I'm Really, Really Sick Of This...

[Al Agnew]

Okay, several final points and then I suppose I'm done with this thread (although I reserve the right to respond to further discussion!)

Chief, nobody in this thread or the others on regulations is talking about the demise of smallmouth--except to some extent in the streams where spotted bass are in the process of taking over. What we're talking about is improving the fishing, especially for bigger fish. Smallmouth are resilient, and generally it only takes a limited number of adult fish to produce enough young each year to maintain the population. The problem appears to be (and the studies in the SMAs have shown it) that too many of the adult bass are being cropped each year for there to be many growing to larger sizes. This problem seems to be widespread--lots of fish most places, but few big ones compared to other states and regions of the country. Again, the studies from the SMAs show that reducing the limit and increasing the size limit will result in more fish over the new size limit.

Gigging is a different story. The ONLY problem with gigging (other than apparent cropping of suckers by LEGAL giggers) is with ILLEGAL activity. And, although it is apparently fairly widespread given the people on here that have seen the evidence on their streams, it IS more of a problem on the larger streams. But...regarding Kickin'bass's point about the dead trout in very popular trout fishing places, the difference between gigging and all other forms of legal fishing AND illegal fishing activities, is that the illegal gigger can and does SPECIFICALLY crop off the biggest fish. In no other fishing method can one purposely pick out the exact fish that they will take. Chances are that EVERY 18 inch plus smallmouth in a three or four mile stretch of a pretty big river end up in Zipstick's favorite winter fishing hole, and he and I could fish it all winter and probably never catch all of those big fish. We might catch a goodly number of them, and might possibly hook one or two badly enough to cause them to die, but it's still a crap shoot, and even if we kept every one of them we caught, we wouldn't come close to catching them all. But one or two unscrupulous giggers in the right conditions very well could kill nearly every one of them. Does that harm the overall smallmouth population in that stretch? Only to the point that big fish are rarer there the next year, and each year after that as long as the illegal activity continues. But that's the whole point, the big fish are being ILLEGALLY cropped off. And while this may seem to be a localized problem, it is definitely a problem on the Meramec, the river I'm most familiar with, from above Steelville to St. Clair, and that's a long stretch of river.

Now, I'm going to say it one more time. It is neither realistic, nor fair, to attempt to fix the problem by banning gigging. In my opinion, it MIGHT be a reasonable idea to have a temporary gigging ban in some Special Management Areas, in order to quantify the impact of gigging scientifically instead of anecdotally the way it is now. Would I be happy if gigging WAS banned? Given that personally I enjoy catching big smallmouth more than I enjoy gigging, in a way it would be fine with me. But I KNOW it would not be fair to the many legal giggers, so although I could be selfish and advocate banning it, I won't. Nor is limiting the technology used in gigging a viable option, in my opinion, even though we know that current technology makes it a whole lot easier than it used to be, and thus more efficient at both cropping suckers and killing game fish.

It was my frustration talking when I said the sport was impossible to police, but realistically, you aren't going to catch many of the illegal giggers. It just isn't possible. But a more visible and concentrated effort to police the rivers during the gigging season would hopefully discourage the activity. And I WILL, from now on, photograph and document every gig-scarred smallmouth I see, dead or alive, and I hope everybody else will, too.

Here a few final thoughts on big fish, both suckers and bass...

There are five species of redhorse suckers that are native to the Ozark streams, the black, golden, silver, shorthead, and river redhorse. Of those, the black and golden redhorse are by far the most common. Both these species commonly grow to about 15 inches long. They become adults and begin to spawn at about 9 inches. It takes them three years to grow to adult size of around 9 inches, and five years to grow to the size where they begin to be legitimate gigging targets at about 12 inches. They can live to 10 or 11 years, and the maximum size usually seen in Missouri streams is about 17 inches. BUT...there is at least one record of a 26 inch black redhorse being caught in the Eleven Point River, and in other parts of the country where they are found, they get up to 20 inches commonly and there are many records of fish approaching 30 inches.

As for the other three species, they are much less common, but the silver redhorse gets to 20 inches in Missouri and 28 inches elsewhere. The shorthead redhorse are about the same size as the black and golden in Missouri, but gets to 29 inches elsewhere. And the river redhorse gets to 26 inches in Missouri, and 30 inches elsewhere.

So...some food for thought. Could it be that the reason these suckers don't get very big in Missouri, and most redhorse that are seen and gigged are 15 inches or less, be because they are being gigged before they can live the five or more years it takes for them to get to their potential size? Would it be possible to perhaps alternate closing certain sections of the larger streams to gigging for a year or two at a time, in order to give the suckers a sanctuary where they could grow bigger? Not a permanent closure, and not the whole stream, but say a 10 mile section for every 40 miles of stream to be closed for two years, then opened and a different section closed? I wonder if you giggers would be willing to accept that kind of restriction IF it gave you more big suckers to gig? Suckers are pretty migratory fish in the spring, so the fish that survived in the closed section might trickle into open sections. Or might not, but I think it might be an interesting experiment. Would you like more big suckers to gig? Remember, I'm not talking about protecting or preserving the redhorse, which is certainly common enough in MO. I'm talking about the same thing here that I'm talking about with bass fishing in Ozark streams--improving the fishery.

[jscheetz]

I am so sorry I have been away from the forum for so long! I almost missed this thread with some absolute classic posts by Forsythian!! Great stuff - It is good to see in this crazy world that some things never change. It is the same conversation we had on the topic several years ago. Did you just copy your posts?

OK - so I have rambled about my "experiences" with trout and smallie giggers before and won't go into it here - but Al........ Don't ever believe that things can't change! And we should never believe that gigging at least on some streams will never be banned. Laws are made all the time to adapt to newer ways of thinking and better understanding of things and we progress as humans. Look at ALL of the fishing regulations and hunting regulations that are out there now - there was a time when most of them WERE NOT in place. But as people became more aware of a situation - whether it was the decline of bear in bear baiting areas etc etc or whatever - then it was changed. That is how we got to where we are now. It may not happen next year, or even in our lifetime, but it can happen. If it can be proven and presented that some outlaw giggers are hurting the SMB population or the trout population then I believe it can change. And I am sorry for the giggers who do it legal, but sometimes that is the way laws are, they are there because some people will do otherwise left to their own accords. I would never drive down my street at 80mph.... but SOME idiots would, so there has to be a 25mph speed limit - does it effect law abiding citizens like myself? Yep. But the law has to be there for the good of ALL - not just a few guys. And that to me is what this situation is. Al - you are a well known cat - you have some clout both as a longtime fisherman etc but also as an artist. Use that to help motivate people to get behind whatever movement you want - MSA if they are willing to support it, or start your own - get some names of guys like myself who would support you and get together pics, personal stories, etc etc any info you can. Present this to the MDC, or go to other organizations to get an ear - I know things like this are frustrating, but it CAN change.

JS

[peegee12]

This post has gone on for a while, but it's a volatile subject ... As a former Missouri conservation agent, I've caught a few illegal giggers, but it takes a lot of patience and, usually, a very long hike in the dark. I was raised on the Current River, and saw first-hand what devastation could be brought on the smallmouth and walleye populations by illegal gigging. I think the gigging season is too long (a month was added to the end of the season for SW Missouri giggers because streams don't clear as early; then a month was added to the beginning of the season as a mollification to Current & Black River giggers). I also think that SMAs should be expanded to portions of the Current River, the Black River, and Flat Creek, and that a trial period of "no gigging" should be enforced in SMAs. I also think a reduced daily limit of smallmouth in streams is a good idea.

But the reality is that the MDC Rules Committee has a lot of inertia, and needs a great deal of public sentiment (and some scientific evidence) in order to make changes in regulations. Could take a while, but showing up at Commission meetings, lobbying for research on illegal kills in SMAs, and additional research on the impact of gigging, bowfishing, etc., on rough fish populations could eventually pay off.

[jdmidwest]

I've never in my years on streams encountered a situation when I felt I needed a firearm. Now we have conditions in which confrontations that would have once ended with a bloody nose and some broken bones in a hand, can now readily end in brains on the gravel bar and another prisoner for the taxpayers to financially support. Great.

I say "how ya' doin'?" to anyone I see on the river. If they seem nice, I talk a while, if they seem weird, I move on. Never had a problem, and people won't bother you if you don't get in their business, even if they're up to no good.

I know of a few people that have CCLs that scare the hell out of me...They are perfectly legal, and they are perfectly nuts and dangerous.

We have a wolf by its ears now.

Well, I guess you have never came across a wild dog, bear, or a meth lab. I have carried a sidearm all of my life on the stream when allowed. I carry open, that tends to avert some problems before they happen. Right off the bat, they don't know if they are dealing with an armed citizen or law enforcement. Open carry is allowed on most waters and areas in Missouri, has been forever. I am glad to know you never come across a need for a firearm. Outside of most trout parks and well lit tailwaters, you might though.

I am okay with the fact that you don't own a firearm and you don't understand why some people do. Sit around and wait for the cops to solve your problems. They need some business too.

On the stream, when I encounter a poacher, I tend to take a subtle approach also. I usually walk up to them, strike up a conversation, and let them know about the Conservation officer that just checked me upstream or in the parking lot. That usually stops the activity. If that does not work, License numbers, positive ID with good descriptions, any info that popped up in the conversation, then call and make a report. It works either way, the first usually stops the activity.

Its amazing that since Missouri adopted the CCW, there have not been shootouts in the streets and parking lots, like some would think. It may be due to the fact that legal gun owners are responsible gun owners.

[jdmidwest]

Unlike Trout, native game fish in the State of Missouri have always taken the back seat as far as efforts and regulations. Trout have to be raised and released, alot of money is involved, and MDC protects its investments. Native fish have always been here, self propagate, and do not require a special fee to fish for them. There is no smallmouth stamp, there is a trout stamp. You buy an extra stamp, you expect a little more. Not many in Missouri buy a trout stamp to catch and release trout in streams. It is not required unless you intend to possess trout. In Arkansas, it is required to purchase a trout stamp just to fish legally in some streams, regardless of the species you intend to target.

How many on here would pay for a special Smallmouth Bass stamp to step up the management of the species?

[KCRIVERRAT]

This post has gone on for a while, but it's a volatile subject ... As a former Missouri conservation agent, I've caught a few illegal giggers, but it takes a lot of patience and, usually, a very long hike in the dark. I was raised on the Current River, and saw first-hand what devastation could be brought on the smallmouth and walleye populations by illegal gigging. I think the gigging season is too long (a month was added to the end of the season for SW Missouri giggers because streams don't clear as early; then a month was added to the beginning of the season as a mollification to Current & Black River giggers). I also think that SMAs should be expanded to portions of the Current River, the Black River, and Flat Creek, and that a trial period of "no gigging" should be enforced in SMAs. I also think a reduced daily limit of smallmouth in streams is a good idea.

But the reality is that the MDC Rules Committee has a lot of inertia, and needs a great deal of public sentiment (and some scientific evidence) in order to make changes in regulations. Could take a while, but showing up at Commission meetings, lobbying for research on illegal kills in SMAs, and additional research on the impact of gigging, bowfishing, etc., on rough fish populations could eventually pay off.

Scientific evidence in order to make changes in regulations? The regs for keeping smallmouth (outside of SMA's) have not been changed since 1961 or '62?

What scientists ARE providing evidence for change after almost 50 years? Why aren't MDC biologist (isn't that scientific evidence?) reports not enough to catch us up to the rest of the departments across the country?

Glad the SMA's were implemented, but outside of those areas, the 6 fish, 12" length should be changed.

The MDC's conservationist magazine used to have articles about floating and fishing for smallmouth. They still do, but not nearly as much. Not their "cash cow" so to speak.

In the end, I believe the MDC has plenty of "scientific evidence" to support the smallmouth fisherie's here in Missouri. They need to get off of their butt.

Keep stocking those trout MDC... hope you're proud of yourself.

[Buzz]

Unlike Trout, native game fish in the State of Missouri have always taken the back seat as far as efforts and regulations. Trout have to be raised and released, alot of money is involved, and MDC protects its investments. Native fish have always been here, self propagate, and do not require a special fee to fish for them. There is no smallmouth stamp, there is a trout stamp. You buy an extra stamp, you expect a little more. Not many in Missouri buy a trout stamp to catch and release trout in streams. It is not required unless you intend to possess trout. In Arkansas, it is required to purchase a trout stamp just to fish legally in some streams, regardless of the species you intend to target.

How many on here would pay for a special Smallmouth Bass stamp to step up the management of the species?

Good points.

For me, I have been buying a trout stamp for at least 10 years. I do it for two reasons.

1) I feel that the money I spend goes toward something I really enjoy.

2) I can fish the trout parks anytime I want to during C & R, and if I happen to catch a lunker, outside of the parks, I have all of the necessary licenses to get the fish mounted, which has only happened once but I'm glad I had it.

Would I buy a smallmouth stamp?

Yes, if I thought it would be used in a way to help the fishery. BTW, I don't keep smallmouth either.

[KCRIVERRAT]

A smallmouth stamp would be weird, since they are a native Missouri fish. I'd buy it only because I love fishing for smallies. Just wish MDC would concentrate their efforts on our native fish. (Oh... excuse me, they do - see NIANGUA DARTER!).

Another stupid regulation is to have a 15" limit on smallmouth on our lakes, yet... a six fish 12" limit on our streams still exists?

The MDC needs to get it together.

I EAT trout... I fight smallmouth.

[CS Huntley]

I'd buy a smallmouth stamp if it made it legal to gig them.

[KCRIVERRAT]

I'd buy a smallmouth stamp if it made it legal to gig them.

Ouch! paybacks are hell!

To each his (or hers) own my friend...