Bob Todd River Hills Traveler Ignorance?

[kkirchmer]

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.

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.

[kkirchmer]

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.

If the management areas work and we have an abundance of fish over 18 inches then wouldn't it benefit those fishing for smallmouth to eat if they could catch a few big fish for dinner and not have to spend ours catching small fish to feed their families?

[eric1978]

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.

What OTF said.

They can have anything else...how about leaving the sportiest, most coveted, native Ozark species alone...just this one? Why not? C'mon Chief...you know you want to agree!

[KCRIVERRAT]

He agrees... I'm floating with him and Little Chief next week. His son doesn't want to see my blood spilt. He love's ol' KC. I'll get Chief straightened out. You guys should know he's a big ol' pussycat.

But................. the wife just went out and bought a cheap casket for me! She must know him better than me!

I've kept and ate two smallmouth in my life. Will never do it again.

[Al Agnew]

Guys, I'm out here in Montana and haven't gotten my latest River Hills Traveler yet, so I don't know everything that Bob said. So I'm going to be speaking in generalities here.

It may come as a surprise to some, but I know Bob's basic philosophy and I tend to agree with it to some extent. If we made smallmouth or any other fish a strictly catch and release species, I think that in a way that negates some of the idea behind fishing. Fishing started out as a way to get food. And if a species is abundant enough to allow for some harvest, I see nothing wrong, and a lot right, with that. So I'm philosophically opposed to strict catch and release regs, or even 1 fish/18 inch regs, ON MANY STREAMS.

Where I disagree with Bob is in the philosophy behind special management areas. It seems Bob took the results of the study done for the white paper, which showed a decrease in angler hours on the first three special management areas during the first few years, and extrapolated that to mean that special management areas run off a lot of anglers. There are at least two things wrong with that. The first is that for some reason, those studies showed an amazing decrease in fishing pressure on one stretch, the Meramec, something like an 80% decrease, which skewed the results considerably for the three stretches as a whole. And that just had to be an aberration, because I can't imagine anything that would make fishing pressure on a given stretch of stream decrease that much. Either it was some kind of error in the surveys, or it was something to do with how they were done, or perhaps even that the river happened to be high and muddy much of the time when the surveyor was on it. The other two stretches had something like 10-15% fewer angler hours, which is to be expected if about that many anglers are wanting to keep a bunch of bass. And, it should also be noted that angler hours decreased slightly in the control areas as well during that time, which were other stretches of the same streams, stretches that didn't have the special regs. And there is evidence that on that stretch of the Meramec, as well as the other stretches, that angler hours came back up to "normal" or greater in the ensuing years. So...I don't agree with Bob that a lot of anglers were run off those stretches in the long run.

The second way I disagree with Bob is in the idea that we are shutting out the catch and keep people from too much of the streams. To put it in perspective, if all the SMA proposals were adopted, it would put something between 600-700 miles of Ozark streams under some kind of special management. There are well over 500 miles of fishable smallmouth streams in the Meramec River system alone. So it would be the equivalent of putting one river system off limits to catch and keep guys, or perhaps 10-20% of the total smallmouth stream miles in the Missouri Ozarks. It would also put a special management area close to most larger towns in the Ozarks...but would also keep a lot of catch and keep smallie water close to those towns as well. If it's a question of fairness, I suspect that way more than 20% of smallmouth anglers in Missouri are catch and release anglers.

Unfortunately, a lot of people, Bob perhaps included, tend to see this issue as an urban vs. rural one...big city fishermen coming down into the Ozarks and "getting their way" at the expense of the poor local folks. Bob has suggested that the rural guys may just retaliate by not only ignoring the regs but going out of their way to kill all the big smallmouth they can in any way they can. And I'm pretty sure that a few pinheads will do just that. So we have to hope that they get caught and slapped hard for doing so, and that a lot of the local anglers will ostracize them for it as well, if these regs come about.

But getting back to the whole question for a minute, "world class" means different things to different people. We have some of the prettiest streams in the nation, and some of the friendliest, with no big rapids and big waters where it's easy to get into danger. And we think we can improve the numbers of 15 inch plus or 18 inch plus smallmouth in them, while keeping the numbers fishery we have in them, and still have something for everybody. The fly in the ointment, according to Bob, is that if we do so, we attract more people, the rivers get more crowded, and everybody suffers. So his solution is keep things as they are. Our solution is to do the potential improvements to the fishery, and use the regs to keep the fishing good while letting the chips fall as they may with more angling pressure. When you think about it, both points of view have some validity.

[Outside Bend]

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 agree with most of what you said, but for better or for worse, it seems like more folks in the Ozarks are of Bob Todd's opinion than are of OTF's- they have a right to keep whatever fish they please, regardless of species. They feel it's part of the Ozark heritage, etc etc. Frankly, I'm not sure what can be done about it.

I for one like the management regime as is- it gives folks who want shots at quality sized fish a chance to do so, and it leaves plenty of places for folks to go catch a mess of pan-sized smallies for dinner if they so desire. I'm not sure I'd be willing to go complete C&R or quality regs statewise, if for no other reason than I'd like to see some reasonable compromise between quality anglers and the hook&bullet crowd. But if a quarter or a third of the state's smallie streams were managed for quality fish, leaving the other three-quarters or two-thirds open for folks wanting smallie harvest...it sounds like a reasonable compromise to me, and I doubt it'd be killing anyone that there were reduced or no harvest regs on a small proportion of the state's streams, Bob Todd included.

What I'd really love to see is MDC become more engaged with the angling community and general public regarding issues like these. Something more elaborate than their fishing prospects or the 5th-grade reading level stuff they put in the Conservationist, but not so technical you'd need a biology degree to understand it. Just show folks the population data, the creel censuses, growth rates, size distributions, etc. If nothing else it'd give me the warm fuzzies to know people are out their doing their jobs, not just guessing how to manage various fisheries. They should have the data already, putting it into a format which is easy for the public to consume shouldn't be too difficult.

One thought I just had was those little ruler stickers they hand out which are designed to help you identify the black basses. Perhaps along with all that info they could do some average age-at-length ruler, showing that at 12 inches a smallie is X years old, at 15 inches the fish is Y years old, etc. Perhaps if someone slapped an 18 inch smallie on that ruler and realized how old it is, they'd be more inclined to release it.

[ColdWaterFshr]

The fly in the ointment, according to Bob, is that if we do so, we attract more people, the rivers get more crowded, and everybody suffers. So his solution is keep things as they are. Our solution is to do the potential improvements to the fishery, and use the regs to keep the fishing good while letting the chips fall as they may with more angling pressure. When you think about it, both points of view have some validity.

So by that logic, he doesn't want too much publicity about improvements to the fishery because it will attract more people, but yet he is in the business of publicizing these very streams with his River Hills Traveler (which I have read and enjoyed). What the h? He doesn't want them too crowded, but yet he sorta has a hand in the till, doesn't he? No, don't buy it. I think its more a stubborn countryboy vs. cityboy thing, which is silly.

I think the whole argument is silly anyway -- I don't believe a minor reg change has that much affect on a section of stream anyway since the enforcement isn't there to go with it 9 times out of 10. In that way, I agree with the status quo on existing regs.

[Outside Bend]

So by that logic, he doesn't want too much publicity about improvements to the fishery because it will attract more people, but yet he is in the business of publicizing these very streams with his River Hills Traveler (which I have read and enjoyed). What the h? He doesn't want them too crowded, but yet he sorta has a hand in the till, doesn't he? No, don't buy it. I think its more a stubborn countryboy vs. cityboy thing, which is silly.

I think the whole argument is silly anyway -- I don't believe a minor reg change has that much affect on a section of stream anyway since the enforcement isn't there to go with it 9 times out of 10. In that way, I agree with the status quo on existing regs.

I get your point, but I think Bob retired from the Traveler a few years back; he's an editor-at-large or something of the sort. Some guy in Fenton or Kirkwood or somewheres owns it now, I believe. Just to be clear : )

[Chief Grey Bear]

Driving that train,

Of Cocaine....

If the management areas work and we have an abundance of fish over 18 inches then wouldn't it benefit those fishing for smallmouth to eat if they could catch a few big fish for dinner and not have to spend ours catching small fish to feed their families?

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.

What OTF said.

They can have anything else...how about leaving the sportiest, most coveted, native Ozark species alone...just this one? Why not? C'mon Chief...you know you want to agree!

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.

He agrees... I'm floating with him and Little Chief next week. His son doesn't want to see my blood spilt. He love's ol' KC. I'll get Chief straightened out. You guys should know he's a big ol' pussycat.

MEOW!

And we think we can improve the numbers of 15 inch plus or 18 inch plus smallmouth in them, while keeping the numbers fishery we have in them, and still have something for everybody. The fly in the ointment, according to Bob, is that if we do so, we attract more people, the rivers get more crowded, and everybody suffers. So his solution is keep things as they are. Our solution is to do the potential improvements to the fishery, and use the regs to keep the fishing good while letting the chips fall as they may with more angling pressure. When you think about it, both points of view have some validity.

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.

[hank franklin]

Al, I sense some of the "rural vs. urban" in Bob's argument too. Which is another disappointment because I'm rural and my rural friends are for the most part supportive of these types of regs. So when Bob plays the rural vs. urban card it's just using emotion and politics to disguise the real issue. I've read some of his other writings on this topic and frankly while I respect what he's done through RHT I think his writings on this topic are getting bitter and mean-spirited. He's lost me, for one.