Bob Todd River Hills Traveler Ignorance?

[Outside Bend]

I guess my argument isn't with the mechanics of it- in streams where there's high harvest, raising the MLL or introducing a slot should increase bass size.

My issue is with the human element that some folks seem to be ignoring: there's a constituency of folks who like to keep bass. They pay into the system just the same as anyone else- licenses, tackle, etc. To me that gives them the right to have their interests reflected in MDC's management strategy. To me there's no heirarchy of what's best for a smallmouth stream- c&R isn't any more important than trophy regs or limited harvest. It just depends on how you want a given fishery managed. The wishes and interests of folks who want to keep fish shouldn't be berated or ignored simply because they have different interests than the trophy angling crowd.

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.

Lots of things have changed in the past 20-30 years, and I doubt you could say with any certainty that harvest has effected SMB populations any more than effects like habitat loss, land use changes and urbanization, the increase of hormones and intersex fish, drought/weather patterns, shifts in water temperature, etc. I'd be willing to bet a higher proportion of anglers C&R smallies now compared to 20-30 years ago, and yet you still say there's a decline...

I could only find one MDC study on the Gasconade, where anglers were releasing 51 to 100 percent of the smallies they caught. Even assuming that anglers were removing half the smallies from a river in a year, each female has to produce only a couple offspring out of a nest of more than 3000 eggs in order to make up for the previous season's take, and for the population to more or less maintain itself. You may not be getting any wall hangers, but the population isn't going to crash, either. And as I said before: I just haven't seen any data from MDC which indicates smallie populations are declining, much less due to overharvest.

[eric1978]

I guess my argument isn't with the mechanics of it- in streams where there's high harvest, raising the MLL or introducing a slot should increase bass size.

My issue is with the human element that some folks seem to be ignoring: there's a constituency of folks who like to keep bass. They pay into the system just the same as anyone else- licenses, tackle, etc. To me that gives them the right to have their interests reflected in MDC's management strategy. To me there's no heirarchy of what's best for a smallmouth stream- c&R isn't any more important than trophy regs or limited harvest. It just depends on how you want a given fishery managed. The wishes and interests of folks who want to keep fish shouldn't be berated or ignored simply because they have different interests than the trophy angling crowd.

Look, my point is that creel regulations should be based upon realizing maximum potential of fisheries, not just enough to sustain a population. Once that potential is realized, then people can start skimming the cream off the top by slowly loosening the regs incrementally and keeping more fish until the right equilibrium is found. Of course the appropriate set of regulations will vary from stream to stream, but there's no doubt, and I don't think you will argue, that most Ozark streams could produce more bigger fish...not world records, just more quality fish...you've already conceded as much. So let's get to that point, and then reassess the amount of fish that can be taken.

To me, that sounds fair for everyone. The regulations we have now are great for meat anglers, and just mediocre for anglers interested in better days of fishing. I have to ask again, what makes their desire to eat fish more important than my desire to catch fish? Your argument works both ways, and I have to point out once more that, as of right now, their behavior is interfering with many C&R anglers' desires, just as you state C&R proponents will interfere with theirs. If you want to talk about fairness, I think it's total BS that a small percentage of anglers are allowed to keep a stream stunted in a state of mediocrity, and the rest of us just have to swallow it.

Lots of things have changed in the past 20-30 years, and I doubt you could say with any certainty that harvest has effected SMB populations any more than effects like habitat loss, land use changes and urbanization, the increase of hormones and intersex fish, drought/weather patterns, shifts in water temperature, etc. I'd be willing to bet a higher proportion of anglers C&R smallies now compared to 20-30 years ago, and yet you still say there's a decline...

All those other factors are just more reason to tighten regulations. I'm all for helping with the other problems, too...how do we do that? The answer to those aren't as easy. Regs are one thing that can be done that is immediate, broadly reaching, and inexpensive...and possible.

And as I said before: I just haven't seen any data from MDC which indicates smallie populations are declining, much less due to overharvest.

Would you change your mind if I found some? I'll look for it if the answer is yes. Just the fact that they instituted SMAs in the first place is evidence enough that something wasn't right.

[Al Agnew]

Except in the streams where the spotted bass are a problem, and in some smaller streams where otters are doing a number on them, smallmouth NUMBERS are just fine in the Missouri Ozarks. Even in streams where the habitat is suffering from pollution or poor land use practices, the numbers of smallmouth are about as good as they could be given the degraded habitat.

It's the population structure that is the problem. Is this a conservation issue or a resource user issue? Maybe some of both, but mainly, our streams can keep on producing the same fishing they are now under the same regulations, unless fishing pressure increases significantly, more people start keeping fish, or something bad happens to the streams. So it isn't so much a conservation issue as it is one of "what kind of fishing do we want?"

Yes, there are different constituencies, and MDC has to take them all into account. I think the special management areas plan does that...it doesn't take out all stream sections from harvest regulations--in fact, it certainly leaves more sections under statewide rules for sustained harvest than it takes out. If the majority of serious bass anglers already release most or all the smallies they catch, and everybody wants to catch bigger fish anyway, on a strict fairness basis, the majority of stream sections should be under regulations that maximize the size of fish caught, yet that is not the goal of the SMA proposals.

The question is whether the SMA proposals will accomplish the change in population structure--a greater percentage of the population over 15 inches, or a greater percentage over 18, or a greater percentage over 20, or whatever the goal might be. Restrictive regs with higher length limits have been proven to do so, both in MO and in other states. So while I'm not at all sure they are the BEST way to go, they should accomplish the goal of improving size structure. That's why I support them, even though my personal opinion is that slot limits would do a lot more to accomplish the goal.

Apparently MDC will be studying this issue a lot more, and I hope they will consider slot limits as well as the proposals from the SMA.

[Outside Bend]

Would you change your mind if I found some? I'll look for it if the answer is yes. Just the fact that they instituted SMAs in the first place is evidence enough that something wasn't right.

If you could find it, I'd be interested in seeing it, if the data corroborates what you guys think you're seeing, I'm all open to that.

Maybe just pick one well-studied river, the Meramec, Big, Jacks Fork, Gasconade and Big Piney spring to mind. Maybe throw out the Meramec and Big River because of the spotted bass invasion.

MDC's electrofishing data would probably be easier to obtain and more consistent than creel censuses or angler surveys. I think catch per unit effort (CPUE) and length-frequency distributions would be of most interest, the farther back you can get the better. If you could get figures for yearly fishing license sales, that may be interesting too.

[eric1978]

Not a whole lot of info out there to look at. I did find the same study you did on the Gasconade, and it did say this:

http://mdc4.mdc.mo.g...ocuments/68.pdf

"In the Gasconade River, the number and sizes of smallmouth bass increased after the 18-inch limit was established."

From another study done on Glover Creek in Oklahoma:

http://digital.libra.../v63/p37_41.pdf

"Survival rate (age 2 and older) calculated from our Glover

Creek sample was 39% with 95% confidence limits from 32 to

47%. This is similar to rates reported for other exploited stream

populations (4,18,20,21). Reported annual survival rates ranged

from 34% for Courtois Creek, Missouri (18) to 64% for Buffalo

River, Arkansas (4). Over one-half of the total mortality has

been attributed to fishing from six of seven populations where

data were available (20). No exploitation rates are available for

the Glover Creek population, although it seems to receive

substantial fishing pressure. Fajen (22) estimated that survival of

an unexploited population of smallmouth bass (ages 1-6) in

Little Saline Creek, Missouri, to be 89%."

This report done by the Tennessee Department of Conservation was interesting:

http://www.tennessee...ter/smbtech.pdf

"Unexploited populations in Missouri had 11 and 16 % annual mortality. Among reports for exploited populations in Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, Iowa,

Wisconsin and Alabama total mortality was typically above 35 % and as high as 84 %."

"This modeling exercise suggests that the current lack of length restrictions on smallmouth bass

fisheries always minimizes the abundance of larger bass (PSD and RSD14) and, in most cases (cm

>10%), maximizes yield. This effect would be most pronounced in populations with low natural

mortality and high fishing mortality."

"Based on our assessment of smallmouth bass populations and our modeling exercise using the

FAST Dynamic Pool model, there are opportunities to use length restrictions to improve fisheries

in Tennessee's streams and rivers. Populations that have low natural mortality rates and high

fishing pressure have the greatest chance for improvement. The best length restriction to consider

would be a 356-mm minimum length limit" (in order to please meat anglers, stated below). "Of course, higher minimum length limits could be

even more effective at increasing the abundance of large bass, but they would drastically reduce

the yield from these fisheries. There are a number of anglers that enjoy harvesting smallmouth

bass, therefore the 356-mm minimum length limit, which allows more harvest, appears to be the

best compromise."

Now granted, I cherry-picked these quotes in an effort to provide some kind of evidence that biologists do indeed believe that harvest has a direct impact on the general population and the number of large fish. I suppose the reason I'm having trouble finding a study or an explicit statement that conveys as much is because that's kind of a "duh" comment. I mean it's just common sense that the more you take out, the fewer there are. Come to think of it, I'm not sure what I'm trying to prove to you.

Deciding which regulations are best for Ozark streams is still plenty debatable in my mind, and the more I read, the more I like slot limits. 14-20, 2 under, 1 over and a total of 6 black bass per day sounds good to me. Are you gonna tell me that's not enough meat for one day?

[Ann]

eric1978 said

"I like slot limits. 14-20, 2 under, 1 over and a total of 6 black bass per day sounds good to me."

I agree with you eric. This would seem to be the best compromise. However, what is needed is regulation enforcement. It will not matter what regulations are passed, if noone is enforcing them you will still have those who will ignore them. I don't have all the anwsers and I doubt anyone else does either. I will say that as a person who practices C&R now, I haven't always and I understand this is not a solution either. Some harvest is needed.

I have put in my 2 cents and will hand it back over to you fine gentlemen to continue.....

[Outside Bend]

Yeah, you did cherry pick the data- that Jacks Fork/Gasconade study also shows:

1.) Increasing regs on the Jacks Fork didn't effect smallmouth size, just numbers of fish.

2.) Angler effort did decline after more stringent regs were put into place on the Jacks Fork.

3.) Harvest of smallmouth INCREASED on the Gasconade after more stringent regulations were put into place.

4.) Harvest regulations may not improve size distribution of fish, if there's already a high release rate.

5.) Harvest regulations won't compensate for poor habitat

The data was pretty interesting, and there's a lot that could be said about it. One thing that stuck out at me was this:

Among reports for exploited populations in Missouri, Arkansas, Virginia, Iowa,

Wisconsin and Alabama total mortality was typically above 35 % and as high as 84 %."

If smallmouth mortality in MO is similar to smallmouth mortality in states with well-known trophy SMB fisheries like Arkansas, Wisconsin, and Virginia...isn't it possible that mortality isn't the primary issue?

Just looking at the Fishing Prospects, it doesn't seem to me that there's a dramatic difference in the percentage of smallies greater than 12" between management and non-management streams. Look:

Big River...........................30%

Black River................................25%

Curtois Creek..............................25%

Middle Current.............................45%

Gasconade River (Laclede Co.)..............25%

Huzzah Creek...............................14%

James River.........................58%

Upper Meramec..............................35%

Niangua River..............................22%

I didn't try to cherry-pick the stuff, quantitative data on many SMA's (Big Piney, Gasconade, Meramec, Eleven Point, Elk River, Jacks Fork, Osage Fork of the Gasconade), is curiously absent, even though this data was available for other stream reaches and other streams within the same management region. While the proportion of SMB > 12" is larger than many unmanaged Ozark streams, it's not the largest, and it's not all that different than the proportion on a lot of other Ozark streams without quality regs. The James is sort of an outlier- it has a high proportion of larger fish, but it's also the recieving stream for Springfield's sewage, and is a fair bit more productive than your average Ozark stream.

Deciding which regulations are best for Ozark streams is still plenty debatable in my mind, and the more I read, the more I like slot limits. 14-20, 2 under, 1 over and a total of 6 black bass per day sounds good to me.

[eric1978]

Just looking at the Fishing Prospects, it doesn't seem to me that there's a dramatic difference in the percentage of smallies greater than 12" between management and non-management streams.

I read a ton of stuff today, and one of the articles I ran across was one for the New River in VA. They instituted a 12 mile C&R only stretch in hopes of creating a trophy fishery. After some years under those regs, they found that the fishery had not improved all that drastically. They tagged a bunch of the smallies in the C&R stretch, and after studying those fish, the biologists realized they were moving in and out of the regulated area more than they expected...enough to be caught and kept outside of the special management section.

So IMO, unless an entire river is under one set of regulations, you're not going to see the full implications of the improvements those regs could make, which could account for the lack of disparity in the numbers you posted. The only river mentioned that had a long enough SMA to prevent the aforementioned glitch was Big River, which is so heavily impacted by habitat degradation and spotted bass invasion it could hardly be used as comparison. The other rivers you noted with SMAs are shorter sections and had regular state regs above and below them.

I'm running out of steam for this go-round of this tired old argument. I'm sure I'll be ready to fight it out again in another month or so. OB, I'll just put you in either the "devil's advocate" or the "I don't care" category, and we'll just say you win. I'm pretty sure you know that fishing would generally improve under tighter regulations, but for some reason or another it's not something that interests you or you just like to take a position and argue it whether you agree or not. I always scratch my head when I hear a devoted angler arguing against his own interests, but then again, I'm confused by much human behavior. So until later, I think I'll go outside and shoot me a bald eagle for the smoker tomorrow. I've been seeing a lot of them lately, so one less won't do no harm.

[Outside Bend]

Funk did some of the pioneering work on fish movements in Missouri streams, and found a little more than 60% of the smallmouth population was sedentary. The remainder moved, on average, around 7 miles (upstream), and five miles (downstream). My hope would be the MDC folks took fish movement into account when developing the management areas, and they created those zones large enough to provide a buffer for the effects of other regulations on each end of the special management area.

I'm running out of steam for this go-round of this tired old argument. I'm sure I'll be ready to fight it out again in another month or so. OB, I'll just put you in either the "devil's advocate" or the "I don't care" category, and we'll just say you win. I'm pretty sure you know that fishing would generally improve under tighter regulations, but for some reason or another it's not something that interests you or you just like to take a position and argue it whether you agree or not. I always scratch my head when I hear a devoted angler arguing against his own interests, but then again, I'm confused by much human behavior.

Yeah, I'm pretty cashed myself, and I think we've discussed about all their is, without going into esoteric rants about giggers and black helicopters. I probably should've prefaced everything by saying I've never kept a smallmouth, and that I have no desire to. I just think the meat-fishing crowd ought to have a seat at the table when it comes to regulation and fisheries management.

So until later, I think I'll go outside and shoot me a bald eagle for the smoker tomorrow. I've been seeing a lot of them lately, so one less won't do no harm.

With a diet of fish and carrion, I'm not sure how good a bald eagle would taste. Hellbenders, on the other hand...

I know some good spots on the Gasconade for 'em, spots other folks wouldn't think to look. Let me know if you're interested

Cheers.

[eric1978]

I know some good spots on the Gasconade for 'em, spots other folks wouldn't think to look. Let me know if you're interested

You're on Brother. Let me get this baby knocked out (not literally of course ) and I'll give you a holler.