The Al And Gavin Smallmouth Management System

[eric1978]

The ribbon idea has merit because some anglers have been exposed to it through the trout program, but when we're talking about the number of streams that have smallmouth throughout the Ozarks, it's unworkable to put them all on a ribbon system. When you look at all the little creeks in Tryon's book, it would be a little ridiculous to even try to come up with a list of white ribbon streams.

I kind of figured we could eliminate the White Ribbon category, and simply make that the state-wide regulation for smallmouth. 3 fish, 14 inches or longer. That change should have been made long ago. Now we're left with only three Ribbon designations, which helps simplify things a tad more. Any of those little streams and creeks in Tyron's book would then just fall under the state-wide limits, and be slightly more protected, even though between the relatively light pressure those streams get and the fact that many of the locals will be ignoring the regulations anyway, the new regs wouldn't be all that productive, in my opinion.

Eric's idea of designating whole rivers as one ribbon or another somewhat negates the whole concept. While it would certainly keep things simple and would work for many streams, the larger rivers have different characteristics in different sections, and need to be managed differently.

While I agree with this entirely, and I realize I said I'd like to see MDC considerations left out of this thread, I suppose I just can't completely ignore the fact that this whole idea and discussion is totally irrelevant if it's not close to something MDC might possibly even consider. In a perfect world, I would also like to see sections of rivers designated according to their specifics needs. But I just don't see MDC EVER adopting a system that's so complex. If an angler is on a float from Hwy V on the Huzzah, which is designated a Red Ribbon area, and catches and keeps a legal 19 inch fish, and then he floats down through the confluence to Onandaga, which is under Blue Ribbon regulations, he is now in illegal possession of that fish. To anyone who isn't a hard-core angler who really knows and understands what the regulations are and where they begin and end, I'd say that's way too confusing, and frankly a bit unfair.

So in short, while yes, I agree that some rivers should be broken into separate regulation areas, I just don't think it would be a goal worth pursuing, because of its practical impossibility of ever being realized. But I'm all for shooting for the stars, so let's keep talking.

[Al Agnew]

Eric, I agree with your assessment of what's possible and what isn't. But on the designation of different stretches under different regs, that's exactly what we have now under the SMAs. Put in at Mason Bridge on the Big Piney and you can keep 6 12 inch smallies, but if you're doing a two or three day float down to Ross Bridge, you'll be illegal halfway through the float when you get to the SMA. I wouldn't want a whole bunch of different "ribbon" stretches on any one stream, but dividing the whole stream into a couple (or three on a river the length of the Gasconade) regs areas is not unreasonable, I don't think. The key is to make each regs area a lengthy stretch, and not something like "this 5 mile stretch is red, the next 4 mile stretch is blue, the next 7 mile stretch is statewide", etc.

[creek wader]

I've been reading posts on several of the threads about smallie regs. Since most of you guys have a clearer understanding about smallies and what would be best for future smallie management than I. I figured I'd just keep reading the posts and I'd stay out of it. ..

But, one thing that Al stated, caught my eye. "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."

I'd like to see the Lower Osage and it's tribs. included in that. If nothing else. Just no limits on spotted bass on the Lower Osage and it's tribs.

I almost exclusively fish the Lower Osage and it's trib's. I feel that I might have a small insight into the smallie situation, on these streams. I exclusively catch and release, and would like to see everyone do this. I am a realist and understand as long as people obey the laws, it's thier right to keep the smallies. But, as I've stated many times over and over, I would like to see the regs. on the spots lessened. Most spots run 12"<. So, legaly, I can not keep any. The sole reason that I would keep the spots, would be to help control the population.

that's my 2 cents, ....wader

[RSBreth]

I still stand by the idea of tags for big Smallmouth like you get for Deer. So you get your choice of a couple of fish to keep each year, and that's it. Of course, it's a radical view, so not likely to get anywhere. I will compromise with the just slightly more restrictive limit ideas put forth here, I guess, if nothing else as a first step towards my goal.

[KCRIVERRAT]

I've been reading posts on several of the threads about smallie regs. Since most of you guys have a clearer understanding about smallies and what would be best for future smallie management than I. I figured I'd just keep reading the posts and I'd stay out of it. ..

But, one thing that Al stated, caught my eye. "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."

I'd like to see the Lower Osage and it's tribs. included in that. If nothing else. Just no limits on spotted bass on the Lower Osage and it's tribs.

I almost exclusively fish the Lower Osage and it's trib's. I feel that I might have a small insight into the smallie situation, on these streams. I exclusively catch and release, and would like to see everyone do this. I am a realist and understand as long as people obey the laws, it's thier right to keep the smallies. But, as I've stated many times over and over, I would like to see the regs. on the spots lessened. Most spots run 12"<. So, legaly, I can not keep any. The sole reason that I would keep the spots, would be to help control the population.

that's my 2 cents, ....wader

That's a good idea Wader, especially for people who like to eat bass (meaning spots). I am not big on eating freshwater bass. Better tasting stuff within' our state, whether it be fish or game. Any bass I catch of legal size in the state of Missouri, whether it be a smallmouth, largemouth, or spots, goes back in the drink.

Wader... you got a state or government job keeping you on those honeyholes?

KC

[eric1978]

Eric, I agree with your assessment of what's possible and what isn't. But on the designation of different stretches under different regs, that's exactly what we have now under the SMAs. Put in at Mason Bridge on the Big Piney and you can keep 6 12 inch smallies, but if you're doing a two or three day float down to Ross Bridge, you'll be illegal halfway through the float when you get to the SMA. I wouldn't want a whole bunch of different "ribbon" stretches on any one stream, but dividing the whole stream into a couple (or three on a river the length of the Gasconade) regs areas is not unreasonable, I don't think. The key is to make each regs area a lengthy stretch, and not something like "this 5 mile stretch is red, the next 4 mile stretch is blue, the next 7 mile stretch is statewide", etc.

I'm right there with ya Al, and you know I'm all for doing what's best for each river for the river's sake, based on scientific data. And you're right, I suppose we already do have the situation with segmented regulations on certain streams, where you could be legal one minute, and the next minute you're not.

My only point is that, if this whole debate is about devoloping some kind of legitimate and reasonable management plan to submit to MDC for consideration, I think it has to be simple enough for them to take a second look at it. I may be naive to think that all of this discussion could lead to anything, so call me naive. But I enjoy discussing it, so I'll continue to do so whether it bears fruit or not. Given that commitment, what I would eventually like to see is as many opinions as possible ultimately sculpted into a viable smallmouth management system and that idea be presented to MDC.

I hear so much talk about how they won't do this or won't do that because X set of regulations is too complicated or too difficult to enforce, so I guess I'm a little gunshy about making any of this hypothetical program more involved than it has to be. Again, I would like every mile of Ozark streams evaluated and regulated accordingly, but that just won't happen. Deciding where the line of "too complicated for consideration" is drawn, I have no idea, but I'm guessing that 3 distinct SMAs with different sets of regulations already gets us close to that line. I personally would rather see a greater number of streams under some decent regulations than a few streams under the perfect regulations, so if dumbing down the rules is what it takes to get something done, I say that's the way to go. Again, if I had it my way, it would be a confusing mess, because there would be so many rules you wouldn't be able to keep track of them all...C&R here, slot limit there, can't touch these fish, gotta keep those fish, etc.

Whatever you guys think is viable, I'm fully behind. I just think the simpler, the better, at least in terms of practical purposes. Any idea for an SMA that remains in someone's back pocket is a worthless idea. It has to be implemented to be useful, and it has to sound reasonable to MDC to be implemented. A system of regulations so involved it would make your head spin sounds pretty good to me, but I'm definitely in the minority on that front.

I had a poker game at my house last Saturday, and had some buddies over that don't really do much fishing, although a few of them do a little. (One goes to Taney quite a bit and C&R to him is as foreign as Constantinople.) I told them about the conversations we've been having here about smallmouth regulations, and most of them just looked at me like I was nuts. I think someone said, "Why the hell do you care about that?" They just couldn't wrap their heads around why it would be important to regulate the harvest of a species of fish. I think most people are just like that...indifferent. Some fish, some don't. Some keep fish, some don't. I think any set of new regs would have to be relatively easy for MDC to explain to the regular guy who fishes only a couple of times a year.

[Gary Lange]

Eric, You need to find out something that they like and do often. Like Golf or whatever and talk to them about regulating it and requiring permits and only play once a month.

People that do not fish sometimes are the very people that vote or put the big stink on about these things. They have property that borders the river and they think they own it and everything in it. These regulations should be put to people that actually fish. Then still we have a lot of people that just fish for whatever they catch and think they can take anything and everything home. We turned in a guy in Illinois that had a cooler of water in his trunk and he would catch fish and take them to the cooler and put them in it then go back and fish some more and do the same he was way over the limit and most were to small to begin with and his fine was pretty hefty. I don't see many meat fisherman like there used to be but am sure they are still out there. Just like the guy driving the road and shooting the mechanical deer.

[creek wader]

KCRriverRat, "Wader... you got a state or government job keeping you on those honeyholes?",

No, I'm a RR engineer. My run is from KC to Jeff and back several times a week. I lay over in Jeff. from 10 to 20 hrs. depending. So, I make the most of it.

[KCRIVERRAT]

KCRriverRat, "Wader... you got a state or government job keeping you on those honeyholes?",

No, I'm a RR engineer. My run is from KC to Jeff and back several times a week. I lay over in Jeff. from 10 to 20 hrs. depending. So, I make the most of it.

I see... I'd bet you and Chief Greybear could have some great conversations concerning the railroad.

KC

[Gary Lange]

The Railroad been very, very good to me! Spent 36 years with the BNSF with the last 27 as a Senior Special Agent in Chicago.