Mdc Enforcement Issues

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

What can one person do about any of the conservation problems facing our streams? Not much. But I do suppose if everyone just sits back complaining that nothing can be done, that's going to end up being a self-fullfilling prophecy. But your question is valid, what can you do? Well I really don't know the answer to that, but I'm starting by writing everyone who might be able to have some kind of positive impact on the specific streams where I'd like to see improvement. The MDC, congressmen, anyone. And then going to those streams on a regular basis and picking up as much trash as humanly possible. Heck if I know what I'm doing, but at least I'm (probably ineffectively) trying to do something. When you see what amounts to your home water being absolutely trashed, you'll want to do something about it.

[Al Agnew]

Great discussion going on...

I think you have to differentiate between things that are managing the sport, and things that are protecting the resource. We could liberalize every fishing regulation, encourage people to keep ten bass a day, let them gig anything they wanted, etc. and the fishing would most certainly decline. But then if we realized our mistake in doing so and tightened up the regs again, the fishing would get back to what it was in a very few years. But if we allowed and encouraged unlimited gravel mining, unlimited clearing of the watershed, let people dump their sewage directly into the rivers, encouraged farmers to grow more cattle and use the river as their watering hole, and built more towns and more subdivisions along the riverbanks, for all intents and purposes we've destroyed what is good about the rivers for a long, long time.

Some say the environmental problems facing the streams are obvious and easy to fix. But they are only obvious to those who have known the streams for many years and have seen the bad things happening, and who care about the streams for themselves and not just for some economic gain or loss. And they are easy to fix only if everybody, or at least a very substantial majority, are on the same page.

We've argued gravel mining in the past. Want to know why the streams are full of gravel? Look to the whole watershed, and the clearing and development of it. Every hillside denuded of trees, every new road built to a new house on the hillside, every overgrazed upland pasture, dumps tons of new gravel into some tributary that soon finds its way to the river. The only way to fix that is to somehow limit development over the whole watershed. How are you going to do that? The only other way to help, not fix, the problem is to educate everybody on best management practices for whatever development they want to do. That ain't easy, either, and unfortunately there is a substantial number of people in our region who can't stand for anybody to tell them anything that somehow smacks of limiting their "right" to do whatever the heck they want with their land.

The last time I talked with Larry Dablemont, he was on a new crusade...a lot of people don't know that there is federal money available through a couple of different programs to pay landowners to fence cattle out of the streams, construct water tanks and systems to take the water from the stream to the watering tanks, to replant riparian corridors with trees...in other words, to do things that would help the streams a LOT. The problem is, in order to get the money, the landowner has to do the work FIRST, then apply for reimbursement. There's an obvious problem or two with that scenario. Most landowners probably don't have the spare cash lying around to pay for all that to begin with. And a lot of landowners are suspicious of anything that might somehow mean the government has some sort of hold over them. Larry's idea is that MDC would use some of all that sales tax money to front the cash for those improvements. Now I don't know exactly how feasible that is. But it's an idea that could be explored.

Point is, though, that in America, and in today's political climate especially, it's extremely unlikely and extremely unsettling to propose that watershed protection be done by regulation. It's going to be a long, slow haul to do it by education and incentives. Let's not pretend that the protection of stream watersheds and the remaining issues with pollution have easy solutions. It was easy to tell a city or a homeowner to stop dumping raw sewage into the river. It's a whole lot harder to figure out how to stop farm manure run-off, pesticide run-off, herbicide run-off, treatment and removal of weird chemicals in our waste water, siltation from erosion of farms and developments...if it was easy and palatable to everybody, it would have been done already.

The stream team concept is a good start, though. What I've been a little disappointed in with the stream teams is that there should be a lot more structure. There should be organized groups of stream teams for EVERY watershed, with serious coordination with MDC and DNR both, so that things that ARE illegal are being monitored by the stream teams and reported promptly to the authorities, and so that MDC and DNR can be advising the stream team groups constantly on the problems over the whole watershed, how they need to be addressed, and also with money and expertise in furthering the education needed.

I got more stuff to say, but it's suppertime.

[ozark trout fisher]

Great discussion going on...

I think you have to differentiate between things that are managing the sport, and things that are protecting the resource. We could liberalize every fishing regulation, encourage people to keep ten bass a day, let them gig anything they wanted, etc. and the fishing would most certainly decline. But then if we realized our mistake in doing so and tightened up the regs again, the fishing would get back to what it was in a very few years. But if we allowed and encouraged unlimited gravel mining, unlimited clearing of the watershed, let people dump their sewage directly into the rivers, encouraged farmers to grow more cattle and use the river as their watering hole, and built more towns and more subdivisions along the riverbanks, for all intents and purposes we've destroyed what is good about the rivers for a long, long time.

Some say the environmental problems facing the streams are obvious and easy to fix. But they are only obvious to those who have known the streams for many years and have seen the bad things happening, and who care about the streams for themselves and not just for some economic gain or loss. And they are easy to fix only if everybody, or at least a very substantial majority, are on the same page.

We've argued gravel mining in the past. Want to know why the streams are full of gravel? Look to the whole watershed, and the clearing and development of it. Every hillside denuded of trees, every new road built to a new house on the hillside, every overgrazed upland pasture, dumps tons of new gravel into some tributary that soon finds its way to the river. The only way to fix that is to somehow limit development over the whole watershed. How are you going to do that? The only other way to help, not fix, the problem is to educate everybody on best management practices for whatever development they want to do. That ain't easy, either, and unfortunately there is a substantial number of people in our region who can't stand for anybody to tell them anything that somehow smacks of limiting their "right" to do whatever the heck they want with their land.

The last time I talked with Larry Dablemont, he was on a new crusade...a lot of people don't know that there is federal money available through a couple of different programs to pay landowners to fence cattle out of the streams, construct water tanks and systems to take the water from the stream to the watering tanks, to replant riparian corridors with trees...in other words, to do things that would help the streams a LOT. The problem is, in order to get the money, the landowner has to do the work FIRST, then apply for reimbursement. There's an obvious problem or two with that scenario. Most landowners probably don't have the spare cash lying around to pay for all that to begin with. And a lot of landowners are suspicious of anything that might somehow mean the government has some sort of hold over them. Larry's idea is that MDC would use some of all that sales tax money to front the cash for those improvements. Now I don't know exactly how feasible that is. But it's an idea that could be explored.

Point is, though, that in America, and in today's political climate especially, it's extremely unlikely and extremely unsettling to propose that watershed protection be done by regulation. It's going to be a long, slow haul to do it by education and incentives. Let's not pretend that the protection of stream watersheds and the remaining issues with pollution have easy solutions. It was easy to tell a city or a homeowner to stop dumping raw sewage into the river. It's a whole lot harder to figure out how to stop farm manure run-off, pesticide run-off, herbicide run-off, treatment and removal of weird chemicals in our waste water, siltation from erosion of farms and developments...if it was easy and palatable to everybody, it would have been done already.

The stream team concept is a good start, though. What I've been a little disappointed in with the stream teams is that there should be a lot more structure. There should be organized groups of stream teams for EVERY watershed, with serious coordination with MDC and DNR both, so that things that ARE illegal are being monitored by the stream teams and reported promptly to the authorities, and so that MDC and DNR can be advising the stream team groups constantly on the problems over the whole watershed, how they need to be addressed, and also with money and expertise in furthering the education needed.

I got more stuff to say, but it's suppertime.

Usual reasonable post Al. Some of my posts are....not as reasonable. I agree that doing what is necessary to help improve watersheds is as tough a thing as any conservation issue. Maybe a losing battle in the end, I don't know. But when I see streams with a few miles of my home that could support good smallmouth populations so polluted that they are literally changing colors and no one even cares, well if there is anything on this earth that can motivate me to do anything humanly possible that is it. It just makes me so sad to see that, and I either have to let it drive me nuts or at least try to fight what is probably a losing battle. I don't see any other choice. Not that I think I can actually do a danged thing, but I still have to try.

[jdmidwest]

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.

oneshot

Muzzleloading season has really changed since its inception. It started out as a disadvantaged hunt with primitive weapons and evolved in to something almost along the lines of a hunt with modern weapons. I still hunt with my Hawken Rifle and Hawken Pistol. I picked up a Thompson Center White Mountain Carbine this fall at a shop to try next year.

Modern muzzleloaders, inlines, scopes, electronic ignition, powder pellets, and now modern centerfire pistols will just increase the harvest. But the herd needs increased harvest, so it is not really a big deal. Look how Archery has changed thru the years. I started with a traditional longbow and moved up to a compound. My compound bow from the 80's would be the modern equivalent of a percussion rifle.

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

Not sure where the datat is going to come from for the MDC to use other than as you say strict C&R. But boy, talk about trampling your liberties.

I think if you look at the record book, more records have been set in the last 20 years or so than at any other time in history in this state. That has got to say something about the fishing and how the MDC is managing it. It would be very hard to argue against those results.

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

There has been a huge change in our eating habits. Beef, pork and chicken is in such abundence and so cheap, it would cost you more to eat wild game. And you are exactly right, we don't need to eat wildlife as we once did. I do because I enjoy all aspects of it and to pass on the traditions of yester year on to my youngings.

[Chief Grey Bear]

The last time I talked with Larry Dablemont, he was on a new crusade...a lot of people don't know that there is federal money available through a couple of different programs to pay landowners to fence cattle out of the streams, construct water tanks and systems to take the water from the stream to the watering tanks, to replant riparian corridors with trees...in other words, to do things that would help the streams a LOT. The problem is, in order to get the money, the landowner has to do the work FIRST, then apply for reimbursement. There's an obvious problem or two with that scenario. Most landowners probably don't have the spare cash lying around to pay for all that to begin with. And a lot of landowners are suspicious of anything that might somehow mean the government has some sort of hold over them. Larry's idea is that MDC would use some of all that sales tax money to front the cash for those improvements. Now I don't know exactly how feasible that is. But it's an idea that could be explored.

From what I have seen floating over here, more and more landowners are limiting cattle in the streams. And using a very low cost solution. Less than a half dozen T-post and some used cattle panels. This was one of the ideas I was hoping the MSA would possibly adopt and implement when we had discussions a year or so ago. It is a great all around win win for everyone. The land owner provides the materials and the MSA provides the labor. A couple of hours or so and done.

[Feathers and Fins]

Chief, Im with you on eating, I keep alot of fish each year and game, from deer to quail and fish. We do not buy alot of meat because we are able to hunt and fish. I preffer it to store bought because I know where it came from and it is fresh.

When i was growing up other kids would look at me strange as my lunches were Dove, Quail, Pheasant, Deer etc. They thought I was strange , now they hunt and fish and have told me they wished they had that.

[Al Agnew]

From what I have seen floating over here, more and more landowners are limiting cattle in the streams. And using a very low cost solution. Less than a half dozen T-post and some used cattle panels. This was one of the ideas I was hoping the MSA would possibly adopt and implement when we had discussions a year or so ago. It is a great all around win win for everyone. The land owner provides the materials and the MSA provides the labor. A couple of hours or so and done.

That's a start, Chief, but if I'm understanding you right, what that does is keep the cattle in one small spot in the stream instead of all over in it. It does not solve the problem of cattle manure in the creek. As much as keeping cattle out of much of the stream, the important thing about those programs is the possibility of re-vegetating the stream banks and keeping the cattle completely away from the streams.

But you're right, these are things that MSA and stream teams could be helping landowners with. A litter clean-up once or twice a year is nice, but there needs to be a lot more partnerships between stream protection organizations and landowners.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I'll take some pics this year and send them to you. There has been some pretty innovative stuff out there. One guy strung a heavy cable and hung panels off of it.

And you are exactly right. Partnerships between landowners and us are very important to not only the stream but those that enjoy using the stream. All it takes is a knock on the door. And I am just as guilty of not knocking.