The Al And Gavin Smallmouth Management System

[eric1978]

But my two cents is that since brownie populations are not in decline, the current regulations on them must be working.

Do you have a link to the study that proves that?

No, they are not going extinct by any means. But the point of this is to make fisheries better, and tighter regulations would do that on most streams. You don't think so?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Nope. No link. That is most likely due to the fact, though, that there is not a study that has been done that shows them to be declining is this state. But if you do find one, I would be most interested in seeing it.

I am not a trophy hunter. I am a fisherman. I think the majority of those that toss a line in Missouri are just that. Fishermen.

If I catch a fish that is larger than normal, well, that is just a bonus. If I caught a 5 lb + brownie every time, it wouldn't be worth much in my book. There wouldn't be anything special about it. It would be like going to one those "Deer Ranches" and bagging a big buck they grew for you.

I look at the Map of Rivers and wonder if things could be made simpler by just saying no possession between March 1st and May 22nd for all Rivers and Streams East of the Mississippi River and South of the Missouri River or for all Missouri Rivers and Streams if the section North has some Smallmouths and could use some bolstering.

That is in effect the regs we have now. All of the best smallmouth waters are closed at this same time.

[Gary Lange]

It seems to me that I heard or read on OAF that Smallmouths used to be just down near the dam but now they have been found up the James River Arm. This being true would indicate they are expanding on Table Rock which means they could be expanding on the Missouri Streams also. I don't know this for sure but seems like I read it once on here.

[Wayne SW/MO]

It seems to me that I heard or read on OAF that Smallmouths used to be just down near the dam but now they have been found up the James River Arm. This being true would indicate they are expanding on Table Rock which means they could be expanding on the Missouri Streams also. I don't know this for sure but seems like I read it once on here.

There's a lot of water in TR between the dam and Campbell Point, reportedly the best smallmouth water. It also prime habitat for them. I suspect that because much of the stocking came from the James, Kings, Roaring River and Flat creek to name a few, they were slow in adapting to the lake. Time has probably now taken care of that.

I don't see the parallel however, they are probably in every stream that's friendly to them. The point is quality and while a 5# fish would probably be about as rare as frogs teeth, even 15" fish aren't as abundant as they should be in many waters. Some streams appear to be well populated, but loads of 10-12" fish don't equate to a quality fishery.

[Al Agnew]

I think Chief may be right that we've beaten this subject almost to death, but a few more words just because I'm so passionate about it...

Chief said that smallies in Ozark streams are doing just fine. That was true 10 years ago on many streams. It was true 25 years ago on some of the larger ones. It's still true on some. But in my experience, the fishing HAS declined in many of the streams I fish, and will continue to decline unless something is done about it. Now...that doesn't mean the decline is due entirely, or even in many cases significantly, to over-harvest of smallmouth. There are lots of problems from spotted bass to gravel mining to clearing trees along the riverbanks to droughts and floods to lead mine waste to too many poor quality septic systems, and other stuff besides. They all deserve attention. But if the fishing is declining, one thing that can be done to preserve as much as possible of what's left is to give smallies more protection. Will it make a huge difference? I don't know, but one thing the White Paper did was show that restrictive regs do have positive results.

Second, as I believe Wayne said, the goal is not necessarily to preserve smallmouth populations but to make fishing better by upping the average size of fish available to be caught, and increase the numbers of trophy fish. I don't expect any regulations to make the Ozarks a region where you can catch five pound smallmouth with regularity, but I do think the streams have the potential of producing twice as many 18 inch plus smallies as they do now...and I think a whole lot of anglers would be really happy if that was the case.

The question is, and I think sometime in the past we have discussed it a bit, what really are the limiting factors on the size of smallmouth in Ozark streams? If it's purely genetics, then more restrictive regs will help a bit but not much. If it's illegal gigging, restrictive regs won't help much at all. If it's simply a matter of fishing pressure--the more times a fish is caught, the more likely it is to die from being caught even if it's released--the regs won't do much at all. If nearly all anglers who regularly catch smallies already release them, the regs won't matter. If it's environmental factors--poor habitat and land use and pollution and gravel mining, etc. the regs won't amount to much.

When you put it that way, it sounds rather hopeless. We should be happy with what we have, and work on the REAL problems while accepting that we'll never have large numbers of big fish in the Ozarks.

But I believe that the management area studies show that it is possible, by regs alone, to improve the fishing. So harvest simply has to be a limiting factor. Not the only one, but a significant one.

We've been having a bit of correspondence with Spence Turner, the former biologist in charge of trout in MO and an avid smallmouth angler himself. His advice has always been to hang with the one fish 15 inch minimum and expand the management areas, because they've been proven to work and would be the easiest thing to sell to the powers that be at MDC. I suspect he's probably right. But sometimes I think you have to have some idealism along with the pragmatism. I really think smallies in small wading streams need more protection. I really think that with optimum regulations the larger streams can produce more big fish. And I believe that slot limits, while perhaps not easy to sell to MDC, would allow the meat fishermen to keep fish to eat while producing more big fish.

That's where I'm coming from.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I think if you were to scale down the scope of coverage it would stand a better chance of getting a positive review by the MDC. If you were to concentrate your more restrictive regs to, say, the Meramec, Gasconade, Niangua, and Big Piney, leaving out the tributaries, I wouldn't be near as opposed to this and I don't think most others would be either. Make it simple and just cover the whole river.

Al, I am not sure that the slot limits wouldn't be a good sell. They use the slot on most if not all of their lakes and strip pit areas and as stated, it would benefit the most.

That is where I am coming from.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I don't think it makes a lot of sense to allow 6 stream bass to be kept, but only 4 trout which don't rely at all on weather or riparian changes to survive. I don't like slots because I don't think most meat fishermen really understand the point in them. I think they do understand preserving a seed stock and most would support a cutoff point if its not to short. Four fish with only one between 14 and 17 with none over 17 shouldn't raise that much of a fuss, not if its sold right.

[timinmo]

I think this whole thread has left allot of dead horses in it's wake. So I guess I find myself in agreement with Chief. While we can make suggestions to MDC, they are the people that will institute any new rules and will have to try to enforce them. I would rather leave what works best up to the experts.

From my point of view, as an individual, I have several choices. First I can make my opinion known by contacting MDC and/or other state officials and agencies that I feel can improve things. Secondly I could join some organization that I feel represents my views, MSA being one, another might be the Conservation Federation of Missouri, which I think has the strongest voice in the state. Third, if I feel no existing organization represents my views I could start my own organization. As a last alternative I could keep beating horses to death on threads such as these, maybe accomplishing something maybe not.

Disagreement will not hurt my feelings, so feel free.

Tim

[eric1978]

I would rather leave what works best up to the experts.

Disagreement will not hurt my feelings, so feel free.

Tim

I think that might be a little naive, Tim. Kevin Meneau may be an expert in fisheries biology, but that doesn't necessarily mean that MDC will follow his suggestions for SMAs. They have many other factors they consider, several of which have nothing to do with the actual needs of the fishery. I'd like to hear what Kevin really thinks should be done with the SMA program, but I have a feeling that if he intends to keep his job, he will remain "unavailable for comment," other than the reports that have been run through the gamut of bureaucratic sausage-making that is state government.

We may be beating a dead horse, we may not be. But either way, this is a "forum" after all, and the point of it is to discuss relevant issues to angling in the Ozarks. I think this one fits the category. I go through periods of exhaustion with this topic, too, believe it or not, but I think it's a really important issue and worthy of continued debate.

[Gary Lange]

The main thing that we can do is make our voice be heard. If we say or do nothing then they figure that we could care less what they do and they will do nothing or do something that we don't like. Having a meeting with the MDC and voicing our views through a spokesman is the right thing to do. We could also draft a letter that everyone would agree on changes that we think will work and send it to the MDC for consideration.