More Smallmouth Discussion

[Outside Bend]

From what I've observed, the discussion over more restrictive smallmouth regs is a matter of angler preference more so than the health of the resource: one segment wants to see more quality fish, while other folks have different interests.

While I agree that more restrictive regs would lead to more large fish overall, it'll only work if the anglers support and adopt those regulations. If people don't see the value of letting stream smallmouth grow, they'll still keep fish below the 12 inch slot, potentially undercutting those restrictive regs. IMO, to see results, you need to change the culture/values just as much as you need to change the regulations.

Folks like Lee Wulff, Dan Bailey, etc, extolled the virtues of C&R and limited harvest long before those ethics were popular with most anglers, before many state agencies had adopted those regulations. Once the paradigm shifted from keeping everything to valuing more and larger fish, fisheries generally improved.

For me, advocating stricter regulations is really only focusing on one side of the equation. Maybe it's overly idyllic, but if folks (myself included), spent less time on here debating the merits of regulation, and more time engaging the general public, we would see increased compliance with existing regs, and an increased demand for more miles of quality smallmouth fishing.

Maybe interested parties should spend more time working on the public outreach side of things- talking to folks at the access/boat ramp, gas station/tackle/fly shop clerks, high school/scout/church groups, etc about the value of quality smallmouth fisheries. Maybe the Smallmouth Alliance could spearhead some other PR efforts- I mentioned in some other post about rulers with corresponding length-at-age, showing folks just how old a 12 inch smallie is. Maybe a patch program similar to the "I Released a Lunker," program the trout parks do.

I guess all I'm saying is: anything done to increase demand for quality stream smallmouth fisheries is going to make it easier to get better quality regulations implemented on Ozark streams in the future. If we're not going to tackle issues like habitat degradation and land use changes because they're too difficult, why make the regulations avenue any tougher than it has to be?

[FishinCricket]

For me, advocating stricter regulations is really only focusing on one side of the equation. Maybe it's overly idyllic, but if folks (myself included), spent less time on here debating the merits of regulation, and more time engaging the general public, we would see increased compliance with existing regs, and an increased demand for more miles of quality smallmouth fishing.

I dunno, I'd hate to be seen as "preaching" or presenting a "holier-than-thou" attitude to folks who are most likely collecting dinner for the week...

You sure we can't just stay here and whine anonymously?

[Gary Lange]

I started a Southwestern Chapter of the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance and had a meeting room set up at the Springfield Nature Center for the first Thursday of the month. Norris and myself sat alone for the months of April, May and June with nobody interested in coming out to listen to what I had to say. I canceled to meeting room as I felt that since nobody was coming out it was useless to keep the room from some other use.

It seems to me that they would rather whine about things and complain about what others would like to do then to get involved themselves. Perhaps sometime down the road I will try again but for now I am going to fish Table Rock and enjoy life.

[eric1978]

While I agree with everything you said OB, I'm taking Cricket's position. I'm too lazy for all that other stuff. I'd rather just complain and hope the problem goes away.

No, I'm only half kidding. If I didn't have to work and could spend unlimited time on whatever I wanted, I'd participate in those kinds of things, and I'm fully supportive of those ideas. But every chance I have to get on a river, which is few and far between, I spend every second of fishing. I could probably last about ten minutes at an access talking to people before I'd be wandering upstream, rod in hand. Call it an excuse or a cop out or whatever...maybe it is, and maybe that means I don't have the right to whine about it, but I'll continue to anyway. I do have to admit, though, if I ever saw folks from the MSA or other conservation-oriented group up at BPS or Cabela's talking to people and handing out pamphlets, I'd be much more inclined to join and participate. Maybe they have, but I haven't seen it, and it makes any effort I might consider making seem that much more futile. It just seems like a lot of time-consumption for very little impact, and that's why I'm always preaching about broader-reaching actions like regulations.

I think the conservation-minded, C&R mentality is growing with each passing day, but my opinion has always been that it takes so few anglers to put a big dent in a population on most streams, that if you leave the decision for people to make, they'll inevitably screw things up. That's what humans do. Sometimes you just have to force the issue and tell people what they can and can't do. Like it or not, some rules are necessary for the benefit of the greater good, since often we seem unable to control ourselves as a group.

Again I want to point out, this whole argument isn't transferable to any other MO gamefish species, as far as I can see (trout notwithstanding...entirely different conversation). I wouldn't be arguing this stuff for gills or crappie or temperate bass or catfish or whatever. It's pretty universally agreed upon by those who have hooked into a nice sized smallmouth that there's something special about the species that makes it stand out above the rest. They fight harder, they live in really cool places, they're beautiful, they grow very slowly, they're more elusive...on and on reasons why smallies deserve special attention and regulations. They're not just another fish. I don't understand why it's selfish of smallmouth enthusiasts to want to restrict harvest of ONE species of fish. I don't hear people having these conversations about any other species (in our region), so it goes to show that either there actually IS a need for new regs, or people just like this fish more and the number of those who support tighter regulations has reached critical mass and it's time to get it done. Either way, it's enough for me to disregard the desires of the small percentage of greedy meat anglers who disregard the desires of the larger percentage of recreational anglers and who depress the quality of fishing for everyone. THEY are in the minority now, and THEY are behind the curve. THEY should make the adjustments. I'm rambling.

[oneshot]

Just my .02 but I feel people feel they are regulated to death on everything concerning Hunting and Fishing I'd say sure Regulate the Smallmouth with Slot Limit,I'll just catch Crappie there is a Limit of 30 on streams I'll have plenty to eat and have fun catching them.Next thing you know someone will decide to cut back on Limit of Crappie.Well thats ok I'll still have Channel Cats.You see where this is going? I Fish and Hunt mostly for the Freezer and I follow regulations but alot of things I can't see reason for change.

oneshot

[ozark trout fisher]

I was gone for the week, and I can't say I missed the smallmouth debate one bit... No further comments.

[flytyer57]

I don't live in MO, but the smallmouth issue is one that is felt in every state.

I don't believe in keeping any bass unless releasing it would mean certain death anyway, like being gill hooked. If you want meat, eat a bluegill. There are plenty of them around and they taste better anyway.

Here in AR, they have the Blue Ribbon streams. Crooked Creek being one of them. There is a 14" limit on smallmouth except for the Kelly's Slab area in which there is an 18" minimum. Personally, I think it should be "catch and release" like on the trout streams, but that is just my opinion.

As for slot limits, a 12-16 inch slot probably wouldn't work. A slot limit must be utilized to work and I don't think too many people are interested in harvesting bass under 12 inches. There's no real meat on them at that size. I could be wrong though as some people keep every fish they catch. In that sense, a minimum length limit may not be effective either.

In order for any of these regs to work, the MDC must identify quality waters and only then enforce slot limits and length limits. This means that a lot of smaller streams will have just a general regulation. A statewide 14 inch minimum, except for those quality streams, is what I would consider adequate. Almost all streams are capable of producing 14 inch bass and a smallmouth of that size is a nice fighter using proper tackle (not surf rods and 100 lb test line.)

[gotmuddy]

I don't live in MO, but the smallmouth issue is one that is felt in every state.

I don't believe in keeping any bass unless releasing it would mean certain death anyway, like being gill hooked. If you want meat, eat a bluegill. There are plenty of them around and they taste better anyway.

Here in AR, they have the Blue Ribbon streams. Crooked Creek being one of them. There is a 14" limit on smallmouth except for the Kelly's Slab area in which there is an 18" minimum. Personally, I think it should be "catch and release" like on the trout streams, but that is just my opinion.

As for slot limits, a 12-16 inch slot probably wouldn't work. A slot limit must be utilized to work and I don't think too many people are interested in harvesting bass under 12 inches. There's no real meat on them at that size. I could be wrong though as some people keep every fish they catch. In that sense, a minimum length limit may not be effective either.

In order for any of these regs to work, the MDC must identify quality waters and only then enforce slot limits and length limits. This means that a lot of smaller streams will have just a general regulation. A statewide 14 inch minimum, except for those quality streams, is what I would consider adequate. Almost all streams are capable of producing 14 inch bass and a smallmouth of that size is a nice fighter using proper tackle (not surf rods and 100 lb test line.)

There are a few places that are 18" minimum length on crooked creek. I personaly wouldn't eat a smallmouth under 12". There just isn't enough meat to justify killing it. I am the same way with trout. I want at least a 12" rainbow if I am going to filet it.

[Outside Bend]

I just wanted to bring it up, something for folks to think about. At times, the whole regulation thing seems like a bit out of Monty Python's "Life of Brian," lots of folks saying things, relatively few doing anything.

Carry on.

[hank franklin]

People talking on online message boards are like the coffee crowd in any small town. Lots of bull and occasional glimmers of insight with no real bearing (for the most part) on the actual decision making. If you really want to get involved, write a letter to the MDC instead of posting on a message board. If they get enough letters in support of slots they might change their thinking. Better yet go to an actual Conservation Commission meeting.

I agree that change in values is what really makes a difference, not change in regs. But I also think (as Al points out eloquently in the Bob Todd thread) that values have changed and the great majority of serious bass anglers are C & R. The regs then reinforce the values already out there and of course set the new standard which influences values as well. (As Al has also said, a higher reg says simply "smallmouth are important" which the current reg basically does not say.)

I found Bob Todd's Traveler comments to be contradictory and weak, basically. He in fact had a seat at the table in developing the MSA-backed regs, but his large public stand against them was lacking in any meaningful substance. Oppose it, fine, but at least make a decent argument. He's a meat fisher, fine, but I think he is in the minority when it comes to serious smallmouth anglers and to me the suggestion that there's a large 6 creel 12 LL constituency is a myth and in my limited research is "un-evidenced." Bob probably knows this too so he basically plays the rural vs. urban card which frankly sickens me, because the rural guys I know (including yours truly) are generally all of the C & R mentality. (We didn't get there overnight mind you, most of us grew up catch and kill.) Rural vs. urban is just a nasty political game.

There was some good discussion on this board but at the end of the day it's still just talk. I don't have the time to research the fine points, or attend the committee meetings, etc. so when the MSA comes out with a well-reasoned balanced reg proposal, I say simply "what they said." I thank them for their work and wish them well in getting this through. It probably ain't perfect but nothing is.

Last thing I'll say is I do think the decision makers do on occasion read these boards and get some of their input from them. And again by and large the overwhelming opinion here (despite the myriad differences) is that smallmouth are important, C & R generally is today's sportmen's ethic, and greater protection for the fishery (be it regs, habitat etc.) has wide support. I've followed this issue for close to 15 years now and the "big picture" change I've noticed is that smallmouth are simply more valued than they used to be. That alone is a great improvement and naturally will lead to better regs over time. Thanks again to Al and Dan Kreher and any others who have volunteered their time to work so hard on this. Hopefully the Conservation Commission will recognize the change in attitudes over a wide spectrum and raise the bar for the next generation of anglers. It's definitely time.