ford (10 miles or so), then came the liberalization of the spotted bass regs throughout the Meramec Basin and later the expansion of the 15/1 regs to the entire Big River. A major tirbutary, Mineral Fork, also received more restictive regs. Kevin was very concerned with protecting/improving this historically strong SMB fishery and the level of protection it has received definitely reflects that. And, interestingly, Kevin is also an avid SMB fisherman.

I cannot comment on the background/interests of other MDC fisheries biologists involved in the program, but I would doubt that few of them are any more committed to SMB conservation than is Kevin Meneau. I also recall that a former MDC Chief of Fisheries several years back, wasn't even a fisherman . . . but that's another story.

Based upon the relatively successful results of the White Paper effort, MSA's Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel will strongly express its desire for a much more centralized and yet encompassing approach to stream SMB management in the state going forward. Curiously, the MDC always cautioned MSA not to call the White Paper a "management plan" while these evaluations were taking place. Perhaps that was a academic distinction, I don't know. Well, whatever they considered it, the MDC has largely proven that the science behind the regs works to provide better SMB fishing. It is now time for them to formulate an actual plan to manage our native SMB stream fisheries for the benefit of current and future generations of sportsmen. Al Agnew's/Gavin's multi-faceted proposal posted elsewhere on this forum is pretty meaty food for thought.

As far as emphasis on the Neosho strain of SMB is concerned, I too suggest that concerned anglers bring this issue to the attention of the MDC in an organized fashion. I invite folks interested in the protection of this subspecies from overharvest in SW MO streams open up a dialog with Matt Wier of the MSA who frequently posts on this board and get that issue on the table. Certainly an article highlighting this fish and its fisheries could be presented in MSA's bi-monthlhy newsletter which is read by fisheries department folks at the MDC and on its website. The MSA could also include this topic on its discussion agenda with the MDC under its Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel initiative. I also wouldn't hesitate to contact local outdoor writers in the Springfield/Joplin area to see if an article could be published there to both highlight this regionally unique SMB and the desirability of increased protection through restricted harvest. I believe this issue might get some attention if folks cause a large enough stir.

[KCRIVERRAT]

Just asking, but is there really an over harvest of the Neosho strain? There are a lot of streams in SW Missouri that harbor this strain that I believe aren't overfished. If I'm questioned about this, I'll go back to my sources...

[fishgypsy]

Just asking, but is there really an over harvest of the Neosho strain? There are a lot of streams in SW Missouri that harbor this strain that I believe aren't overfished. If I'm questioned about this, I'll go back to my sources...

I'm not sure. I've read there's been some genetic pollution of the Neosho strain in some streams where it's native. Non-Neosho strain smallies have been stocked in some of those streams in the past, leading to dilution of the Neosho's unique genetic identity in places.

[Gary Lange]

Interesting observation after looking over the MSA web site. I see a lot of words but I see no means with which the membership can communicate with each other or get together for outings or even to discuss fishing or pass along fishing reports. I am curious as to how the membership get acquainted with each other. Is there another web site that they use to keep abreast of what is happening.

[timinmo]

Gary

There is no doubt that the MSA web site could be better. It has certainly been discussed. As to how we communicate, we have a printed roster with everyone's phone number and e-mail where available. Many times trips are planned at monthly meetings but the web site could be improved. When the main source of labor is volunteer help things are

limited.

Tim

[Gary Lange]

I understand now! Yes the site could use some work. It needs a Forum and something that shows what has been accomplished by the MSA and what events are coming up. It might just happen that someone interested in Smallmouths would be interested in attending one of the Clean-ups or other things you do. Do you set up a booth at any of the Sports/Fishing/Boat Shows to attract prospective members. Those were some of the things that I did in the past with the other group and it was very nice indeed.

I did attend a fund raiser in Arthur, Mo. in I believe it was 2004 and it just so happened that the guest speaker was John Graham from my organization. It was nice to see him again and he is a dynamic speaker.

How do you promote the MSA to other fisherman or persons interested in just promoting environmental awareness.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Without any knowledge of cost or the time involved for a webmaster, I would think that a forum, dedicated strictly to the MSA and Missouri stream smallmouth, could have far reaching positive affects.

[eric1978]

Without any knowledge of cost or the time involved for a webmaster, I would think that a forum, dedicated strictly to the MSA and Missouri stream smallmouth, could have far reaching positive affects.

Agreed! I think a more comprehensive website would be a great tool for gaining more membership. I've considered joining several times, but when I'd go to the website to check what they've been up to, the lack of info kind of stunted my motivation. Having a forum at the MSA website I think is a great idea. MSA members could post on current issues and upcoming events, and visitors could read everything, and I think it would be a great way to pique people's interest who are somewhat inclined to join.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Can anybody from the MSA explain why all the perceived secrecy on the site? I would surely think that the ogranization would like for prospective members to be able to read the newsletter to get an idea about what is goin on. With that and how president Matt answered about the membership, just makes one wonder. It is almost like if too much info gets out they will loose their Secret Society Tax Status.