Smallmouth Regs

[Outside Bend]

Everything I've been able to find indicates food isn't the limiting factor for smallmouth growth in most Ozark streams. They generally seem to have enough of a prey base to support a larger (either in terms of numbers or size), smallmouth population.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I would be fine with a slot limit, but I would want it much more restrictive than your version, CGB. 14-20, 2 or 3 under, 1 over (smallmouth), and a total of 6 black bass per day (except no limit on spots on Meramec watershed). That's plenty of meat for the eaters, and would leave more of the big boys for the anglers. I'll support any increase in regulations. Any.

The more restrictive you make the slot, the less it will work. If at all. It will only work to improve the desired results if applied correctly. And that means you and I both would have to start harvesting those on the bottom end of the slot.

A lot can be written and has been written about the harvest and consumption of fish from the the smaller end of the scale. Most folks that fish to eat fish as a meal not as a fish fry, prefer to consume those that are refered to as a "pound and down". They are younger, more tender and haven't devloped the stronger taste of fish. They are much milder. There are also noted health risked in eating the larger, older fish. We have all read about the amounts of heavy metals and such, mainly from the burning of coal, that have negativly affected the rivers and lakes and thus the fish within them. The larger and older the fish, the larger the concentration of these in the flesh.

So, just off the top of my head, here's what I'd like to see...

Large rivers--a 14-20 inch slot on smallies only, with two fish under and one over. Other black bass species would have a three fish/14 inch limit. Other than lower Current River, this would allow plenty of harvest while protecting the larger smallies. On lower Current River, smallmouth are by far the dominant species with relatively few largemouth and spots, so I'd adjust regs on it and possibly on the Eleven Point to allow one more smallie under the slot to be kept.

Medium-large rivers--maybe a 14-20 inch slot on largemouth and smallmouth, with 4 fish under and one over. Spotted bass, a 10 inch limit, 5 fish creel. It's not that I'm against spotted bass where they are native, but they don't have the growth potential of the other bass species and they spawn at 10 inches or less.

Medium-small rivers--14 to 18 inch slot, 4 under, one over on largemouth and smallmouth, same spotted bass regs as the medium-large rivers.

Small streams--three fish limit on all black bass species, 14 inch length limit. This would tend to protect these creeks from overharvest by a few meat fishermen.

In addition, I'd keep the spotted bass regs now existing over the Meramec system and extend them to the Gasconade system. And I'd put all the southwest MO streams under Chief's suggestion, 13-16 inch slot with 4 under, one over, on all black bass species.

At least that's my starting point. I'm sure few in MDC would go for that level of complexity in regs, but something like that is what I think would best maximize angling on all the streams.

Now I think that is right on. And I am also afraid you are correct in that the MDC will find it too complex to emplement. And there is some validity in that. But it does look like a great place to begin refining.

[RSBreth]

Everybody's thinking here is going the right way, but I do have to take a second and comment on the idea that overpopulation is a factor in our streams. I fish a small stream (Bull Creek) often, and there is a huge amount of forage in this stream. Crayfish and shiners and shad everywhere, in huge numbers.

Overpopulation is not a problem for Smallmouth in Bull, overharvest is, plain and simple.

It's pretty hard to call someone out about keeping 5 dinky 12" Smallies if it's legal to do so. Then the next couple of years after "Mr. Fish Fry" has cleaned the creek out it's just got 7" fish, mostly. Any change to that would be welcome by me.

[Buzz]

And I'd put all the southwest MO streams under Chief's suggestion, 13-16 inch slot with 4 under, one over, on all black bass species.

I agree with you both on this one. And although I know there are are probably smallmouth bigger than 16" (I have yet to catch one over 15.5"), it would protect the most productive size of fish and allow for many more in the 15" size.

Everything I've been able to find indicates food isn't the limiting factor for smallmouth growth in most Ozark streams. They generally seem to have enough of a prey base to support a larger (either in terms of numbers or size), smallmouth population.

That may be true in the larger streams. We have a couple of streams that actually have an over population due to, what we believe to be, much less forage. On one stream in particular, I don't think we saw any crawdads at all. The total fish population was great, but the overall size was a max size of 14". Toss a craw bait of just about any type and you caught a bunch of fish. I think a slot limit would help this stream immensely.

Now, if we are the majority meaning C & R fisher people, are you going to take those fish below the slot limit? Even though you know it will help these streams????????????

I would seriously like to know how all of you guys stand on this question.

[ozark trout fisher]

I don't support the harvest of smallmouth in any manner really, so I wouldn't be at all supportive of a slot limit. I think we should do our best to return the smallmouth population in our streams to the state it was before humans messed things up. That would mean not only catch and release, but also habitat improvement. I don't think we should be managing smallmouth just so we can catch trophy sized fish. Rather, we should be doing this with the motivation of returning our smallmouth streams to what they used to be, whether we would consider that "quality smallmouth angling" or not. Increasing the number of fish that can be harvested (as slot limits would in many smaller streams) doesn't help accomplish that. If a stream naturally is over populated with smallmouth, then that's just the way it was meant to be.

One of the best ways to help our streams return to what they once were is through catch and release.Since my personal goal of statewide C&R for smallmouth will not occur for a long time, restrictive length limits (15" or 18"), and small bag limit seem like a reasonable compromise.

The exception to what I'm saying occurs in streams where man caused the overpopulation (through channelization, gravel mining and other abuses). In streams where man has degraded the habitat, high populations of small fish tend to be the rule. And in that case, it would be beneficial to harvest some small fish, although habitat improvements would probably do more to help the situation.

[Outside Bend]

Now, if we are the majority meaning C & R fisher people, are you going to take those fish below the slot limit? Even though you know it will help these streams????????????

I would seriously like to know how all of you guys stand on this question.

If there was some more evidence to corroborate what you're seeing, I wouldn't have a problem keeping smallies. But I've only seen a few Ozark streams which would support smallie fisheries but had quanitifiably low prey abundance- and those had been heavily impacted by lead mining.

Not saying it's impossible for there be stunted smallmouth populations in some Ozark streams, it just seems unlikely to me given the flashy nature of many of those streams (lower spawning success), as well as predation and other factors. It may just be that the fish population in those streams have reached equilibrium; an entirely natural situation.

[Kicknbass]

I like Al's slot limit idea. Breaking it down by stream section based on use is a reasonable way to regulate to best meet the needs of the various use groups. A 3 fish 14-20 slot. Would protect larger fish and improve the average size catch in the streams. The 3 fish under would allow the folks that like a fish fry a reasonable creel for a meal. The 1 fish over 20 would allow a trophy to be taken.

Ozark Trout fisher:

There has been no time in history that the fish in MO streams were not harvested. For thousands of years before the Ozarks were settled, the Ozarks were inhabited by the Osage Indians that lived of the land. Fish included. State wide catch and release is absurd. A slot limit is the best all around management practice. A whole lot better than the current 6 over 12" limits that we have today.

[ozark trout fisher]

I like Al's slot limit idea. Breaking it down by stream section based on use is a reasonable way to regulate to best meet the needs of the various use groups. A 3 fish 14-20 slot. Would protect larger fish and improve the average size catch in the streams. The 3 fish under would allow the folks that like a fish fry a reasonable creel for a meal. The 1 fish over 20 would allow a trophy to be taken.

Ozark Trout fisher:

There has been no time in history that the fish in MO streams were not harvested. For thousands of years before the Ozarks were settled, the Ozarks were inhabited by the Osage Indians that lived of the land. Fish included. State wide catch and release is absurd. A slot limit is the best all around management practice. A whole lot better than the current 6 over 12" limits that we have today.

Native Americans didn't harvest nearly as many fish as we do know-I imagine it's not even on the same scale.

[Guest]

I

deleted

 

[eric1978]

Native Americans didn't harvest nearly as many fish as we do know-I imagine it's not even on the same scale.

X2...Compare the effect the Native Americans had on the buffalo population to the effect whitey had on the buffalo population. Not a perfect analogy, but close enough. There were so few Indians that the impact they had was negligable, I'm sure.