Mdc Enforcement Issues

[Al Agnew]

I think we are on the same page. I don't have a problem with "trophy hunters" that hunt the quarry on natures terms. It is when they want regulations changed to favor their quest by producing an unatural amount of "trophies".

I often wonder what Fred Bear would think of todays hunters. Or maybe Charlie Orvis. How would he view those today that use his equipment to chase "trophies" artifically enhanced by strict harvest limits designed to create said "trophies".

You last sentence says it all. That is spot on!!!!!

Chief, maybe the question is, what IS an "unnatural" amount of trophies? It could just as easily be argued that with major levels of fishing pressure, the present population structure on many streams is unnatural. I believe that to be so, given that on the very few streams that I fish which do not get much fishing pressure, the ratio of big fish to little ones is better. And at the same time, there are still LOTS of little ones.

This is, as you know, more a matter of managing angling opportunities than managing the resource. As I think you have pointed out, on most streams there are plenty of fish. The trade-off is the choice between maximizing harvest while maintaining good populations, or minimizing harvest to improve the size structure of populations. Or, improving the angler's chances of catching bigger fish, at the expense of being able to keep more and smaller fish. It's one of MDC's juggling acts they have to do. In my opinion, the juggling has in the past been skewed toward maximizing harvest, now it's beginning to be balanced out, and I will give you the point that it could at some point be skewed toward the other end of the spectrum.

It's also always a matter of what the perceived value of the fish is. The "trophy" angler will tell you that big fish are too valuable to "waste" by eating them. The meat angler will say they are too good a food source to "waste" by over-protecting them. And then you get into the comparisons between species. Since you can eat pretty much all the sunfish you want to clean, why not fish for sunfish if you want to eat fish? Or why not eat stocker rainbows rather than big browns?

But it all comes back to balance. I truly believe we can furnish opportunities for both the trophy angler and the meat angler, and I think that's what MDC will continue to try to do.

[jdmidwest]

Most "outdoorsmen" have lost perspective on what it really means. Understanding nature and enjoying it to its fullest. Going out for a good day in the woods and enjoying the fine day that God had given you. Take some food for the table, catch some fish for relaxation and enjoyment, it is not a job but a passion. Kick back on the boat and feel the warmth of the sun, listen to the ripples of the water.

Don't make it a competition, mine was bigger than yours. That adds stress. Then you make a JOB. You will not see the meaning of what you have to enjoy. Unless it is a friendly competition you share with a friend.

MDC does a good job for the most part. Most of the employees I deal with are great and really care about what they do. I think the article is some BS created from someone with a hardon for the MDC.

[ozark trout fisher]

Most "outdoorsmen" have lost perspective on what it really means. Understanding nature and enjoying it to its fullest. Going out for a good day in the woods and enjoying the fine day that God had given you. Take some food for the table, catch some fish for relaxation and enjoyment, it is not a job but a passion. Kick back on the boat and feel the warmth of the sun, listen to the ripples of the water.

Yes JD, that is what it is all about. I couldn't have said it better.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief, I believe much has been lost on the art of fishing and hunting. There is a lot of blame to be given to the media ( hunting fishing shows )

That is spot on!!! Your whole post is my exact feelings on this. And thanks for the Fred Bear link...those are words to live by!!!

Chief, maybe the question is, what IS an "unnatural" amount of trophies? It could just as easily be argued that with major levels of fishing pressure, the present population structure on many streams is unnatural.

We both have read pages and pages and pages, of stories and reports from the late and early parts of the last two centuries and looked at many, many photos from that same time period. We both know that large fish, although not uncommon, were not caught in multipules on a daily basis. And that any fish of any modest size was kept and eaten.

Now we also have to concede that fishing technology has vasty improved. As well has the knowledge of fishing. And with that, we have also turned more to C&R than at any other time in human history. It is a well known fact that as we migrated across this continent, fish was a key part of the diet. It is also known that as we settled in the valleys, fish became common table fare to help families subsist this hard scabble life.

So know we have to study the true amount of "pressure" the streams are receiving. Yes more people are fishing and using the streams. But as more and more practice catch and release, how are todays fish compared to those from 100 years ago??? You and I have both noted that today's fishing compares favorably if not more favorably than trips of yester year.

But it all comes back to balance. I truly believe we can furnish opportunities for both the trophy angler and the meat angler, and I think that's what MDC will continue to try to do.

And I think we can both agree that they are accomplishing that task.

[eric1978]

But as more and more practice catch and release, how are todays fish compared to those from 100 years ago??? You and I have both noted that today's fishing compares favorably if not more favorably than trips of yester year.

I think the more important question is: how are today's fish compared to 300 years ago? That is the standard to which we should be striving and for which we should be designing regulations. To say that it is better now than at any time in recent history, for as long as whitey has been around at least, is insufficient.

What is an "unnatural amount of trophies?" How many trophies would a river produce if it was untouched by this massive population of man? Because that's the natural amount, and that should be MDC's goal...anything less than strict C&R is "unnatural," an arbitrarily chosen level of man-made mediocrity dictated by man-made regulations in order to please those who prefer exploitation over conservation. There are simply too many people fishing the rivers to allow them all to keep a few fish a day and still have a population of fish that is demographically "natural."

This argument obviously only applies to native fish. The debate over MO trout regs is totally subjective, since there is no baseline of what is "natural," and therefore only needs to be argued within the context of the "cost to angler satisfaction" ratio. The regulations require no conservational consideration, only what is financially and recreationally acceptable to anglers.

[Feathers and Fins]

Chief and Eric you both brought up two points I’ll quote below, But all of have failed to see one if not the biggest concerns and points in management.

So know we have to study the true amount of "pressure" the streams are receiving. Yes more people are fishing and using the streams. But as more and more practice catch and release, how are todays fish compared to those from 100 years ago??? You and I have both noted that today's fishing compares favorably if not more favorably than trips of yester year.

This argument obviously only applies to native fish. The debate over MO trout regs is totally subjective, since there is no baseline of what is "natural," and therefore only needs to be argued within the context of the "cost to angler satisfaction" ratio. The regulations require no conservational consideration, only what is financially and recreationally acceptable to anglers.

Gents as I have been reading the post to this thread and in a thread about my home water where Al has also shared about his there is something underlying that is more troubling to me then regulations on slot size or bag limits.

Chief yes more and more people Catch n Release then ever in this Countries history and that is in large part due to the Media as well as the availability of fish to be bought in stores. That can be traced back to earlier in this century to refrigerated transportation methods. People just don’t need to catch and keep the wildlife as they once did.

Eric your point is well founded in as much as trout are not native yet they are here and are a viable resource now so regulation is in order as they have now become part of the ecology of the waters they are in. They are a viable food source, viable recreation source and a major source to the economy of the surrounding areas. So yes they do disserve protection.

But what I don’t see near enough of is and what is troubling is the amount of effort our DNR agencies place on regulations of the wildlife yet place little regulations in protecting the lands and waters. We have all seen the trash left on the banks and see the runoff from farms and ranches. We can regulate the wildlife all we want but if there are not stricter regulations and enforcement of them to protect the lands then this will all be moot.

Pollution be it trash or pesticide or fertilizer is more a threat to our waterways than any under or over harvest of the fish on them. Before people worry about the limits they need to worry about the lands. Or we won’t need to worry about the limits on fish and game.

[Justin Spencer]

Pollution be it trash or pesticide or fertilizer is more a threat to our waterways than any under or over harvest of the fish on them. Before people worry about the limits they need to worry about the lands. Or we won’t need to worry about the limits on fish and game.

The truth is that it is so much easier just to manage the wildlife directly. A lot more work is involved in the other, so as we "try" to help the environment, agencies put regulations on the taking of fish and wildlife in an attempt to prop up populations that would do better with better habitat, or water conditions. Once the white man came to this continent it was a very short time before we had hunted or fished many animal populations to near extinction. This was without the environmental concerns we have today. A balance must be reached and limits on fish and game will always be an integral part of that balance.

[Feathers and Fins]

Justin the "White Man" excuse doesnt hold water with me. Yes it was true at one point but the same problem that caused it then still causes the concerns to this day. GREED!

[eric1978]

But what I don’t see near enough of is and what is troubling is the amount of effort our DNR agencies place on regulations of the wildlife yet place little regulations in protecting the lands and waters. We have all seen the trash left on the banks and see the runoff from farms and ranches. We can regulate the wildlife all we want but if there are not stricter regulations and enforcement of them to protect the lands then this will all be moot.

Pollution be it trash or pesticide or fertilizer is more a threat to our waterways than any under or over harvest of the fish on them. Before people worry about the limits they need to worry about the lands. Or we won’t need to worry about the limits on fish and game.

You're certainly right about that, F&F, and it's been discussed quite a bit here in the past. I think the trouble is most average Joe anglers and outdoorsmen are a little bit at a loss about what to do about it. Protecting habitat is a much tougher battle to fight since private interests have so much influence in government and legislation. So even though I'm extremely concerned about habitat degradation, I often find myself scratching my head over it, throwing up my hands, and then focusing on problems that have easier solutions...like creel regulations. That's a much easier fix as I see it.

And let me clarify about the trout regs...I'm totally in favor of tightening regulations there as well, especially on the wild fisheries, even though the trout don't technically "belong." I'm an angler and I enjoy catching them, so I favor protecting the resource since we have it. And tighter regs in the put and take fisheries would cost us less money and offer us better fishing.

What I find hardest to understand is why it seems so difficult to be discriminating with regulations. Why not apply strict regulations to those species that are most coveted by anglers, i.e. smallmouth, brown trout and wild rainbows, and keep the more relaxed current regulations on the other species (and trout park fish) more typically pursued for table fare? There are so many species out there that are more abundant (and frankly tastier) and less valuable to "sporting" anglers. It sounds like a fair compromise to me...here, you can eat the other 95% of species, but leave these few prized fish for the sportsmen.

We've been down this road so many times. Been a while, though.

[Justin Spencer]

Justin the "White Man" excuse doesnt hold water with me. Yes it was true at one point but the same problem that caused it then still causes the concerns to this day. GREED!

I was just using that to point out the need for game limits, without them even with a perfect environment there would be no game.

You won't get any arguement from me on the need to improve the conditions of our enviroment above all else. At the risk of making this an "eco-crusade" without some major changes in how we treat the planet, game laws will be of little concern in a hundred years or so.