Bob Todd River Hills Traveler Ignorance?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Oh crap. I forgot all about that. I stand happily corrected.

[Al Agnew]

A few thoughts...even though I know everybody is about beat this to death.

First of all, consider history. I've been fishing mostly the same Ozark streams (with side trips to just about all the rest of them) for almost 50 years...I first got serious about river smallie fishing about 1965 or so. This was before the 12 inch minimum length limit AND the creel limit back then was 10 fish. There weren't any jet boats. The tackle and equipment wasn't all that great. There really weren't all that many people fishing Ozark streams seriously for bass, but most of those who did kept most of the legal fish they kept. The fishing was mediocre.

After the 6 fish limit and 12 inch length limit was imposed, in the early 1970s or thereabouts, the fishing began to improve. In the first 10 years after, it improved pretty dramatically, both in numbers and size.

But since the mid to late 1980s, it has seen some decline in some streams. Lots of possible reasons, but the advent of jet boats put a LOT more fishing pressure on the streams, and then there were increasing problems on some streams during the drought years of the early 2000s, probably more illegal gigging due to jet boat use, and some land use and pollution problems. Some streams stayed very good, or even improved during that time, but one almost universal factor in those that improved or stayed the same was that they were too small for jet boats.

Now, consider this. During that time period, we went from most anglers keeping fish, to probably the majority of serious bass anglers releasing nearly all of them. We went from mediocre equipment to fine equipment, and from a general lack of knowledge on how to catch river bass among most anglers to a LOT of knowledge and lots of places to get it. And we went from a time when, if you wanted to seriously fish the larger and more productive streams, you had to float them in a canoe or johnboat with attendant problems of shuttling, handling the boat while fishing, etc., to being able to fish them pretty easily, conveniently, efficiently, and without having to depend upon finding a shuttle by using a jet boat.

So...on the one hand, you have more serious and efficient anglers on the rivers today than you once did. On the other hand, you have a much greater percentage of those serious anglers releasing everything they catch.

I think those two factors cancel each other out. Once upon a time, there were only a few really good river anglers, and nearly all of them kept their catch. Now you have a lot of really good river anglers, and only a relative few keep their catch. So in reality, I suspect that the number of good, serious anglers who keep their fish now is somewhere close to how many kept their fish in 1970, or at least, the ones who keep fish now are better at it than they were back then, so about the same percentage of fish on a given stream section are kept. Or to put it another way, if the same percentage of anglers killed fish now as did back then--if catch and release had never become popular--we'd be forced to have VERY restrictive limits all over the Ozarks to maintain the kind of fishing we have.

What we also see, I think, is that we need to start considering overall more restrictive regulations if we want to maintain or improve fishing in the small, wading size to marginally floatable streams. Some of those streams are probably being seriously impacted by otter predation. Many are suffering from poor land use practices--small streams are the most vulnerable to being filled in with gravel from denuded hillsides and from being degraded by gravel digging and channelization. It would be nice to be able to stop all those problems, but in the meantime, such problems mean fewer fish, and if there are fewer fish, it takes a lot less catch and keep angling pressure to further thin out those fish. In some of these streams, just a couple of good anglers pounding them for a season can depress the population of bigger fish for years to come.

And in some locally popular floatable (but not generally jet boatable) streams, I feel confident in saying that catch and keep fishing pressure is high enough to keep the population of larger fish down. I'm talking of streams such as the Osage Fork, upper Big Piney, Tavern Creek, Beaver Creek, to name a few. Do these streams all deserve special management status? Probably not. The small creeks are too numerous to consider, the smaller floatable streams have high enough numbers of fish. But increasing length limits and decreasing creel limits overall would be a good blanket regulation that would address the potential problems in these streams. Decrease creel limits to three or four, increase size limits to 14 or 15 inches, and you allow close to the same poundage of fish for a meal while allowing more fish to grow to larger adult sizes. While I think that a slot limit strategy might be the best even for overall regulations, it makes little sense to have the same slot limits on small creeks that you have on the bigger, more fertile rivers, and tailoring slot limits to the size and characteristics of the stream would quickly get very complicated.

[Ann]

Mr. Agnew.....Very well stated!

[jdmidwest]

A few thoughts...even though I know everybody is about beat this to death.

First of all, consider history. I've been fishing mostly the same Ozark streams (with side trips to just about all the rest of them) for almost 50 years...I first got serious about river smallie fishing about 1965 or so. This was before the 12 inch minimum length limit AND the creel limit back then was 10 fish. There weren't any jet boats. The tackle and equipment wasn't all that great. There really weren't all that many people fishing Ozark streams seriously for bass, but most of those who did kept most of the legal fish they kept. The fishing was mediocre.

After the 6 fish limit and 12 inch length limit was imposed, in the early 1970s or thereabouts, the fishing began to improve. In the first 10 years after, it improved pretty dramatically, both in numbers and size.

But since the mid to late 1980s, it has seen some decline in some streams. Lots of possible reasons, but the advent of jet boats put a LOT more fishing pressure on the streams, and then there were increasing problems on some streams during the drought years of the early 2000s, probably more illegal gigging due to jet boat use, and some land use and pollution problems. Some streams stayed very good, or even improved during that time, but one almost universal factor in those that improved or stayed the same was that they were too small for jet boats.

Now, consider this. During that time period, we went from most anglers keeping fish, to probably the majority of serious bass anglers releasing nearly all of them. We went from mediocre equipment to fine equipment, and from a general lack of knowledge on how to catch river bass among most anglers to a LOT of knowledge and lots of places to get it. And we went from a time when, if you wanted to seriously fish the larger and more productive streams, you had to float them in a canoe or johnboat with attendant problems of shuttling, handling the boat while fishing, etc., to being able to fish them pretty easily, conveniently, efficiently, and without having to depend upon finding a shuttle by using a jet boat.

So...on the one hand, you have more serious and efficient anglers on the rivers today than you once did. On the other hand, you have a much greater percentage of those serious anglers releasing everything they catch.

I think those two factors cancel each other out. Once upon a time, there were only a few really good river anglers, and nearly all of them kept their catch. Now you have a lot of really good river anglers, and only a relative few keep their catch. So in reality, I suspect that the number of good, serious anglers who keep their fish now is somewhere close to how many kept their fish in 1970, or at least, the ones who keep fish now are better at it than they were back then, so about the same percentage of fish on a given stream section are kept. Or to put it another way, if the same percentage of anglers killed fish now as did back then--if catch and release had never become popular--we'd be forced to have VERY restrictive limits all over the Ozarks to maintain the kind of fishing we have.

What we also see, I think, is that we need to start considering overall more restrictive regulations if we want to maintain or improve fishing in the small, wading size to marginally floatable streams. Some of those streams are probably being seriously impacted by otter predation. Many are suffering from poor land use practices--small streams are the most vulnerable to being filled in with gravel from denuded hillsides and from being degraded by gravel digging and channelization. It would be nice to be able to stop all those problems, but in the meantime, such problems mean fewer fish, and if there are fewer fish, it takes a lot less catch and keep angling pressure to further thin out those fish. In some of these streams, just a couple of good anglers pounding them for a season can depress the population of bigger fish for years to come.

And in some locally popular floatable (but not generally jet boatable) streams, I feel confident in saying that catch and keep fishing pressure is high enough to keep the population of larger fish down. I'm talking of streams such as the Osage Fork, upper Big Piney, Tavern Creek, Beaver Creek, to name a few. Do these streams all deserve special management status? Probably not. The small creeks are too numerous to consider, the smaller floatable streams have high enough numbers of fish. But increasing length limits and decreasing creel limits overall would be a good blanket regulation that would address the potential problems in these streams. Decrease creel limits to three or four, increase size limits to 14 or 15 inches, and you allow close to the same poundage of fish for a meal while allowing more fish to grow to larger adult sizes. While I think that a slot limit strategy might be the best even for overall regulations, it makes little sense to have the same slot limits on small creeks that you have on the bigger, more fertile rivers, and tailoring slot limits to the size and characteristics of the stream would quickly get very complicated.

Not to mention the increased pressure on the streams due to all of the technology advances and improved accesses. Even catch and release has a mortality rate. Increased numbers on a stream=increased mortality.

[Bob Todd]

Some misconceptions about smallmouth:

First, the rural/urban thing seems to be misunderstood by the catch and release crowd. In my experience, the fishermen who are most likely to catch and keep a limit of smallmouth are urban fishermen who reason that because they only get out once or twice a year, they need to keep a limit - if they can catch it.

Yes, there are rural types who still feel like it is wasteful and unthrifty to put legal fish back. They too have a legal right to keep a legal limit. I don’t know very many of them who do nowadays, but they’re still out there.

So what is Bob Todd all about? On a blog I finally became aware of, I’m referred to a fish eater as opposed to a fishermen. Another said if the special management regulations ran off fish eaters, it was good ridence.

Contrary to what you may think, I don’t keep smallmouth very often. I grew up in an era when people kept all they could. For the 35 years with the River Hills Traveler, I’ve been encouraging people to keep what they want and actually will use, not limits.

I joined with the Blue Ribbon Panel of the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance because I too think we can do better with respect to smallmouth regulations in the Ozarks. I did not join - as some now charge - to represent consumptive anglers.

What I found, however, was the die was already cast. There was no disucssion of regulations in other parts of the country - places some Alliance members frequent and want to compare to the Ozarks.

One member of the committee seemed to think the only thing the MIssouri Department of Conservation would buy into would be an expansion of the experimental special management areas. He was pursuasive to enough members of the panel that they went along with it.

I did not, and I won’t be quiet about it. It wasn’t the unnanmious thing it appears.

The most troubling thing in the experiment to me was the fact that anglers were driven away by the 15-1 regulation. Some doubt the figure could be as high as the study showed, but it was probably even higher. I think it can be assumed the catch and release people migrated to these areas, so the number of fishermen displaced was surely even higher than 54 per cent.

After 35 years writing about travels, hunting and fishing in the Ozarks, I’m not about to say “good ridence” about those driven away! Those are public streams, public meaning we all own them and the fish in them. Moreover, I don’t think there’s any doubt our conservaton agency should represent all of us, not just exclusive catch and release people.

There’s the argument that they’re not asking for the whole state to go to 15-1. But there’s no doubt they are asking for the best of our smallmouth streams to be placed under these restrictions. These streams need it the least!

On a less emotional level, I also have problems with the biology.

The study on which they base their argument winds up with an increase in bass over 15 inches in length. Fine. This comes about not only because the regulation limits fishermen to one fish over 15 inches, but because this type of regulation attracts people who dont’ want to keep fish of any size.

There is a considerable mortality in smallmouth getting to that 15 inch mark. The mortality between 12 and 18 inches is almost total. Even in the special management areas after years of trial, the 12 inch fish are a whole lot more abundant than the 14.9 fish.

If we are going to keep fish at all, we should be mindful of those figiures. My granddaughter fished for two years before she managed to catch a legal smallmouth. It was a mark. A goal. And I enjoyed paddling her while she tried. I fear she may have given up if she had to successfully tangle with a 15 incher before she could put a fish on the stringer.

I and my grandson floated a much-touted stretch of Big Piney in the 15-1 section, counting on a fish supper in camp. We caught only one legal fish, a 16 incher, and frankly, one is not enough to feed an old man and a teenage boy.

I’m not advocating that everyone fish for a meal, certainly not everytime they go astream. But one 15 inch smallmouth isn’t enough when you want to cook fish. For practical purposes, 15-1 is a catch and release regualtion.

The proposed 15-3 rule for most of the state is more of the same, but with greater disappointment. If odds are against catching many 15 inch bass in these special areas, imagine the odds of catching three in the lesser waters.

The 18-1 regulation is truly catch and release. It is the figure used for trophy trout, which are by comparison long and skinny. On a few truly trophy areas, I support it. But such places must be carefully chosen and the rule must enjoy wide support in the local area.

• Not too many commenters suggested I keep other species. They know I’m going to suggest they fish for carp instead of smallmouth. Carp are big, brown, fight hard and can be found close to urban areas. Why burn all that gas to get to the Ozarks just to battle a big brown fish?

• A point of order. Catch and release folks seem hung up on how long it takes a smallmouth to reach a certain size. But they don’t seem concerned that a 12 inch crappie is probably seven years old. Age of the fish doesn’t cut much ice with me unless we start talking about fish that may have to live through catastophies.

• There is a lot of new research that suggests tossing back small fish mainly makes more small fish. That’s really not news. Our ponds are that way, nearly all stuffed with stunted bass because they get tossed back. There are parts of Missouri where I think the same is true for smallmouth. Raising the length limit will make it worse in those areas.

I fished the 18-1 strecth of Gasconade River with then director of MDC Jerry Conley. At mid-afternoon, we were stopped by a census boat and asked how we were doing. Jerry responded we’d caught about 100 apiece by that point and the census guy asked if he were joking. No, Jerry is a trained biologists and accustomed to keeping an informal count.

But they were the dinks the MSA complains about. Not one 12 incher, much less a 15 or 18 incher. It was obvious to me and Jerry voiced it - this area could stand a slot limit to weed out some of those little bass. It was a product of the 18 inch restriction, and by the way, the number of 18 inch fish increased very little.

On a blog, one commenter posed the question . . if a slot limit were imposed and its success depended on keeping some small bass, would the catch and release people cooperate and bring a stringer?

It is easy to get caught up in a single solution. Things are more complicated than they seem. The proposals put forth by the SMA make a good place to start a discussion. But there are many other options that need to be explored. And that’s about the most positive thing I have to say about that situation.

Bob Todd

[jdmidwest]

Careful Bob, you will probably get fried like a big old fat smallie by admitting you keep one or two now and then on this forum.

Not too many on here understand the nature of the streams they fish or the fish they fish for. Your response was well put, every stream has its own different problems and its own uses.

I personally quit keeping smallies and other bass in streams when they become loaded up with the little white flukes in the muscle tissue. I know they fry up and don't hurt you, but it is kind of like killing a squirrel with a warble worm, yuk. Now days, if I keep fish, they come out of impoundments where this fluke problem is not as great.

By the way, welcome to the forum. You might find this interesting. I have read the Traveller for years and have always enjoyed it.

[eric1978]

It is easy to get caught up in a single solution. Things are more complicated than they seem.

Couple questions then, Bob:

Do you believe stream smallmouth fishing could be improved with a different set of regulations?

What regulations would those be in a real world application?

We all pretty much agree that different streams have different needs, but realistically we know assigning vastly varying regs to various waters will be not only unacceptable to MDC, but most casual anglers would never figure them out anyway, so they wouldn't work. What would you suggest? In all honesty, I haven't heard much in the way of solutions from you...it seems you're happy with the way things are - mediocre. Please correct me if I'm wrong.