The Al And Gavin Smallmouth Management System

[eric1978]

I thought these suggestions were the best (perhaps only) so far in terms of ideas for state-wide protection for smallmouth. This system for regulations offers a type of management for any stream in Missouri, and is versatile enough to be used appropriately according to the needs of each individual stream, yet is simple enough to be easily understood by even the most casual angler.

Since it's the only real "plan" I've seen thus far, I thought it would be good to knock around ideas concerning such a plan, and get all your thoughts on it. We have to galvanize behind some kind of idea, so why not start here.

On this thread, how about leaving out comments about lack of enforcement, how pushing for regulations is a waste of energy, etc. Start another thread if you want to rain on the parade.

I'd like to hear opinions on how these regulations could be tweaked, and which "Ribbon" you guys think would be best suited for your favorite and most familiar waters.

Here's what they came up with:

1. Change the statewide limits to 3 fish, 14 inch minimum. This will serve to better protect the smallie populations on all the small, wading-size, fragile streams where it doesn't take a whole lot of harvest to really affect the population.

2. Then, make a lot of "exceptions" to the statewide regs. On streams that have been shown to have a possible problem with too many fish for the food base (slower growth rates, poor size structure) go with a slot limit of 12-18 inches, with 5 fish under the slot, one over. There ARE such streams, and if they have that problem, some fish do need to be harvested. But rather than trying to add all the small wading streams to the exceptions, an impossible task, you add the relatively few somewhat larger streams to the exceptions. Then, monitor these streams pretty closely to see if the new "old" regs are working as designed to improve size structure and growth rates. The slot may be have to be tinkered with.

3. On the streams that have better potential for growing big fish, especially the larger streams, go with a 14-20 inch slot with 3 fish under the slot, one over.

4. On the lower Gasconade, Meramec below Meramec Caverns, all of Big River and all of the Bourbeuse, complete protection of smallmouth, and no limits on spotted bass. On the rest of the streams within the Meramec and Gasconade river systems, no limits on spotted bass.

The biggest problems I see with such a regulatory scheme is in identifying the streams that need more "liberal" limits, and educating anglers on the relative complexity of the regs.

In other words, though, I'm advocating scrapping the current limits on SMAs entirely. Although they work to an extent, I think the slot limit idea would work better. And other than the special exceptions to deal with spotted bass in those two river systems, I'd go ahead and make the rules apply to ALL black bass, not just smallmouth, which would solve some of the perceived identity problems. Also, given the slower growth potential of Neosho strain smallies in SW MO streams, I'd consider making the slot limit on most of them 12-16 inches.

So basically you'd have three classes of regulations, based upon characteristics of the streams, and forget about making just a few stretches special management areas while ignoring other stretches. I think this would really be more science-based, no political crap about whether or not you have regulatory support, whether or not there are already too many "special" stream stretches in one region, etc. If we're really going to manage the streams for optimum fishing opportunities, then we should make decisions on them based solely on their fisheries and fishery potential.

Consider the Current River system. Here's how it would work. All the small, wading size tributaries are under regulation one. The Jacks Fork, which has about as many and perhaps more smallies than it needs to have, and the Current between Round Spring and Two Rivers, are under regulation two. The Current downstream, which has more fishing pressure (big, easily jetboatable) and has potential for growing big fish, gets regulation three.

I like the way you think Al....maybe set up some color codes so they can put out a map like many states do for trout.

Blue Ribbon-14-20 inch slot with 3 fish under the slot, one over

Red Ribbon- slot limit of 12-18 inches, with 5 fish under the slot, one over

White or Green Ribbon-3 fish, 14 inch minimum

Spotted Bass Impared Waters(Yellow Ribbon)-Catch & Release for Smallmouth, no limit on spotted bass.

[fishgypsy]

I've heard complaints from MDC agents in the past about the number and variety of different fisheries regulations on many Missouri streams. Some want to slim down the Wildlife Code in hopes of reducing angler confusion about regs on various streams.

So I suppose I'm still thinking it over. I personally believe the color-coded (or otherwise specially designated) system would be the greatest benefit to stream fisheries, and be able to best optimize fisheries over the range of different stream settings. But I think, practically, it may be more efficient to try to change smallmouth bass regs statewide, over all Ozark streams, so as not to add a ton more regs to the Code.

[eric1978]

They use the Ribbon areas for trout, so I don't see why they couldn't do it for smallmouth.

I don't think it would be practical to break single streams into more than one color. I would think the easiest way to implement it would be to make an entire stream the same color, both for enforcement convenience and to make it easier for people to understand. I don't really get why MDC is worried about slightly more involved regulations. It's their job to know them and they are easy to learn in five minutes. I've always thought certain regulations should be printed on fishing licenses, and that would be a simple way to convey the basic rules of each Ribbon area.

[ozark trout fisher]

I thought these suggestions were the best (perhaps only) so far in terms of ideas for state-wide protection for smallmouth. This system for regulations offers a type of management for any stream in Missouri, and is versatile enough to be used appropriately according to the needs of each individual stream, yet is simple enough to be easily understood by even the most casual angler.

Since it's the only real "plan" I've seen thus far, I thought it would be good to knock around ideas concerning such a plan, and get all your thoughts on it. We have to galvanize behind some kind of idea, so why not start here.

On this thread, how about leaving out comments about lack of enforcement, how pushing for regulations is a waste of energy, etc. Start another thread if you want to rain on the parade.

I'd like to hear opinions on how these regulations could be tweaked, and which "Ribbon" you guys think would be best suited for your favorite and most familiar waters.

Here's what they came up with:

I think that the ribbon system would make since to most anyone, and it sounds like the best plan anyone has thought of. I do have one question. What effect on the overall numbers of bass would there be if a slot limit was put in place as opposed to the current length limit? I would assume numbers would go down, while the size structure would improve in those streams. Is that an accurate assertion? I am more than willing to sacrifice some 10 inchers for more quality fish. I'm just curious. Another difficulty with the plan would be classifying every single smallmouth stream in the state of Missouri as one "ribbon color" or another. There are hundreds of streams in the state with smallmouth populations, and it would take a very long time to analyze (or collect) the necessary data to categorize them. I think it's a very worthwhile effort, but I'm just trying to be practical about it.

But I do want to make it clear that if you all think this is the correct plan, and believe it can work, I will whole-heartedly support it.

[KCRIVERRAT]

Catch and release Smallmouth man... C'MON!

That's it... my little rant.

[Randall]

Given the fact that I know nothing about smallmouth, I'm going to forego any input regarding what the regs would do for the populations. My concern is that MDC would resist, arguing that it would take substantial amounts of time and money to implement the regulations as described. The "ribbon" system of regulations in place on trout waters covers a much smaller area than the same system of regulations aimed at smallmouth management would. Determining which rivers and streams require which regulations would be the first task and would require empirical studies of growth rates and population density as well as other factors such as competing populations of both game and non-game species of fish. Assuming all that data is available, it must be analyzed and a plan for regulating the different streams must be drawn up. Assuming the plan is feasible, MDC must implement it. That means not only rewriting the provisions in the CSR, but posting signs similar to those on the trout streams and stepping up enforcement for a while to get the word out. The somewhat complex system of regulation would require educating the MDC agents and the general public through various publications and seminars. Again, a substantial amount of time and money would have to go into this project.

A possibility for overcoming that argument would be to look to other states that have regulations similar to those proposed and find out what it took to implement them and why they exist as they are. I would be willing to bet that states that have the best smallmouth fishing have the best regulations. Look at their laws and if they're on point, find any reports that were written regarding the regs and then try to figure out if the research and conclusions in those reports are applicable to Missouri. That in itself will be a lot of work.

[eric1978]

My concern is that MDC would resist, arguing that it would take substantial amounts of time and money to implement the regulations as described. The "ribbon" system of regulations in place on trout waters covers a much smaller area than the same system of regulations aimed at smallmouth management would. Determining which rivers and streams require which regulations would be the first task and would require empirical studies of growth rates and population density as well as other factors such as competing populations of both game and non-game species of fish. Assuming all that data is available, it must be analyzed and a plan for regulating the different streams must be drawn up.

Right now I'm not really interested in what MDC may or may not be willing to do in regard to this idea. My only interest right now is what it would do to smallmouth numbers and sizes in a purely scientific sense. I know it's a shot in the dark, but everything starts with an idea.

The White Paper in itself provides enough data to establish a rough idea of what Ribbons would likely be appropriate for many streams that were studied. Studies will continue to be made by MDC, and they could change and modify regulations as they see fit as they collected more data.

The trout ribbon areas do not cover the length of entire streams, but they could...all they'd have to do is say so. It just isn't relevant if the fish don't populate the entire stream. In the case of smallmouth, usually they do, so a designated area from headwater to confluence would usually be desirable.

[MoJohn]

Trying to keep this short and to the point, I like the ideas put foward so far. As for the ribbon system I think if it could be close to that of the trout one it would lower confusion for the many of us who love to trout and smallie fish. If its one fish over X" only make it Blue Ribbon much like the trout areas. Might take a little work but anglers would be use to the basic principal already from years of trout areas. This might make a transition a little easier.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I would like to see something like 1# and then work from there. I see know reason why every stream can't have a SMA to retain a strong seed stock. The area could be bordered by private land and controlled by someone sympathetic to the cause.

I would be a lot happier with a White Paper defending exceptions to the regulations on some streams. We've had special regulations concerning spring fishing for as long as I can remember. I know they aren't always adhered to, but they help and there is always a chance that a violator will learn the error of his ways.

[Gary Lange]

Eric, these are great ideas and would be interesting to see how they would work if the MDC would pick up on them and implement them. There is no real way to determine if they are going to work or not until a sufficient time has been given them to actually show improvement or not. I suppose you could work up some mathematical program base on the numbers of anglers on a stream and and get some idea of that or a math program that eliminates 50% of the Smallmouths in a specific group or size class but those are all theory and may or may not be correct.