Msa's Blue Ribbon Panel Update

[Wayne SW/MO]

the enactment of a statewide 15" MLL and a daily creel of 3 SMB would certainly help raise the bar for stream SMB fishing in MO a great deal.

I agree and it could be a way for the MDC to avoid a lot of controversies over the selection or rejection of various streams. It would certainly trump any worries about the smaller streams.

I think you're right about the Elk Chief. My only concern with the Elk being the main target of their efforts is the canoe traffic. I wonder if it will skew any results. The Niangua doesn't get the attention it probably deserves, but with the canoe circus through the summer I'm afraid it would be hard to document..

[Chief Grey Bear]

I am not sure how much of the Elk there is. I believe it to only be about 22 miles in length.

I meant to say " I am not sure how much MORE of the Elk there is.

I think you're right about the Elk Chief. My only concern with the Elk being the main target of their efforts is the canoe traffic. I wonder if it will skew any results. The Niangua doesn't get the attention it probably deserves, but with the canoe circus through the summer I'm afraid it would be hard to document..

I would like to see Missouri do like I believe they do in Oklahoma and limit the number of canoes on the river.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I would like to see Missouri do like I believe they do in Oklahoma and limit the number of canoes on the river.

Yeah, I've been complaining about that since the DNR joined in the destruction of the Niangua, in lieu of protecting it, in the 80's.

The strange thing about it is that if there were so many fishermen that you couldn't enjoy canoeing they would be all over it with regulations. I suppose you can't expect an agency that doesn't warn the public about crappy, unhealthy water, for fear of losing a dollar to care about preserving a river, even a unique one.

[fozzie.]

Yeah, I've been complaining about that since the DNR joined in the destruction of the Niangua, in lieu of protecting it, in the 80's.

The strange thing about it is that if there were so many fishermen that you couldn't enjoy canoeing they would be all over it with regulations. I suppose you can't expect an agency that doesn't warn the public about crappy, unhealthy water, for fear of losing a dollar to care about preserving a river, even a unique one.

For better or for worse, DNR is a political agency, and many of those jobs are dependent upon the whims of the legislature. How politically popular would it be for them to suggest shutting down beaches/coves at LOZ, or capping the number of summer floaters? My opinion is, if you're looking for someone to blame, look at the people who are creating a culture of fear that you'll lose your job at DNR simply for performing your duties.

I can't speak from personal experience on the Elk River, but there are a number of Ozark streams where I'd like to see the number of canoes/kayaks/rafts/tubes capped. But I wonder what the nutrient/disease contribution and environmental damage is of livestock which have stream access. That's an issue I'd definitely love to see tackled. I personally think the water quality and stream habitat degredation as result of cows in streams is at least as detrimental as floaters.

[KCRIVERRAT]

I know the issues concerning the problems horseback riding causes on the lower Jacks Fork have been or are being looked at. I have no idea how far along they've gotten on it or if anything has or will ever be done.

[drew03cmc]

Before any new regulations get "pushed" upon us that got "short-changed", I would hope that some further studies are conducted first on the those waterways flowing west out of this corner of the state to establish what would be best for the Neosho strain. It was my understanding that, from talking to a biologist, the current special regs on the Elk may in fact be helping the LMB more than the SMB. I think there is also some question as to whether the Neosho strain has the same growth rate and reaches the same size as the TN strain.

All I am saying is I think there may be some other dynamics in play in this small corner that may not be condusive with state wide special regs.

I, too, am not surprised that nothing has been proposed for any stream in the SW MO Ozarks. Those of us who fish this portion of the Ozarks, have been shortchanged, including with the White Paper and anything else that MDC has come out with. I second what Chief has said.

[Dan Kreher]

I, too, am not surprised that nothing has been proposed for any stream in the SW MO Ozarks. Those of us who fish this portion of the Ozarks, have been shortchanged, including with the White Paper and anything else that MDC has come out with. I second what Chief has said.

As Chief notes, perphaps there should be additional research performed by the MDC on the Neosho strain in SW MO to better determine growth rates, etc. and then determine what type of fisheries management would be best to maximize the potential fishing quality of those streams.

Once again, the MSA's regulations recommendations to the MDC were not intended to address this particular issue. However, biologically speaking per Spence Turner the retired MDC fisheries biologist and avid author who sits on our Blue Ribbon Panel, a high Minimum Length Limit combined with a low daily creel limit is the most effective tool to improve the quality of angling in a stream. With reduced harvest, angler catch rates increase, average sizes increase -- over time, and the proportional stock densities of larger fish (SMB -- regardless of strain) increase over time as well. Fish in our Ozark streams do not stunt in size due to a lack of habitat or food. A stream is an open system with energy sources constantly coming into and out of it. Proper habitat and food supplies may impact growth rates, but if the fish are left in the river longer with less harvest or through greater protection from harvest, the quality of the fishery will improve markedly over time.

Accordingly, a high minimum length limit combined with a reduced creel limit (whether thru Special Regs designation or thru better statewide regs) will indeed work to improve the quality of all SMB fisheries if given a chance. Remember SMB in all Ozark streams grow much more slowly than lake populations, taking 4-6 years to reach 12 inches in length. Given their cool water habitat, Neosho's probably are in the high end of this range. So it will take time to see improvement, but it will come.

As I noted in a previous post, the MSA decided to avoid suggested Special Regs designation on those streams that were rejected by the MDC in its White Paper effort to avoid unproductive discussions at this stage. Should some of those river have been designated with Special Regs based on more objective criteria -- I don't know. If the MDC was looking at these and any rivers in the White Paper effort purely from a biological standpoint, very few rivers in the Ozarks would not have benefitted in some way from the imposition of additional protection. But, we know that there were many unscientific and very subjective criteria used in the evaluation that were given equal if not greater weighting than the fishery itself. Let's not rehash all of that right now, particularly with the MDC, as that will be largely a distraction from getting anything done. We can certainly come together on these issues later and present a cogent argument for certain fisheries as this process moves forward.

Keep in mind that the regulations changes recently proposed by MSA (see power point presentation given to MDC Regs Committee on the MSA website on the Conservation Page of the MSA website at www.missourismallmouthalliance.org) represent the start of the process towards change. If knowledgeable folks in SW MO believe that other streams should be considered for Speical Regs, organize through the new MSA chapter being put together by Gary Lange and develop a proposal for MSA's Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel to discuss with the MDC going forward. We have opened this dialogue with the MDC on fisheries management changes for the benefit of the native SMB in our state's rivers, streams and creeks. Input from all concerned sportsmen is welcomed and we will collectively work together to reach these objectives.

[ness]

Dan -- I read though your exhaustive posts on what the MSA, and especially its Blue Ribbon panel, are doing to help move the MDC toward more protection for SMB. Seems like an extremely well thought out approach to the issue, and designed to get the best possible results in the shortest period of time. I think avoiding the overlap with the White Paper is a good move -- no sense going down that path again. While everybody's special interest may not have been specifically addressed, it's important to note that this is movement in the right direction, and sets a precedent for future improvements. If nothing else is accomplished immediately but a statewide 15 MLL we're still far better off. All movement in the right direction is good movement.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well good luck. You boys sure seem hell bent on it come hell or high water. I just whish you knew more about the streams you want to add steeper regulations too. Thats all.

[eric1978]

I just whish you knew more about the streams you want to add steeper regulations too. Thats all.

I really believe that they do, Chief. They certainly know far more than I do, but I can say that the few streams I fish regularly are all part of new proposals or already under tighter regs, and I guarantee you they need them. I won't pretend to know anything about your streams down there or the Neoshos, but I can't help but feel optimistic about new regulations here on my home waters.

I hear where you're coming from, and that's why I think people like you who know your home waters so well should join the new chapter down there and be an active voice for their protection.