Bob Todd River Hills Traveler Ignorance?

[jdmidwest]

I did read the whole article thank you very much and nowhere did he say our smallmouth fishing is world class. He said our streams are world class which I agree with but he then accuses those who want management areas of trying to change the river. The rivers have not changed because of a size limit on one species of fish, it is all about his desire to eat smallmouth of a certain size. His article attacks the MSA and the MDC because they want to regulate the size of smallmouth but he never backs up why he thinks it's a bad idea. All he talks about is damming and changing the physical aspects of the river which a size regulation on one species of does not do.

If you take the time and read the article, he states and I copied it for you an excerpt.

"And just accept what we have here. Manage it in a reasonable way that includes a component of keeping and eating fish. There’s more to fishing than size of the fish. I live where I do because I love our Ozark streams. I give up a lot to live here. Economically and more. We have world class streams here. I can’t imagine anyone would say fishing at Wilson Dam in Alabama is a world class experience that compares with fishing an Ozark stream.

I guess what I’m saying is I wouldn’t give up our world class streams to obtain world class smallmouth if it takes fishing below a Wilson Dam."

That clearly states that he likes what we have here and he does not want Missouri to become a Wilson Dam. I don't think he attacks the MSA and I am not really sure the MSA is the right choice to manage our smallmouth streams. I think the MDC has a little more intellectual firepower to do so other than alot of individuals motivated by a single cause. If I was to manage Missouri Smallmouth, I would probably remove trout from the 11pt River and restore it to its natural habitat. I would bust out the dams on the White River system and restore them to the natural habitat. Both would improve smallmouth fishing in Missouri, but how popular would I be?????

Feel free to browse more on the topic and even a letter to the editor from the OP.

River Hills Travler online.

[Al Agnew]

Driving that train,

Of Cocaine....

It would except the most desirable size to eat is the ones in the 12-14 inch range. Once they are 18, even the vast majority of the meat eaters will turn them back. Which by that you are getting your desired effect.

But that poor child back in the hills will go hungry tonight cuz daddy can't keep those bass to feed his family and pregnant wife.

I would love nothing more than to agree. But as a sportsman I have to stand for what I think is best and most fair as a whole. I am not the only user of the resource. It is no secret that those in the range of 7 to 13/14 inch are ferocious eaters. It is just like having a house full of teenagers raiding the fridge. If you can keep that in some check, by harvesting a few, you theoretically are providing more food and quicker growth to those in the 14/15 inch class and up. But I plead guilty to not complying with this thought.

MEOW!

I agree with Bob's thought process on this. In fact I think I mentioned it in one our reg discussions a few months back.

Interesting, Chief...I don't remember you making that point, but it is a good one, like I said. However, I think that we are probably over-rating the draw from anglers around the country that the Ozark streams would have with greater numbers of 18 inch plus fish. I somewhat doubt that the streams would suddenly be overrun with out of state anglers.

As for your other points, I have to admit that I am not the greatest fan of the one fish/15 inch length limit. I like the 18 inch limit better for streams that have the most potential for growing fish that size. But I think the 3 fish/15 inch limit proposed statewide has merit, and if I had my druthers, I'd druther have slot limits to allow some harvest of those 10-14 inch fish. The Smallmouth Alliance pushed the 1 fish limits like we already have on the existing special management areas because the majority felt that the already proven concept would be easier to get implemented, and I went along with it as being better than the present 6 fish/12 inch limit on the streams proposed. But in reality a 1 fish/15 inch limit only guarantees a lot more fish up to 15 inches, with modest gains in bigger fish. I would prefer a 14-20 inch slot limit on the best streams, with three or four fish under the slot and one over. This would allow decent harvest of good eating fish while protecting the big ones.

[kkirchmer]

If you take the time and read the article, he states and I copied it for you an excerpt.

"And just accept what we have here. Manage it in a reasonable way that includes a component of keeping and eating fish. There’s more to fishing than size of the fish. I live where I do because I love our Ozark streams. I give up a lot to live here. Economically and more. We have world class streams here. I can’t imagine anyone would say fishing at Wilson Dam in Alabama is a world class experience that compares with fishing an Ozark stream.

I guess what I’m saying is I wouldn’t give up our world class streams to obtain world class smallmouth if it takes fishing below a Wilson Dam."

That clearly states that he likes what we have here and he does not want Missouri to become a Wilson Dam. I don't think he attacks the MSA and I am not really sure the MSA is the right choice to manage our smallmouth streams. I think the MDC has a little more intellectual firepower to do so other than alot of individuals motivated by a single cause. If I was to manage Missouri Smallmouth, I would probably remove trout from the 11pt River and restore it to its natural habitat. I would bust out the dams on the White River system and restore them to the natural habitat. Both would improve smallmouth fishing in Missouri, but how popular would I be?????

Feel free to browse more on the topic and even a letter to the editor from the OP.

River Hills Travler online.

I've read the article many times and in my opinion he is misleading folks. If you agree with him that is your right and more power to you sir. In my opinion he took a few shots at people because of his desire to eat fish, I love eating them as much as the next guy but I can eat other species and be happy. I guess it all depends on your view of the situation and that effects how you read the article.

"I was trying to come to terms with the words, “world class smallmouth.” So went to Wilson Dam in Alabama, which advertises itself as the world capital of smallmouth bass. Indeed, the claim may be well-founded." The term world class fishing is different for everyone.

"So what does it take to produce that kind of fishery? The fertile waters of the Tennessee River, for one thing. And a dam to concentrate bait fish." This is where he assumes world class fishing means that we have to dam an ozark stream to produce quality fish because he assumes world class to a stream fisherman means a reservoir size smallmouth.

"And here we are in Missouri, the Smallmouth Alliance talking about creating “world class smallmouth fishing.” But we don’t have a Tennessee River or dams that are managed primarily for both hydropower and navigation, so I doubt we have the necessary flow charactoristics below any of our dams." Again using the generic term world class to try to compare stream small mouth to the mosters grown in lakes and large US rivers. He is correct we don't have the save environment to produce that type of fish but who said world class stream smallmouth was a football shaped lake smallie?

"Having fished the Alabama world class smallmouth waters and our Ozark streams, I think the better thing to do is to let Alabama or Canada or whoever lay claim to the “world class” trophy titles for size." Again he is comparing apples to oranges and using the generic term world class to describe two different types of smallmouth fishing.

"And just accept what we have here. Manage it in a reasonable way that includes a component of keeping and eating fish. There’s more to fishing than size of the fish.

I live where I do because I love our Ozark streams. I give up a lot to live here. Economically and more. We have world class streams here. I can’t imagine anyone would say fishing at Wilson Dam in Alabama is a world class experience that compares with fishing an Ozark stream." Showing that he is for eating fish that others consider a sport fish and prefer to catch and release. If his article said I want to catch and eat fish so lets get rid of management areas I wouldn't have a problem at least he is being honest.

"What makes fishing in the Ozarks so special is not the size of the smallmouth, but the beauty of the streams themselves. Size isn’t everything. Sportsmen dream of huge bass, monster crappie and bucks with antlers that reach the treetops. But we need reality too.

I am opposed to taking our best waters to extend the special areas and imposing a 15-inch, one-fish limit that has driven away anglers." I agree the waters of the Ozarks are special I've fished them my whole life, in my opinion a length limit on one species doesn't change that fact.

"Our Ozark streams are pretty special. World class, I’d say. They don’t have to grow the biggest smallmouth in the world." Why not have the best of both worlds?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Interesting, Chief...I don't remember you making that point, but it is a good one, like I said. However, I think that we are probably over-rating the draw from anglers around the country that the Ozark streams would have with greater numbers of 18 inch plus fish. I somewhat doubt that the streams would suddenly be overrun with out of state anglers.

As for your other points, I have to admit that I am not the greatest fan of the one fish/15 inch length limit. I like the 18 inch limit better for streams that have the most potential for growing fish that size. But I think the 3 fish/15 inch limit proposed statewide has merit, and if I had my druthers, I'd druther have slot limits to allow some harvest of those 10-14 inch fish. The Smallmouth Alliance pushed the 1 fish limits like we already have on the existing special management areas because the majority felt that the already proven concept would be easier to get implemented, and I went along with it as being better than the present 6 fish/12 inch limit on the streams proposed. But in reality a 1 fish/15 inch limit only guarantees a lot more fish up to 15 inches, with modest gains in bigger fish. I would prefer a 14-20 inch slot limit on the best streams, with three or four fish under the slot and one over. This would allow decent harvest of good eating fish while protecting the big ones.

With all respect siusaluki, my only sources of info was the MSA web page, forum, Bronze Back News, and postings from MSA members here.

I think the MSA has made it very clear that they don't care for my due money or input. I got my rejection letter for joining the forum from them today. Its nice to know that Matt and company can post about you and you can not either agree with them or defend yourself.

But let me make a couple of other points. I don't believe that the smallmouth are in the peril that some members of the MSA would have you believe. Postings by the "guru" may be some evidence of that. Al's year end report wasn't to shabby either.

I don't believe that the answer to bigger smallmouths lies soley in changing the regs. I think most MDC biologist will agree that there are many other factors, as I have stated before, that play role and must all come togther to accomplish that.

But lets just say that the stars all aligned, and everything was perfect and we had the "World Class Fishery", wouldn't that make our streams more crowded with anglers from all over the US? Is that what we really want? An increase in fishermen crowding out waterways. Would that make it "World Class"? I think the streams in SW Mo are already world class in that I can fish all day and not see anyone. I can catch plenty of fish. And I can catch a few fish every trip that anyone would be proud to reel in. And the scenery is beyond words.Anyway, that is just some ramblings. I mean no harm.

My mistake Al, it was not in a regulation thread per se. It was in a MSA meeting thread.

But none the less, I would tend to agree that there will not be a "sudden increase in out of state anglers". As it will take some time for there to be consistently larger smallmouth, it will be a slow growth of anglers on the streams increasing the pressure.

If I had my druthers I would agree with you on a slot limit. Proplem with those is that hardly anyone uses it. It is a great management tool but only if we use it. And I am just as guilty as anyone. Its no secret that smaller bass in say the 7 to 12 range, have ferousious appetites not unlike teenagers raiding your fridge. And if you can dispose of some of those, it stands to reason that those that remain should have a faster growth rate and should grow larger. That is the mentality behind the slot and I agree.

Before the European invasion of this country, nature provided a natural balance. Man has changed that. Forever. The natural balance of our streams do not have the natural preditation that they once had to keep all species in check. Yes there is some natural preditation on some systems but, nothing like it was before us. I think we need to keep some kind of balance. And I think that the current regulation offer some of that.

Anyway, I am much more agreeable with a slot limit. I could even go statewide with that. Well maybe just a small exception for my little corner of heaven. But a slot down this way would work great if it would be adheard to.

[kkirchmer]

Smallmouth Alliance member: Consumptive anglers’ interests are addressed in plan

By Dan Kreher, Missouri Smallmouth Alliance

I appreciate the amount of attention that River Hills Traveler has given to the management issues surrounding smallmouth bass in Missouri’s streams and the responsible manner in which you have covered this topic. As you well know, Bob Todd is a very experienced angler with well developed opinions about fisheries management and angler interests. As a member of our Blue Ribbon Advisory Panel over the past two years, his input has been quite valuable in particular providing some keen insight into what consumptive SMB anglers might be looking for in terms of fisheries management changes. And, we believe that the Panel’s proposals recently put forth to the MDC, despite Bob’s seeming disdain for the expansion of Special Management Areas, are both sensitive to the interests of catch-and-release anglers such as members of the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance as well as to those anglers who prefer to take home their legal limit of stream SMB.

In fact, in developing our proposal for a statewide length and creel limit change, the interests of consumptive anglers are well represented as 3 SMB exceeding 15” in length would be able to be kept to eat, plus a total of up to an additional 3 other black bass (largemouths and spots) exceeding the 12” MLL (unrestricted on spots in Meramec basin) for a total daily black bass creel limit of 6 fish. Again, in the Meramec basin, anglers can currently and still would be able to keep up to 12 spotted bass daily (in addition to their largemouth and smallmouth take). So, it seems to me that even with a reduction in the daily SMB limit, anglers would still have plenty of bass they could take home or clean for a shore lunch. The proposed updated statewide regulations for stream SMB — the current regs have been in place for 35+ years — in addition to supporting sustainable fisheries would provide better fishing for everyone while not unduly infringing on anyone’s past times.

The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance’s proposals involving the expansion of the well-established Special Management Areas were based upon maximizing the quality (defined as both increased numbers of SMB and larger average sizes) of our better smallmouth streams through the use of regulations that have been proven to work to significantly improve angler catch rates, average sizes and proportional stock densities of larger SMB in the areas where they’ve been enacted by the MDC. True as documented in the White Paper, many of these existing Special Regs Areas did not meet the MDC’s stated goals of doubling the number of SMB between 12-15 inches and those over 15 inches, but it is hard to determine whether those doubling goals were realistic during the time of the study given the slow growth rates of Ozark stream SMB and their naturally low densities as predator species. Regardless, fishing was generally much improved in these areas compared to both the recent past and the control areas outside the Special Regs waters. Folks can certainly argue whether the Special Management Areas have improved angling enough to warrant their expansion, but MSA believes, as does the MDC, that the regs were effective and anglers generally supported them and would not oppose to their being more of them.

Bob’s contention that these areas “ran folks off” needs to be put into context as well. Obviously if an angler’s goal is to take six SMB home to eat, he is going to avoid a stream section where you can only keep one SMB. However, the statistics cited by Mr. Todd are based upon the limited angler survey data obtained during the first few years of the Special Areas and are heavily skewed by the initial results on the Meramec stretch. But if you look as these figures more closely you’ll find that angler effort also fell off greatly in the control areas of the Meramec outside of the Special Regs Area during those early years and in nearly the same magnitude. If anglers were being run off from the more restrictive regs areas, were they going to an entirely other stream when less than 10% of the Meramec’s main stem was affected by these regs? It’s hard to say. Over time, however, as word spread that the quality of the Special Areas was indeed improving under the new regs, more and more anglers (likely C&R guys) began to frequent these reaches in search of better fishing. Angler surveys conducted in the later years of the study would bear this out and just about every article you read in outdoor publications about Missouri’s SMB stream resources notes one or more of the Special Management Areas as being bronzeback hotspots. MSA does not believe it productive to debate the angling pressure issue still further as the MDC appears to be convinced that the regs areas have been successful and popular with anglers. But, if one has a beef with the MDC’s numbers, I suggest they take it up with them.

MSA’s proposed expansion of the SMB Special Regs Areas may appear to some as an aggressive campaign as we suggest essentially doubling the number of stream sections included in the program and increasing total stream mileage from about 350 miles up to 760 miles in total. Even so, this would still represent but a small minority of the available SMB stream resources in the state and would effectively provide a greater number of avid SMB anglers with increased opportunity to catch more and larger fish. Undoubtedly, there are some serious SMB anglers in the state who somehow don’t want to catch more fish or even larger SMB if it means throwing more back to let them grow up for a few more years, but as a long-time fishermen who is in a fishing organization more than 300 members strong, I cannot say I know many of these folks.

Again, I believe that your publication’s coverage of this issue provides a forum for healthy debate and offers a great opportunity for angler input to help shape the future of stream SMB management in Missouri. Most who pursue stream bronzebacks are indeed passionate about it and have genuine interest in how these fragile stream fisheries are managed and sustained for current and future generations. Throughout the Ozarks, we are clearly blessed with some of the most beautiful streams in the country and are well recognized for this; the recent proposals offered by the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance are simply designed to make our stream SMB fishing resources just as noteworthy and appreciated by fishermen. We will continue to work on behalf of the resource and for the interests of avid SMB anglers across the state.

[Smalliebigs]

eric1978, I totally agree with you, if an 18 inch minumum drives off anglers WHO CARES!!! go fish for some catfish at your local park and fillet them up leave the smallies alone.Take your catch and keep butt somewhere else!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are also correct if you don't enforce the regs then what the hell is the point........sorry I am still pissed about what I saw this weekend on the Meramec and the fact I had someone steal yaks and canoes from me.

[Outside Bend]

eric1978, I totally agree with you, if an 18 inch minumum drives off anglers WHO CARES!!!

MDC.

They make money off license and gear sales.

If fewer people are buying licenses or going fishing because they can't creel a limit of smallies, it impacts the agency's funding.

Game like deer, turkey, quail, etc, generate a ton of money for the state, and for MDC. Extensive management of those species is worthwhile for the department because of the revenues they produce.

It's unclear whether most Ozark streams could become destination fisheries, even with intensive management of their smallmouth populations. Jacks Fork, as an example, has had trophy smallmouth regs for nearly 20 years, and you still don't see people hauling trophy fish out of their hand-over-fist. Some of that has to do with issues like poaching, but a lot has to do with the simple fact that most Ozark streams are pretty low in nutrients, and it just takes an awful long time for smallies to reach the 18 inch mark. Most fish die of old age before they get past 20. Now why would someone fly into St. Louis, spend 2.5/3 hours in a rental car to have maybe a 1 in 100 chance of catching a smallmouth 18 inches or better. They could fly into Detroit or Minneapolis, be fishing in a quarter of that time, and have a better chance of catching similar or larger fish.

IMO, there's very little evidence the investment MDC would make in regulation and enforcement would pay off in returns, in terms of revenue generated and heading back to the agency. And since there's little evidence most populations are suffering from overharvest, there's not much of an argument to be made on the species conservation/preservation front.

Meanwhile you're barring a segment of the angling demographic from fishing certain stream segmetns, and alienating constituents in the process. When the 1/8 cent sales tax comes up on the ballot, they'll remember that.

[Guest]

deleted

[eric1978]

Sorry OB, there's a lot of logic in this post that I just don't buy.

MDC.

They make money off license and gear sales.

If fewer people are buying licenses or going fishing because they can't creel a limit of smallies, it impacts the agency's funding.

Game like deer, turkey, quail, etc, generate a ton of money for the state, and for MDC. Extensive management of those species is worthwhile for the department because of the revenues they produce.

MDC doesn't make money on license sales.

Realistically, how much revenue do you think the state would lose from a few SMAs? I mean really? There might be a few guys like wrench who would take a principled stand against a government entity encroaching on his freedoms, but even he wouldn't last a whole year. How many guys are going to throw up their hands and say, "Well, I guess I ain't fishin' anymore cuz I can't keep all the smallmouth I want outa my river?" Very few. In fact, I would make the assumption that the guys who get in such a twist over tighter regs would either be guys that wouldn't be buying a license and fishing illegally under normal circumstances, or those who would continue to buy licenses and continue to poach as they always have before.

For all the rest of the law-abiding citizens, they will either happily follow the new creel regs and practice C&R for the most part anyway, or if they MUST eat smallmouth, they'll go to another stream that can legally accommodate their fryers, OR, do the thing that makes the most sense and target a different species of fish that's easier to catch and tastes better. It's just not logical to think that huge numbers of fishermen are throwing away their rods and tackle because of a few hundred more miles of SMA. But for the few that do, one can hope that the fishing on those streams improves enough to spark interest in a new C&R angler who otherwise would not care to waste his time casting in a river that holds 3 dink smallmouth per mile, therefore sustaining the license fee revenue you're worried about (which doesn't go back to MDC anyway).

This is the 21st century. The free-for-all glory days are over, and consumptive behavoir is passe and no longer acceptable. There are lots of fishermen. Because of progressive government, we have more public access to rivers than ever. Baits are better, line is stronger and drags are smoother, and fish are somewhat easier to catch. If we don't adjust the creel regulations to compensate for the increased number of smallmouth that reach an angler's hand, we will continue to see dwindling populations of these fish on our streams. They simply cannot keep up given all the other problems they face. It's the Neanderthal meat angler who needs to get with the program, not the conservation-minded C&R angler.

It's unclear whether most Ozark streams could become destination fisheries, even with intensive management of their smallmouth populations. Jacks Fork, as an example, has had trophy smallmouth regs for nearly 20 years, and you still don't see people hauling trophy fish out of their hand-over-fist. Some of that has to do with issues like poaching, but a lot has to do with the simple fact that most Ozark streams are pretty low in nutrients, and it just takes an awful long time for smallies to reach the 18 inch mark. Most fish die of old age before they get past 20. Now why would someone fly into St. Louis, spend 2.5/3 hours in a rental car to have maybe a 1 in 100 chance of catching a smallmouth 18 inches or better. They could fly into Detroit or Minneapolis, be fishing in a quarter of that time, and have a better chance of catching similar or larger fish.

Again, I, and I believe most others, don't expect or fantasize about growing world-record size fish in Ozark streams. What we do fantasize about, and what could more than likely be a reality under the correct conditions, are fisheries that hold greater numbers of mature fish...that's it. I don't dream about the day when Jeremy Wade gets in a Land Rover and drives deep into the Ozarks in search of the man-eating smallmouth. But you can't sit there and tell me that if no one was keeping smallmouth, our catch rates wouldn't dramatically increase. And don't give me any of that nonsense about how nature needs us to thin them out for this reason or that...the smallmouth have inhabited those streams much longer than people have been fishing in them, and I'd be willing to bet their populations reached a pretty healthy equilibrium before we got involved.

And like Siusaluki said, our streams are already destination fisheries. There are plenty of MO residents, myself included, that spend outrageous amounts of money driving to rivers and back from suburban hell every year and make weekly trips to the tackle shops. The revenue is there.

IMO, there's very little evidence the investment MDC would make in regulation and enforcement would pay off in returns, in terms of revenue generated and heading back to the agency. And since there's little evidence most populations are suffering from overharvest, there's not much of an argument to be made on the species conservation/preservation front.

Meanwhile you're barring a segment of the angling demographic from fishing certain stream segmetns, and alienating constituents in the process. When the 1/8 cent sales tax comes up on the ballot, they'll remember that.

Straight from MDC's mouth:

"In 1991, the first Stream Black Bass Special Management Areas were established, using special regulations to improve the numbers and sizes of smallmouth bass. The success of the management areas led to a statewide effort to identify, study and improve Missouri's best black bass streams."

Better fishing = more people fishing = more revenue. It doesn't work the other way around, and I think you've got the cart before the horse.

[ozark trout fisher]

Meanwhile you're barring a segment of the angling demographic from fishing certain stream segmetns

New regs wouldn't bar anyone from fishing anywhere. It would only mean they would have to release more fish. If they choose to leave, that's totally their problem.

All these people are complaining about how new regs chase off half the fisherman from special management areas. Am I the only one who thinks that's a good thing?