The Al And Gavin Smallmouth Management System

[Gavin]

The argument that its too complex to implement doesnt hold...If youve ever fished for Trout in Michigan...They regulate their trout waters by county, and they have seven different color coded regulation structures. If other states with tiny conservation budgets can implement somthing like that MDC cetainly can. Frankly, I'm sick of MDC's condecending attitude about regulations. They aways site confusion as a reason for not changing anything. Thats an excuse not a reason...A few wont figure it out, but most will. Those that dont figure it out might get a ticket or a warning.......and I see nothing wrong with that. Cheers.

A peak at the Michigan trout regs.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_52261_52262-211883--,00.html

[Dan Kreher]

The argument that its too complex to implement doesnt hold...If youve ever fished for Trout in Michigan...They regulate their trout waters by county, and they have seven different color coded regulation structures. If other states with tiny conservation budgets can implement somthing like that MDC cetainly can. Frankly, I'm sick of MDC's condecending attitude about regulations. They aways site confusion as a reason for not changing anything. Thats an excuse not a reason...A few wont figure it out, but most will. Those that dont figure it out might get a ticket or a warning.......and I see nothing wrong with that. Cheers.

A peak at the Michigan trout regs.

http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10364_52261_52262-211883--,00.html

Gavin is correct that many other states have rather complicated fisheries regs in place, typically for coldwater species (trout/salmon), on their many of their best fisheries according to the research I've done. It is up to anglers to know what the rules are for the area they're fishing. I appreciate the concerns of enforcement personnel with the implementation of additional regs. But, I believe that a systems like the color coding under the Alvin plan would not be too difficult for anglers to understand with appropriate publicity, collateral materials and signage. The MO Smallmouth Alliance would devote substantial volunteer hours and financial resources, if necessary, to support the MDC in implementing this effort, I can definitely tell you that. Proposal #1 -- increase in MLL to 14" and creel limit of 3 fish statewide would be a relatively simple change to implement as it would apply to every stream section not otherwise under a special reg already -- and those areas are fairly well known. Certainly it would take some study and evaluation, but hopefully not a 17-year plan, to the determine which fisheries/stream reaches would be suited to the slot limits. The Yellow areas with huge numbers of spots have already been identified as Al has suggested.

So, we'd get immediate improvment in regs (and fishing over time) with proposal #1, additional SMB protection on those threatened fisheries via reg #4 and then #2 and #3 could be filtered in over time as biological evaluations are made. The concerns about a sharp reduction in SMB numbers for lengths just below the low end of the slot are surely valid. Setting the low end of the slot at 14" might hit the 12-13"ers pretty hard, but it would take biological research to determine that possibility.

In other states who have taken extensive angler surveys regarding what a keeper size SMB really is (see Tennessee SMB management plan located on Tennessee state wildlife website), they have found that most anglers think a 13-inch fish is big enough to eat/worth cleaning. Interestingly, Tennessee's modeling indicates that a 12" MLL is almost like having no minimum length limit at all since most folks wouldn't keep an 11" SMB to clean and eat. This only adds fuel to the argument that Missouri's 12" MLL is outdated and largely inneffective at protecting adult SMB from harvest so that they may repeatedly spawn and grow to larger sizes for anglers to enjoy catching in later years. You'll note that Tennessee's slot regs recently enacted on several of its top streams starts at 13" up to 17" -- so maybe they're believing it will have a similar effect to a 17" minimum (I'm just spit-balling here obviously).

Public meetings could certainly be held in Ozark SMB country to discuss the reasoning behind the suggested regs changes and to obtain angler input. Similar to what the MDC did on the newly enacted deer regs. I don't want to get into that discussion necesarily since the MDC did rankle many with seemingly heavy handed tactics in the view of some hunters, but the MDC did indeed take a leadership position here for the long-term betterment of the herd and hunting quality. I'd certainly welcome them to exhibit similar leadership when it comes to protection and improvement of wild, self-sustaining stream smallmouth fisheries.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Certainly it would take some study and evaluation,

Normally, but they just concluded a study of every smallmouth stream, the information should still be valid. The positive side of a 3 to 14 and 1 over 17 would be the reluctance by the biologist to "muddy" the water. The end result would probably mean that few streams would have exceptions. If we got that then maybe we could get some trophy areas, no fish over 14".

[Randall]

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 understand that but when you consider the effort being put into bouncing ideas around and examining the effects of these proposed regulations on smallmouth populations, you would be well served to keep MDC's likely position in mind. If they won't go for it, it's all for naught. I'll again suggest looking at other states with regulations similar to those you want here and figuring out why they exist as they are. This approach will benefit you in two ways: 1) the supporting documents will answer some of your "scientific" questions or provide insight to help find those answers; and 2) it will allow you to see what the other states are doing and the successes and failures of those programs. Dan's post had a pretty good example of prong 1 and Gavin's last post was a good example of the second prong.

[fishgypsy]

I didn't want you guys to get the impression I'm advocating the position of the agents- far from it. I believe ignorance is no excuse to break regulations, and I've never had a problem figuring out regs for various stream sections. If I did, I wouldn't fish those stream sections, or pick an MDC official's brain about those regs. I'm just saying the mindset of "we don't want to over-complicate fishing regs for enforcement reasons," is likely a position which would need to be tackled if you're interested in changing smallmouth bass regulations.

I like the idea of public meetings to help form some ideas regarding smallmouth bass regulation, but I think there could be a lot of tension (as there always seems to be), between locals and outsiders regarding stream management. To me it's a moot point- waters of the state belong to everyone, so I think everyone should have a say, even if I personally disagree with them. But in much of the Ozarks you get the sentiment that stream management should be left up to locals.

I wonder if you could do a study to determine what the economic impact of more restrictive smallmouth regs would be on the Ozarks. Personally, I tend to fish the SMAs over non-regulated waters, simply because it seems more likely I'll catch quality fish in the managed reaches. This means I spend more of my dollars around the Meramec, Big Piney, and Jacks Fork watersheds. Much of the Ozarks is fairly economically depressed, and I think if there were numbers to show how canoe liveries, campgrounds, hotels/motels/cabins, restaurants, guide services, tackle stores, etc benefitted by quality smallmouth bass management, I think it'd be an excellent tool in the arsenal.

I couldn't tell you how to go about doing it though, I'm terrible at math.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I wonder if you could do a study to determine what the economic impact of more restrictive smallmouth regs would be on the Ozarks.

I don't think it would be wise to try and play an economic card What is viable is the fact that they are a native fish in a particular niche, and because of that fact alone deserve special attention.

[fishgypsy]

I don't think it would be wise to try and play an economic card What is viable is the fact that they are a native fish in a particular niche, and because of that fact alone deserve special attention.

It's just a thought. In most instances, it doesn't seem as though smallies are threatened with extirpation, I just think the existing fisheries could be better managed for more quality-sized fish.

- I just think a group including landowners and businesses who would stand to benefit from better management of smallmouth resources would potentially be a more powerful lobby than one made up only of anglers.

[eric1978]

I'm gonna try to nudge this thread back towards where I had originally intended it go.

I'd like to see the entire Meramec System under the Yellow Ribbon regulations because of the spots. However, I could live with the Huzzah and Courtois being under the Red Ribbon regs. I could also live with the Meramec above MSP under a Blue or Red Ribbon...but for simplification...the whole Meramec goes Yellow, along with all of the Bourbeuse and Big Rivers.

I'd like to see Jack's Fork under Red, which would actually be a decrease in regulation, and I'd like to see the Current under Blue because I think that river has the potential to be a trophy smallmouth river.

[ozark trout fisher]

I'm gonna try to nudge this thread back towards where I had originally intended it go.

I'd like to see the entire Meramec System under the Yellow Ribbon regulations because of the spots. However, I could live with the Huzzah and Courtois being under the Red Ribbon regs. I could also live with the Meramec above MSP under a Blue or Red Ribbon...but for simplification...the whole Meramec goes Yellow, along with all of the Bourbeuse and Big Rivers.

I'd like to see Jack's Fork under Red, which would actually be a decrease in regulation, and I'd like to see the Current under Blue because I think that river has the potential to be a trophy smallmouth river.

I agree with you on all but one point.. I really think the Current River especially is in need of at least two separate regulation zones. I think the Akers to Two Rivers stretch should be managed under White Ribbon regs... That's fairly small water, and I think it has more potential as a "numbers" fishery than a trophy fishery. But from Two Rivers down to the state line, I think it would be an excellent candidate for Blue Ribbon regs. That's big water, and it seems like the kind of habitat that should produce really big smallmouth. That section is really not living up to its potential now.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I understand where you're coming from gypsy, but in the case of the stream smallmouth I don't think the resource is large enough, nor will it ever be. I just wouldn't want economics to be a consideration because I don't think its there.