Bob Todd River Hills Traveler Ignorance?

[kkirchmer]

I just got done reading an article by Bob Todd in the River Hills Traveler. He was complaining about the management areas for smallmouth fishing and saying they are having a negative impact. He then goes on to compare our Ozark Streams to the Tennessee River? I'm very happy with the management areas and I wish they would increase the minimum to 18" for all of the areas. I have an absolute blast fishing the management areas and if we can eventually get to a point where 18 to 20 inch smallmouth are common then I would consider that "World Class" for the size and waterflow of our streams. It's a little crazy in my mind to compare Ozark Streams which aren't even at good floating levels sometimes during the summer to a major US river. I'm a little disappointed with River Hills Traveler, I can't believe they would publish a story that doesn't compare apples to apples and misleads people. It tries to cast a negative light on the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance and all of the hard work they have done to try and create amazing sportfishing in our steams. I'm sorry Mr. Todd but I disagree with your story 100 percent.

[jdmidwest]

Actually, if you read the whole article, he merely states that our Smallmouth Fishing is World Class in its own way. If sitting in a boat in an impoundment catching a 5 lb. smallie is your idea of World Class, so be it. Mine is a nice 18" on a fly rod on a clear stream that can only be accessed by creek wading. He has a point about the management areas, they really have not produced many more fish. But I am thinking most of it is the cause of the enforcement of the area regs and not the regs themselves. Most of the areas still suffer from undersize fish poaching.

I would be happy with an 18", 1 fish limit also, but without enforcement, it is pretty well useless. Most streams I wade, it would only take a few anglers killing alot of fish to clean them out.

Alot of it is that there are many more fishing the streams for smallmouth than there were 20 years ago and more increased pressure. And most Ozark streams have declined in flow and quality in my lifetime. Many productive streams I used to fish are now gravel filled runnoff canals. Castor River is about half of what it used to be when I started fishing it out of jon boats many years ago.

[Gavin]

Bob Todd is entitled to his opinion, but I disagree with it. Most of our smallmouth rivers dont have a management stategy in place and there is plenty of room for improvement. World Class Smallmouth fishing is a stretch when compared to what I've enjoyed in other places, but I'd be happy with some more quality fish in the 15"+ range. Whatever we can do to accomplish that...I'm for it. Cheers.

[eric1978]

Whatever the solution for improving smallmouth fishing in Ozark streams, it's NOT eating more of them. Shame on you, Bob Todd. I think every reasonable person knows we're not going to grow a world record smallmouth here, but that doesn't mean we can't try to improve the numbers of bigger fish, and that ain't gonna happen in the frying pan. I can't believe he's a member of the MSA, not to mention the "Blue Ribbon Panel."

And as far as "running off half the fishermen" from a stream because of tighter regulations, I say good riddance. Sorry, but go eat some fish out of a lake where the water is big enough to sustain populations even with considerably liberal harvest regs.

[ozark trout fisher]

And as far as "running off half the fishermen" from a stream because of tighter regulations, I say good riddance. Sorry, but go eat some fish out of a lake where the water is big enough to sustain populations even with considerably liberal harvest regs.

Yep. I say anything we can do to get the folks who keep smallmouth off the stream is a good thing.

Also,if someone gets scared off by a 15" minimum, that's one less person that might be fishing my spot.

[hank franklin]

What's disappointing to me is his reasoning isn't clear. Basically he says "keep things the way they are." But why? Some of his arguments have this backwards kind of logic. Because he doesn't like that at Wilson Dam there were throngs of fishermen? But wait, in another section he says the new regs will "run all the fishermen off."

At one point he says, "I guess what I'm saying is I wouldn't give up our world class streams to obtain world class smallmouth fishing if it takes fishing below a Wilson Dam." That seems to be the core of his argument but frankly, it's just kind of dumb. It's like saying I don't want my little town to grow and prosper because I've seen other towns that do and by God those other towns might be prosperous but I'm happy where I'm at! Something like that. At its core it's a very selfish argument.

What he never comes right out and says is he likes to catch and keep smallmouth and he wants to keep it that way. Okay, fine. Then just say that and argue from there. Instead we get this backward kind of reasoning that in the end contradicts itself and doesn't make much sense.

The two sides in the debate are pretty simple: Those who like to catch keep and eat smallmouth vs. those who don't. Though I love to eat fried fish in my opinion the value of the resource is higher than the value of the food. I do find those who side with food to be pretty selfish. Bob Todd seems to want to make the argument that he would be "giving up" our already world-class streams for the sake of world-class fishing. No, the streams would still be the same, Bob. The only thing you'd be "giving up" is your right to eat 12-15 inch smallmouth. Call a spade a spade. I don't think that's a huge sacrifice to make.

[Chief Grey Bear]

A difference of opinion is not ignorance on either side. I smell a repeat about to happen but, I will do my best not to feed the beast.

[eric1978]

Bob Todd seems to want to make the argument that he would be "giving up" our already world-class streams for the sake of world-class fishing. No, the streams would still be the same, Bob. The only thing you'd be "giving up" is your right to eat 12-15 inch smallmouth. Call a spade a spade. I don't think that's a huge sacrifice to make.

That's what I should have said. Well put and exactly right.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Yeah it would still be world class water, but why should someone have to sacrifice their rights so you can have a better chance at catching a fish you may or may not catch anyway on that couple of times a month trip. And from previous reports, the fish are there.

Crap, here I go.

[ozark trout fisher]

I'm trying to hold my tongue as I have for the last couple train wreck threads, but dang it, why is it so important that you have the "right" to harvest 12" -15" smallmouth? There are so many other fish that are so much more abundant that folks can keep and eat if they want to. Go to a trout park. Fish for bluegill, goggle-eye, or catfish. String up some farm pond crappie. I just don't see the need for anyone to be keeping smallmouth, and if special regs keep meat hunters off the water, I couldn't be more happy about that.

I'm not making the case that smallmouth are in all that bad of a position in the Ozarks, but I think that the fishing would be better if more fish would be put back into the river instead of the frying pan. One fish that a meat hunter keeps is one less that you or I have the opportunity to catch and admire. Smallmouth aren't overpopulated on any stream I know of, and so I can't think of why it might be beneficial to keep them.

12"-15" fish are prime spawners. They should be left in the river to keep the smallmouth population healthy, not served with fried 'taters.