Mdc Enforcement Issues

[Justin Spencer]

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.

Sounds good to me. But all of the different regs. on different bodies of water and different species starts to get confusing to those of us who try to keep up with them, let alone those who only visit occasionally. I had some guys in last week that ask me what they could keep in the red ribbon area. We get so few people that actually want to keep fish, that I had to go look it up for them. One guy came back with a 23" brown, one with a 19" brown, I would have rather seen them keep a couple 15 inch browns, but the law allows for this so while I wish those fish were still in there for me to catch I'm not upset with them for doing something perfectly legal.

[Feathers and Fins]

From a purely game regulation stand point It shouldnt be to difficult. Remove the RED WHITE AND BLUE and go with a simple system. X Location is to be catch nad release only and list all those areas. The rest of the waters are a P and T fishery. Put the Brown trout regs at 22'' inch minimum length with only 1 per day per angler and the rainbows do a slot of 4 fish between 10'' and 19'' and allow for 1 fish over 20'' to be kept that would make it easy to remember.

Lets use Crane and Taney for examples.

Crane Creek would be assigned the PROTECTED status allowing for catch and release only.

Taney would be assigned the Put and Take status allowing for 1 brown per angler over 22'' and 3 rainbows 1 of which may be over 20''

Confusion solved.

Confusing regs are a problem for the public and enforcement.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

Yes, that is exactly the point I was trying to get across. It's just so much easier to ask for better regs, when what's really necessary for an improvement in a fishery in most cases is habitat improvement. I know this because I've been guilty of it in the past...Regs are if course important, but compared to gravel mining, rising temperatures, cattle, sewage, and all the other problems facing our streams, it's kind of small potatoes. When I look at so many of the rivers I like to fish, the Little Piney (outside the Mark Twain stretch), tributaries of the Meramec, and just about any of the streams here in central MO, you really can't hope to make much progress with better regs until the habitat is drastically improved. They're just not in a state where they can support much, for significant stretches of stream. It isn't easy to get the ball rolling on that kind of change, a lot harder than getting some length limit changed, but it's what needs to happen more than anything else. Our rivers will never again be like what they were 300 years ago, but progress can be made. The things is, in a lot of case all it would take for significant improvement is fairly simple stuff like better gravel mining procedures, keeping cows out of a stream, and taking some basic steps to keep sewage and other nasty stuff out of rivers.

[ness]

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.

But the Indians kept such crappy records. The occasional petroglyph, picture on pottery or legend is all we got. Meriwether Lewis kept some journals, but that was only about 200 years ago, and focused only on the Missouri River and surrounds. His spelling was horrible, and he wasn't too good at drawing pictures.

[eric1978]

But the Indians kept such crappy records. The occasional petroglyph, picture on pottery or legend is all we got. Meriwether Lewis kept some journals, but that was only about 200 years ago, and focused only on the Missouri River and surrounds. His spelling was horrible, and he wasn't too good at drawing pictures.

Haha, very funny. But in reality you can draw the conclusion, based upon our knowledge of Native American cultures and their propensity to use resources in strictly need-based, responsible and thrifty ways, that they had little to no impact on fish populations. Couple that with the fact that there were so few of them in the area compared to the current population, and their presence assumes even less significance.

And in light of the rightful concern of habitat degradation, tightening regulations, in my mind, is even more critical than if the streams were in perfect health. But instead to say, "The streams are in bad shape, might as well keep more fish," makes no sense to me. We need to do both...why not start with the easy part while we figure a solution to the hard parts?

[ness]

I think Pat Paulsen said it best: 'All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.'

I'd vote for him for president this year if he wasn't dead. I might anyway.

[Gavin]

I think Pat Paulsen said it best: 'All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.'

I'd vote for him for president this year if he wasn't dead. I might anyway

Dats funny...

I dont have too many complaints with MDC Fisheries..The smallmouth & brown trout regs need a tuneup...MDC's Wildlife is a piece of work...The duck hunters have very some good reasons to hate on those folks.

[ozark trout fisher]

We need to do both...why not start with the easy part while we figure a solution to the hard parts?

Yes, we need both. But my concern, is that if we start we the easy part (changing regulations), will we just leave it at that? And I would argue that in most cases, it is not going to be rocket science to find solutions that will help improve habitat. In most cases it is so darned simple. Stupid, easy to fix things like cattle eroding stream beds are mostly what are hurting our streams.

If the habitat in a stream won't support a good population of whatever species of fish you're trying to manage, you can put all of the regulations in place that you want an the effect will be minimal. I say we shouldn't start with the easy part. We should start by trying to improve the most important factor, which I think most people would agree is habitat.

Maybe my opinion is a little bit biased on this now, as I would have agreed with you in your assessment on this a few months ago. But I have spent a disproportionately large time lately fishing streams where the habitat is seriously impaired, one way or another. Just spending time on the streams near where I now live in Central MO has really colored my opinion on how important habitat and water quality is compared to other factors. Spending a whole lot of time on streams with excellent potential, that just aren't given half a chance with pollution, erosion, stream-side development, etc will do that. Heck, one of the streams that just this August I was catching smallmouth out of, got some sort of chemical leak in it, and the water turned green. Neon green, and it's now happened three times in the last few months. Talk about something that will catch your attention. I guess I just think I'm going to focus my energy for now on doing what I can to help streams that are total wrecks now get to the point where they can be half-way decent fisheries. Everything else can wait. I appreciate that it's good that we have others who will be fighting the good fight as far as regulations go, but I only have so much energy to give to conservation causes and this is what I'm choosing to take on now.

Wow, long post. Got to go.

[eric1978]

Yes, we need both. But my concern, is that if we start we the easy part (changing regulations), will we just leave it at that? And I would argue that in most cases, it is not going to be rocket science to find solutions that will help improve habitat. In most cases it is so darned simple. Stupid, easy to fix things like cattle eroding stream beds are mostly what are hurting our streams.

I agree. Now how do you suppose we fix that? Unless you tell me you're a state Senator or Congressman and you're about to propose some legislation, I'm a little dubious about your ability to do anything about it. It's easy to point out the problems...the solutions are what elude us.

[oneshot]

Getting back to OP known Larry Dablemont for several years,he is Old School back to a time the woods was burnt every Spring,Bass were kept for the Skillet and Game Warden was not your Best Friend.Knew several Agents from back then,it was a whole different time then.Most hunted and fished for Food.But there was many breaking their Backs trying to Farm the Hills.Funny there was more Rabbits and Quail back then.

Larry Dablemont is like me very outspoken he just does it on paper.Me I've been against the fact MDC is allowing Modern Pistols during next seasons Muzzleloading Season which is my present gripe but like my wife says getting too Old to make waves.

Only time Larry Dablemont got me going is when he was picking on a Long Time Personal Friend of mine Ralph Duren on his calling ability.The Guy got me interested in Turkey Hunting spent time teaching so many about hunting not only Turkeys.

Me try to be friends with all,don't mean we are always going see to eye to eye but not going to let disagreements take over my life.

oneshot