Smallmouth Regs Debate...again

[FishinCricket]

It's not sinful, it's good stuff. Besides the MDC says it's okay to keep them and what they say is golden because they do all these super scientific surveys.

Try the recipe, it's good, especially with some of those Bald Eagle quesadillas that you were telling me about.

I can just see you licking your greasy chops at the very thought...

[drew03cmc]

Okay...I suspect that not too many avid smallmouth anglers have fished more streams across the Ozarks and across the country than I have. Maybe a few on here...don't know for sure. But I think I bring a pretty widespread perspective on this. At the same time, I've only fished Shoal Creek in SWMO, so I can't pretend I'm an expert on Neoshos.

It's not that I'm no longer concerned about them. And I believe the liberal spotted bass regs have done some good in slowing the increase in spotted bass numbers in many sections. I also think that we are seeing some stabilization of spotted bass numbers on the middle portions of the Bourbeuse and Big River, and I think we've also seen the "lower-middle" Meramec stabilize. Of course, the stabilization has replaced, apparently permanently, a 100% to 0% ratio with at best 25-45% smallies and 55-75% spots.

And to correct a bit of sniping from I believe it was Drew in the other thread...the SMA is concerned MAINLY with the Meramec river system when it comes to spots, and to a much lesser extent the Gasconade river system. They, and I, are perfectly satisfied with spotted bass being in the streams where they are native. And...oh, yeah, the USGS isn't composed of biologists. All biologists with any knowledge of spotted bass in the Ozarks agree that they were not native to the north flowing streams.

Of course, the question to me in SWMO is, to what extent does the genetics either mimic or mask overpopulation? Are the fish small and long-bodied because of genetics or because of overpopulation? But let's assume they are the way they are due to genetics...I believe that to be true, by the way. The question then is, is it possible to improve upon the size structure of the population? Or is genetics the limiting factor on the numbers of 15 inch plus fish and on top end size? I'm interested in hearing what Chief and Drew think on that subject.

But the reality elsewhere in the Ozarks is that, except for the streams where spotted bass are replacing large numbers of smallmouth, and the streams where habitat degradation is limiting their numbers, and the possible future threats like Asian carp invading, the population NUMBERS of smallmouth are not a problem. The problem is purely one of size structure. It's a question of whether we want plenty of 10-12 inch smallies and not many bigger ones, or whether we want a more balanced size structure with more 15 inch plus and 18 inch plus fish. Or, to put it in a political perspective, whether maximizing harvest is more important than maximizing the quality of the fishery. That's really the big choice. Do we want to be able to catch more big fish (while keeping the numbers of fish we catch about the same) while being limited on the number we harvest, or do we want to be able to catch and keep more fish with less chance to catch a big one?

Al, it is good that you have fished across the country. I, for one, dream to one day fish across the country.

I have mentioned the fact that spotted bass would stabilize eventually, and it appears, at least in your eyes, that it might be happening sooner than anticipated.

The genetics keep the Neoshos from attaining the same top end size as the northern strain fish. The water and habitat quality and type is ideal for growing big bass where there is faster water. You will not find Neoshos in slow water. When talking about the Neosho smallmouth, you have to look at the number of fish over 18" in a given watershed. I have seen ONE over 18". Chief hasn't seen many, but where the northern strain fish are present, 18" fish can be in every pool.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Uhm, yeah.. Because you know these local meat eaters are more than happy to volunteer information.. lol

I wouldn't venture to guess one way or the other. That is why I say it will be interesting.

[Greasy B]

Yesterday I spent yet another wonderful day on the middle Meramec with trophy habitat galore catching plenty of fish but nothing over 12”, what a lost opportunity. I know I’m preaching to the choir but something needs to be done, this is sad.

[Al Agnew]

Remember that trip I reported on last summer where I caught all those fish out of that marginally floatable creek, and got hammered by a few people because I wouldn't name the creek? That is probably the best example I know of a creek that gets very little fishing pressure, so one would assume that the smallmouth population is about as close as you can get to a "natural" population with a size structure that's little affected by catch and keep anglers. It's probably as close as you can get to what a lot of streams would be like if they were total catch and release. I looked back through the archives to find my report so I could be reasonably accurate as to numbers, but I'm still just guessing as to size structure...

320 smallmouth caught in 2.5 days, in about 32 miles of stream. So...about ten fish caught per mile. I probably fished about 24 total hours, so figure between 13 and 14 fish per hour. Now, as to size structure...

I'd guess about 45% of those fish were under 12 inches. 30% between 12 and 14 inches. Maybe 12% between 14 and 16. 8% between 16 and 18. 5% over 18 inches. And I lost several big ones...you don't lose little fish like you do big ones, and it's also harder to fool big fish in the first place, so it's possible that the actual size structure would include a little bigger percentage of fish over 18 inches.

Habitat in that stretch is good to excellent in the upper half, but gets worse as you go down, until I'd rate it poor at the lower end, with long stretches of very shallow, almost cover-less water along with a few good deep rocky pools. Overall I'd call it average for an Ozark stream of its size.

So...is that about as good as you could expect under very restrictive regulations? Maybe so. Is it better than what we have now in a lot of streams? Absolutely.

Now...let's do some estimating of an Ozark stream with average fishing pressure under statewide regulations. I kept detailed records for many years of all my trips, and I went back one time and averaged them altogether, with the numbers something like this:

5 fish per hour.

5 fish per mile.

60% under 12 inches.

22% 12-14 inches.

11% 14-16 inches.

5% 16-18 inches.

2% over 18 inches.(Actually a little less than 2%)

Now I don't know exactly what MDC says the size structure is on the various streams they've studied. But it seems to me that if you can accomplish a doubling of the percentage of fish over 18 inches by regulation changes, along with a similar increase in the percentage of fish between 12 and 18 inches (if that's the slot, for instance), that would be a very good thing.

But like I think I said somewhere above (I'm losing track of what I've said), changing the size structure to make more big fish doesn't always mean you can CATCH more big fish. The special management area of the Gasconade, with a one fish 18 inch limit, may have resulted in more 18 inch fish in the river, but it still ain't easy to catch them, and even with such restrictive regulations, it isn't easy to catch 50 fish a day, either. Bass seem to learn to avoid lures under heavy pressure. I've always wondered about the difference between trout and bass. There are lots of great trout streams that get pounded to death by catch and release anglers, yet it's still easy to catch trout in them, but go to any smallie stream in the Ozarks that's big enough to get heavy jetboat fishing pressure, and the fishing is often tough even though the theory is that 90% of the anglers are releasing everything they catch.

So, I don't think it's a sure thing that more restrictive regs would result in greatly improved fishing. It all depends upon how many fish are being caught and kept under the current regulations. And how well the new regs would be followed. I still think it worth trying, though.

[Chief Grey Bear]

320 smallmouth caught in 2.5 days, in about 32 miles of stream. So...about ten fish caught per mile. I probably fished about 24 total hours, so figure between 13 and 14 fish per hour. Now, as to size structure...

That comes to one fish every 4 1/2 minutes. You're a machine Al! No way I could do, or would do 32 miles in that short of time.

[FishinCricket]

That comes to one fish every 4 1/2 minutes. You're a machine Al! No way I could do, or would do 32 miles in that short of time.

He's either got webs on his feet or an extreme NoDoze habit.. Or both! lol

Either way I've decided I'm stealing his homemade baits next time we camp together...

[Gavin]

Al is a machine...he's great at boat positioning, and a very fast, efficient, & accurate caster. I figure he was getting 5-6 good presentations in for every 2-3 that I made when we were on the G. Nade a couple weeks ago.

Chief, I'm glad to hear that youd be on board for a slot limit of some sort....Figure it will be a couple more years before we see anything from MDC...they have that smallmouth tag study going for another year or more so its doubtful that well see anything from them until that is completed. Now lets go fish.

[hank franklin]

The main point I would like to make is we need regulations that clearly value smallmouth bass. The 6-creel, 12-inch limit does not value smallmouth. The special management areas are a start in that direction but in my estimation MDC still has a long ways to go.

MDC clearly values trout; huge resources are directed at trout and regs are almost stream-by-stream. Deer are hugely valued; again, county by county regs here. A kid growing up with an outdoor ethic will value deer almost intrinsically. The state and its sportsmen clearly value deer. We all want deer to grow and prosper. When it comes to fishing, clearly trout are king. They are closely managed and protected.

Smallmouth in this light are second-class citizens. A kid growing up on the middle to lower Meramec probably won't have an ingrained sense of the value of smallmouth; to him they are just bass. Not a highly valued species.

I want smart, science-based regs that clearly values smallmouth. MDC so far in my opinion hasn't got there yet.

[Flysmallie]

When it comes to fishing, clearly trout are king. They are closely managed and protected.

That's where the money is.