Bob Todd River Hills Traveler Ignorance?

[Flysmallie]

Eric, you should be my attorney...very nice reply

Gee whiz would you quit encouraging him? His head is going to swell and we just got it back down from the last time.

Eric, you know I see your side, and agree with it mostly. I don't think total catch and release is the answer though. Still think a slot is the way to go. But still if we don't do anything to enforce the current regulations then we can't expect much from any new regulations.

[eric1978]

Eric, you know I see your side, and agree with it mostly. I don't think total catch and release is the answer though. Still think a slot is the way to go. But still if we don't do anything to enforce the current regulations then we can't expect much from any new regulations.

It's true that without enforcement, regulations are not as effective, but enforcement is totally worthless without regulations. So let's get the first part done first, then worry about the second. Some people follow laws because it's the right thing to do, not because they fear the punishment for breaking those laws...and those anglers' stringers of smallmouth would be smaller, and I like that thought.

I'd be agreeable to a slot limit also. But I'll take whatever I can get.

[Al Agnew]

There is another upside to more restrictive regulations. They make a statement. With the current 6 fish/12 inches limit on stream bass, a statement is being made that they are abundant enough and average small enough that the "goal" is a bunch of 12 inch fish. If regs are instituted that decrease the creel and increase minimum size, it makes a statement that the fish CAN grow bigger and that bigger fish are a valuable resource. In other words, it begins to change the mindset of the anglers. It won't change them all, but it will make more of them stop and think that our native stream smallmouth are an important resource worthy of development and protection.

By the way, Eric, MDC does get revenue from license sales, though it isn't their chief source of revenue since the advent of the sales tax. But I agree with your point that "running people off" the special management areas should NOT cause them to quit fishing, so it shouldn't decrease license sales.

[eric1978]

By the way, Eric, MDC does get revenue from license sales, though it isn't their chief source of revenue since the advent of the sales tax. But I agree with your point that "running people off" the special management areas should NOT cause them to quit fishing, so it shouldn't decrease license sales.

Oh. I was told that the license revenues go to the public schools. Guess I should stop listening to that guy...he's wrong about everything else so I don't know why I believed him on that.

Good point about the mindset. Plus it sets the table for even more restrictive regs later. No, I'm kidding...kinda.

Edit to add:

I looked into the MDC revenues on licenses, and sure enough, you're right. In 2008, hunting and fishing permits made up 16.99% of MDC revenue that fiscal year, the last year's data I could find.

[Outside Bend]

Sorry Eric, most of what I wrote was directed to the folks wanting statewide no-kill or trophy regs. As I've said before, I'm all for trophy regulations, provided there's some balance between folks who want to catch quality fish and folks who want to take some eaters home.

MDC doesn't make money on license sales.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but the MDC's 2009 Annual Report indicates they received more than 32 million dollars in permit sales. Even if that isn't the case, federal sportfish dollars are allocated based on the number of fishing licenses sold in a state. MDC may not make money directly on license sales, but they do receive funding based on the number of licenses they sell.

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.

Again, I should've stated my comments were more directed at the folks who want C&R/quality regs on all statewide smallie streams.

Like it or not, there's an element of the fishing public for whom it's a means to an end- a way of getting a mess of fish for the table. And if those folks go from fishing six times a month to fishing three times a month because they can't keep smallies, there's at least some likelihood it could impact MDC's bottom line.

And for the folks expressing the "if they want to keep smallies screw 'em," mentality- I'm glad you've thought this out. . How does fewer anglers pursuing smallies make SMB fisheries a higher priority for the agency? Why would they spend more money on management and enforcement if they're reaching a reduced segment of the public? They could reach more people spending that money on duck hunting or birdwatching blinds. Remember when you bought your fishing license last winter and the vendor asked if you had fished for smallmouth in the past year? They don't ask those sort of questions because they can't think of a better one...

You also have to take into account political ramifications. MDC sure does. With an adversarial, even at times hostile, state legislature, adding regulations which ban or regulate "traditional Ozark activities," out of existence just gives ammo to those who want to do away with the conservation sales tax. The folks who are negatively impacted by those regs will certainly let their state representatives know.

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.

Not to sound like CGB, but why? Why should you suspect someone of illegal activity just because they see things differently than you do? For all you know, his kid just got back from Iraq, and hasn't had a decent fish fry in two years.

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.

I agree with this, but I'd just like to play devil's advocate for a moment:

I assume SMA's would be most successful on streams with robust smallmouth populations, which exhibit high growth rates and good fecundity and survival. Fish in these streams would be protected, and angler and harvest pressure would be redirected to elsewhere.

I'm guessing the streams without SMA's would be the ones with lower quality smallie habitat, lower bass populations, lower growth rates, longer age-at-maturation, lower fecundity and survival. The streams most susceptible to angling pressure and overharvest. Is better fishing in one stream worth poorer angling in others?

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.

1.) Who's advocating a free-for all?

2.) From MO crappie and white bass to coastal redfish and striped bass to western trout, there are scores of examples of well-managed recreational fisheries where harvest occurs without compromising the integrity of the stock. There's also a ton of instances where C&R and other restrictive harvest regimes have failed to produce the intended results. Neither is the solution 100% of the time.

3.) If we're talking about sheer numbers of fish- I just haven't seen any data showing SMB harvest in most MO streams is unsustainable. There's local affects due to popular accesses, campsites, road crossings, etc- but on the whole, SMB populations seem pretty steady even in the face of harvest. Size distribution is another story.

4.) While it's true that it's probably easier to catch fish now than in the past, it's also true that angling pressure is more diffused (technology like jet boats, reservoirs absorbing angler pressure, more public access on streams) And fishing license sales have generally been declining.

5.) You're not going to win any friends calling meat fishers Neandertals

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.

Then I'm not sure how much a 15" MLL statewide would help. Smallmouth mature around 11 inches in Missouri streams. Go out and have a ball

I'm not disagreeing with you, all I'm saying is that a public resource like smallmouth bass is meant to be enjoyed by as many folks as possible, so long as their activities aren't unduly impacting those resources. There are ways to manage MO smallmouth streams which strike a balance between harvest and trophy angling opportunities. Compromise isn't always a terrible thing.

That was awful long, though I tried hard to shorten it. If you finished all of it, I owe you a beer

[Kicknbass]

The more I think about it....a slot limit on smallmouth would be a better option than what we have now, and better than what SMA has proposed.

I dont see much problem with folks eating a couple 10-12" smallmouth. They are abundant, and folks eat lots of them even though they arent legal now....

Frankly, I'd rather see folks eat those little fish instead of quality smallmouth in the 14"+ range.... I'm thinking that 3-4 under 12", (with only one big one allowed in your limit) would be preferable to limits that focus all the legal harvest on the top end of the population like they are now. 6>12", 3>15", 1>15" or 18"....what we have now, and what has been proposed by SMA focuses all the legal harvest on the bigger less abundant fish.

Wonder why were complaining about smallish smallmouth in Missouri?

I agree. Let the big ones swim free. 3-12" or smaller fish would be perfect in my mine. State wide. If your going to put a 1 + limit on the fish, it needs to be huge. 24" or so. (I'd hate to be required to turn back a state or world record...not that that is ever going to happen)

[hank franklin]

If MSA had proposed a 15 inch limit statewide I'd be opposed. It would never fly anyway.

If some group of "uppity fishermen" in some secret room hypnotized the Conservation Commission, Conservation Federation of Missouri and my grandma into mandating C & R for smallmouth and while we're at it everything else that swims, yep, I'd be opposed.

If the Meramec Dam was reauthorized and people came from far and wide to fish in the newly created smallmouth honey hole just above Meramec Caverns, yeah, I'd probably be opposed.

If an "uppity fisherman" tried to tell me that spin-fishing for smallies is bouge-wah, and instead of Busch Beer I need to be drinking Honey Stout German ale and oh by the way you can't fish here anymore go home, yeah, I'd be somewhat miffed.

But none of that is happening folks. MSA puts out a reasonable balanced proposal that in my very rural mind thank you reflects the general conservation and good steward ethic of fine Missouri sportsmen everywhere, and the best opponents can argue is, uh, what again? Too many fishermen or wait, too few and the government is running everybody off, I mean the uppity no good big city snobs are running everybody off and Welch Spring is gonna be like Wilson Dam or wait there's already fifty thousand canoes pass by there every weekend but what about permit sales, they'd go down dammit but oh yeah when all the uppity guys with their $400 Shakespeares start flying in from the Hamptons maybe my buddy down the rroad in his little sporting good shack might not mind seeing some of them guys again oh so what were we talking about again? 12-inch smallmouth, oh yeah kill em all!

PERSONALLY, I think a slot might work. But MSA and MDC and others truly "in the game" have researched this a whole helluva lot more than I, so what they said. A few of my jet boatin buddies on the Meramec might say "what?" first time they hear 12-inchers ain't legal, but they'll forget about it by the time that 12-incher's in the water and the next beer is cracked. And some of my other Meramec friends will say "hallelujah" first time they hear the average size of their smallmouth catch is going up.

So get with it people. Are you a conservationist or a politician? I know which side I'm on.

[Outside Bend]

Smallie harvest is likely impacting bass size, but there's no evidence that smallie harvest is contributing to a long-term decline in SMB numbers. I've never yet to see data showing Ozark SMB stocks declining due to overharvest.

To me it's silly to frame the discussion as one of "conservation minded," anglers and, presumably, those who don't care. Harvest can be permitted without compromising the fishery. It's even possible to have harvest AND more fish growing to a bigger average size, provided the appropriate management regime.

To me it's not about conservation, it's about preferences- the preference for larger fish or the preference for creeling some fish.

[Gavin]

In my mind, there is no reason that we cant have harvest, and bigger fish...A slot might accomplish that....Pick a number over X" limits arent accomplishing that no matter how restrictive. They do a good job at protecting all the fish to the X-1/2" range and all the legal harvest is focused on the X+" fish. I'll have to disagree with you Al. There is no need to send a message that big smallmouth have value....They already have value because everyone wants to catch one.

[eric1978]

That was awful long, though I tried hard to shorten it. If you finished all of it, I owe you a beer

You owe me a beer.

Smallie harvest is likely impacting bass size...

So we do agree after all...

I'm not endorsing statewide absolute C&R. Meat anglers would still be able to harvest some, just not as much. I'm just not going to be convinced that, given a smallmouth's extremely slow growth rate, for every fish removed from a stream there's another one growing right into his old shoes. They can't be keeping up with the harvest...they just can't be. And pretty much every angler that has, say, 20 or 30 or more years experience on the rivers says the same thing...you just don't catch them like you used to.