Ok Now What?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Lets say you have your new regs imposed upon every waterway in the state. Now what?

Is this where you stop? Are you guys that are so passionate about imposing greater restrictions upon everyone else going to use this same passion to continue your mission work?

Are you going to work on other avenues of smallmouth protection while you wait on the MDC to accept or deny your regulation proposal?

[ozark trout fisher]

Lets say you have your new regs imposed upon every waterway in the state. Now what?

Is this where you stop? Are you guys that are so passionate about imposing greater restrictions upon everone else going to use this same passion to continue your mission work?

Tell me... It kinda sounds like based on the tone of your question, you don't think regulations changes in any case are right, even if necessary. Hell, way back whenever that put a 12" minimum and a daily limit of 6 on bass in this state, I'm sure there were people moaning that the MDC was pushing restrictive regs forced on everyone else. I personally have no want to make anything harder for any other fisherman, but I do see, at least in the streams in this part of the state, that some streams are simply receiving more harvest than they can handle, and if we expect to have quality fishing in the years to come, we need to cut back on the number of fish harvested. Some laws are necessary. It just baffles me, as I know your as conservation minded as any fisherman on this board, that you are totally opposed to any new regulations on bass. You can't tell me that some streams wouldn't benefit. Would you be opposed to some more SMAs on selected streams, or is it just the statewide nature of this that rubs you the wrong way? I understand that a fisherman in Southwest MO doesn't want regs pushed on them from a group of anglers in the St. Louis area. But if that's the case, can we please put the regional aspect of this down for a bit? I know all of us want better smallmouth fishing, so it's not like we have polar opposite goals here.

[Gary Lange]

Streams would benefit from tougher regulations if they can be enforced. The regs are worthless if they are not enforceable and that takes work from everyone.

[denjac]

I think if you just post some signs like this the problem would go away. No enforcement required.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I am not looking to further the debate on the regs, I want to know what happens next.

Are you guy's going to take it to the next level? Or just sit back and say "Well we tried." or "Yahoo! We gott'er done!"?

Are you going to do anything else?

[Gary Lange]

If the regs did get changed then you could wait a while and see how they are going to work. If you take it one stream at a time then go on to another stream or river and do some studies and look at that. It is always a possibility for you to do your own studies in a limited capacity to get an idea of what size Smallies are in a body of water or is other species exist such as Spots. You work with MDC and assist them as we all know they can't do it all.

[Gavin]

Things will move forward...Missouri Smallmouth Alliance already has something going with their "Blue Ribbon Panel"...so I'm gonna send them a check and see what they come up with...When the time comes I'll write some letters in support of what I like...as will other people.

[eric1978]

To answer your question Chief, if I saw that a substantial change in regulations was made, and I felt satisfied that it was the best MDC could do, I would probably begin to pay closer attention to habitat degradation and begin looking into what I could do to make any difference in that arena. Regulations just seem to be the most likely aspect of conservation in which a little peon like me may have a chance to affect some change. I also think it would also be the easiest change to make, since there aren't as many big-money interests pushing back against it, in comparison to something like habitat issues.

[Al Agnew]

Chief, I know exactly what you're saying, and it's a very good point. As difficult as it may be to get MDC to re-examine the regulations on smallmouth harvest, that's a low-hanging fruit compared to tackling some of the very real problems the streams face. Development, horrible land use practices, non-point source pollution, gravel mining, CAFOs, and probably some other things I'm not mentioning all are threatening the streams themselves and the fishing we love. We live in a state where private property rights trump everything else for many. We live in a low tax state where funds for DNR inspections and enforcement are grossly inadequate (Did you know that when I was on the gravel mining board a few years back, I found out that there were exactly five inspectors over the whole state of Missouri who were authorized to do inspections of gravel mining sites, and they had many other duties as well?). Most of the Ozark streams are located in counties that could only be described as politically unfriendly to environmental regulations. And the population keeps growing, and more people keep moving to the rural areas outside the major population centers. More concrete--which requires more gravel that is most easily gotten from creek bottoms. More asphalt, allowing more run-off in heavy rains with a lot of toxic crap in it.

So...it is a lot easier to get people behind a proposal to tighten fishing regulations than it is to get them to agree on what needs to be done politically to solve the environmental problems facing the streams. I'll bet that many here will vote for candidates for public office based upon a lot of other factors, rather than how they stand on environmental issues facing Ozark streams (if they even have such stands--because a lot of people don't think it's important enough or real enough to worry about). And some on here don't think that some of the problems are very real or pressing themselves...witness back when we had a discussion of gravel mining and some thought it was okay to take gravel out of stream beds.

I can only speak for myself. I was on the gravel mining regulations task force, and tried to get stuff done to protect the streams from unwise gravel dredging. I vote the environment over and above everything else--even though I'm often disappointed even when my candidate gets into office. I write letters. I try to educate people. I belong to environmental organizations that I believe in. I report things I see that I think might be violations of environmental regulations. I know that by living in the country in a house that's probably a little bigger than it needs to be, I'm part of the problem, but I also make sure my 40 acres isn't eroding into the creek, that my septic system is adequate, that I'm not dumping household chemicals where they will get into the water.

We all need to join and support organizations that are working to protect the streams, even those that some of us question, like the Sierra Club. The chapters of the Sierra Club in MO do a lot to fight threats to Ozark streams. But I bet a lot of people on here think they are a "tree-hugging" organization that at best doesn't care a bit about hunting and fishing, and at worst are actively against it. Such is the political climate in this state. But like I said before, what we REALLY need to do is get ACTIVE in these kinds of organizations. Work to make them into what WE want them to be. And there are organizations that we can all pretty much agree are doing good, especially the MO Conservation Federation. How many here are members? How many are ACTIVE members?

It ain't easy to be active in such organizations. It takes time and passion. Many of us have the passion, few have the time. I'm one of the guilty ones with passion but not time, but I hope to become a lot more active as I get closer to retirement age and my career takes up less of my time. Yet we all cherish our free time, and would much rather spend it fishing than working for better fishing in the future.

So, yeah, your question is an important one. Hopefully it will make us all think and at least be a little more aware of what we can do.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief, I know exactly what you're saying, and it's a very good point. As difficult as it may be to get MDC to re-examine the regulations on smallmouth harvest, that's a low-hanging fruit compared to tackling some of the very real problems the streams face.

That is exactly what I am thinking. What ever becomes of this, this was the easiest obstacle to tackle.

I understand that we all have a life but, if a fraction of the precieved passion that appears here could be channeled to at least one saturday a month, just think of the possibilities.

Lets take a different look at the MSA. 230 members. Of course not all of them live in the eastern region but lets say that out of that 230 members, which according to some post here, that number is growing, 10% or 23 members pledged to spend one day a month contributing to the betterment of smallmouth habitat. If you split that number 4 ways, you have a team of at least 5 members doing something every weekend and making your organization look like they are deeply concerened about and working to improve conditions.

Now I know it doesn't seem like a 5 member team can get much done. But I think smaller teams can accomplish more than one large team. Can you imagin the exposure you can recieve by hosting landowner meetings along the corridors that you want to improve? How would you now look in the eyes of the MDC? Host other types of meetings, get your name and mission out there. Be passionate, not over bearing. Work with landowners to develope a plan that would best suit both needs and offer to help implement those ideas.

Al, you have done a number of speaking engagments. Surely you can do one a month for this cause?