Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[ozark trout fisher]

But you are wrong Eric, I have seen it work, but it took time and a great deal of banging heads on walls and keyboards. Where once the Gopher tort was just that annoyance to builders now there are preserves for them. Where once there wholesale killing of Eastern Diamond back rattlers there is now protection, Where there use to be a Good Gator is a Dead Gator mentality there is limits and protection. Infact one of the greatest conservation stories in this Nations is that of the American Alligator. Or how about the Turkey or Whitetail deer. My friend there are many success stories.

You used the word "REDNECK" well they dont get much more redneck then Georgia, Florida, Loisiana and yet those Rednecks had the forsight to finally understand after some very open minded conservationist pointed it out to them without name calling or steriotyping them. Now look at those and many other species that are comming back. IT DOES WORK.

Feathers and Fins, we may not quite agree on some of the specifics here, but I like your attitude that something can be done to help change hearts and minds....Which is the only real hope for our rivers and streams, or any other conservation effort. Rules and regulations help, but until a critical mass actually cares about these things, it isn't going to be enough. Just saying "Well, there are some peoples minds who you will never change, so it isn't worth trying to win anyone over", that's what seems like an irrational argument to me.

There are plenty of people that I've come to know hunting and fishing down in the deep Ozarks that truly care about conservation, who would be willing to work to help improve populations of native species. People that some here would certainly write off as rednecks. For every deer dogger and person who strings up a limit of smallmouth every day, there are a whole lot more people that can't stand those practices, and would do a lot to stop it. And a belittling attitude towards those folks isn't going to do anything to win them over.

[Feathers and Fins]

Cricket, That is another mentality that causes people to not want to help your cause. A person who just moved here could be your next great speaker, or the person with insight to maybe help. But so long as you keep the "jackleg" name calling mentality you will NOT win people over to goals.

Explain to me why I or anyone should want to help someone like you and others who name call?

Explain to me why a Game and Fish official should take you seriously when talk badly about the people?

I truly understand your feelings i truly do. Name calling mentality is counter productive. Trust me Ive taken on the HSUS and made them look bad and forced at least one of their offices to change porcedure. I had to control my anger and my mouth and maintain a professional stance though the entire ordeal. The internet is a wonderful thing, Talking bad about a group ot people and its quickly found.

Educating the indivdual is great I try and do it. I also understand like you that banging a head on a wall is a common feeling. But if you can reach one just one it gives you the will to reach the next. It is not a quick or easy process but an obtainable one.

[Al Agnew]

Ron, the goggle-eye issue wasn't touched upon at the meeting except to say something to the effect that they are studying it.

Seems to me that while we all want simple regulations that do the job of protecting and maximizing the resource, the resource over a whole region isn't simple enough for simple regulations to work well everywhere. Chief has pointed out over and over again that the streams in his area are different from those on the eastern side of the state, with different conservation issues requiring different approaches. And some areas of the Ozarks have much more of the catch and keep, "city folks can't tell us what to do" mentality than others. MDC is always noting that some county officials and judges are much less friendly to game laws than those in other counties. And some counties or areas have a lot more of the element that would consider vandalism and deliberate breaking of the regulations as a valid response to rules changes they didn't like. Part of the consideration for a given stream section to be put under special management under the existing regulations is whether or not the people of the area will generally support it or not.

I'm actually uncomfortable with advocating strict catch and release or very restrictive limits over a wide area. Partly it's because many streams don't need it, because they have plenty of bass. Not that it would hurt, but it wouldn't help enough to balance ticking a lot of people off. And partly it's because, while I don't care to keep smallmouth bass myself, I hesitate to tell others they can't unless there's a good reason to do so. But there are some things I'd like to see done statewide short of that kind of very restrictive regs.

1. I agree, close the season to catch and keep season from December to June. These fish really are vulnerable in the spring holes in the winter. It makes no sense to allow them to be killed wholesale around the springs.

2. Raise the length limit to 14 inches.

3. Lower the creel limit to 4 fish.

Now...other than those things, here are some different issues for different stream sections:

1. Large, jetboatable rivers are getting pounded in many different ways. They are being gigged the most, and thus more bass are being gigged illegally. They are getting heavy fishing pressure from good anglers. They are the sites of tournaments that relocate a lot of fish. I'm pretty sure that smallmouth populations in these rivers are far depressed from what they once were. You can't do anything about the fishing pressure. The gigging is a separate issue. The tournament anglers would kick and scream if you tried to shut them down. Even lowering the creel limit or raising the length limit drastically on these streams would put a major crimp in the tournaments. It's going to take some innovative things to make fishing better on these streams. Technology that allows immediate catch and release in tournaments, and regulations that say you have to run immediate catch and release contests, no transporting fish to weigh-ins. This would also allow you to put on more restrictive regulations, because with immediate catch and release the tournament anglers wouldn't have to worry about them. Then put the best sections of these rivers for growing big bass under 1 fish, 20 inch regs for a few years, and see if the population went up significantly. I'll bet it would. The problem with studying and then doing a "permanent" reg, as MDC seems to be wedded to doing, is that they are starting in the wrong place. They don't have baseline data on smallmouth populations on rivers like the middle to lower Current and middle Meramec from the times before the advent of jetboats multiplied fishing pressure exponentially, they only have the anecdotal evidence of anglers like myself, who experienced the fishing on the Meramec back in the late 1970s and early 1980s when there were vastly more fish of all sizes in the river than there are now. But MDC only has good data from back then on a few smaller streams like the Courtois. They simply don't know how much better these streams could be than what they are now. So, put on restrictive regs on a five year trial basis, and study the heck out of that section while the regs are on to see how the fish populations react. The only stream where anything close to that reg is now is the special management section of the Gasconade.

2. Floatable streams that are not generally used by jetboats are a different story. They vary a lot. Some are covered by rental businesses and have hordes of people but relatively light fishing pressure. Others are not served by canoe rentals, but get a lot of locals catching and keeping fish. Still others (unfortunately not many) are lightly fished and lightly floated. None of them have tournaments to any extent. Few get pounded by illegal giggers except right around accesses. My statewide creel limit of four fish and length limit of 14 inches is probably enough to make many of them better fishing, along with a few more sections under special management, but I'd really like to see more slot limits rather than 1 fish, 15 inch limits.

3. Wadeable and marginally floatable streams are probably the most fragile streams. They suffer the most from degraded habitat. They are susceptible to just a few catch and kill people pounding them. They are often lightly fished, but really they can't take a lot of heavier fishing pressure; they are usually good fishing because few people fish them, but as Ron, myself, and others have seen, it only takes a very few people to make the fishing go downhill fast. The 4 fish 14 inch limit would help with this problem, but I'd like to see a few of these stream sections be made catch and release only.

4. There's the special situation on southwest MO streams with genetically distinct Neosho smallies, living with mixed populations of native spotted bass and largemouth. I'd like for MDC to get more serious about studying the population dynamics in these streams. How do spotted bass impact the smallies? How slow-growing are these smallies?

5. And there's the spotted bass situation on the north flowing streams. I'd like to see, just as an experiment, the limits completely removed for spotted bass along with complete protection for smallies, on a couple of different stream sections on a five year experimental basis. The upper Bourbeuse and upper Big River would be good candidates for this. And I'd like to see the Gasconade river system included with the Meramec in the 12 fish, no length limit regs on spotted bass.

[FishinCricket]

Cricket, That is another mentality that causes people to not want to help your cause. A person who just moved here could be your next great speaker, or the person with insight to maybe help. But so long as you keep the "jackleg" name calling mentality you will NOT win people over to goals.

Explain to me why I or anyone should want to help someone like you and others who name call?

Explain to me why a Game and Fish official should take you seriously when talk badly about the people?

I truly understand your feelings i truly do. Name calling mentality is counter productive. Trust me Ive taken on the HSUS and made them look bad and forced at least one of their offices to change porcedure. I had to control my anger and my mouth and maintain a professional stance though the entire ordeal. The internet is a wonderful thing, Talking bad about a group ot people and its quickly found.

Educating the indivdual is great I try and do it. I also understand like you that banging a head on a wall is a common feeling. But if you can reach one just one it gives you the will to reach the next. It is not a quick or easy process but an obtainable one.

Golly gee, mister, you've got it all figgered out dontcha?

My attitude comes from:

1. BEING a local (some call us rednecks, others Jake legs, it's all the same) all of my life

2. Being told MULTIPLE times over the years by locals (who were over limit or were stringing up smallies daily) to mind my own dammed business

3. Seeing my fisheries steadily decline while NO ONE does a dammed thing about it

If you take offense to me calling my cousins dumbasses then obviously you just don't have my experien e and have no clue what I am talking about..

Meet me tonight at the end of the spring hole and I'll show you 20 guys who are working on cleaning all the smallies out of the river RIGHT NOW. Approach any one of them and explain your point of view..

But bring a helmet.

[Outside Bend]

OB, I almost always agree with you, but I think your rationale here is a little...irrational. We shouldn't change laws and regulations because we're afraid of retaliatory vandalism from locals? That's just ridiculous.

You're right that it's hyperbole, I was just trying to illustrate that anglers may have to deal with irate locals a couple times a year, MDC guys have to deal with them every day, from the Circle K clerk to their kids' teachers. They don't get to leave, and we ought to at least be cognizant that we're not the ones who would have to deal with the brunt of the fallout.

It's not that I'm against the regs, I'm just wary of the unintended consequences. I don't want to see MDC burn so many bridges that it impacts many of their other goals. With 98% of the state in private hands, MDC needs to maintain a rapport with landowners and the public as a whole- even the rednecks. If harvest was unsustainable I'd be right there with you Eric, but my understanding is numbers is acceptable, just not the size structure we want. It's not a bad goal, and I like the idea, I'd just want to avoid as much of the heartburn as possible.

[FishinCricket]

And if you truly think that catch and keep fishermen aren't hurting MY fishery, then here's my challenge:

Give me the location of YOUR favorite spring hole spot and see how long I can go catching and keeping all your largest smallies before they're all gone.

I dare ya.

[awhuber]

I dont know why someone would keep smallies, they arent that tasty. Maybe Phil could start the "keep 4" movement by taking one of the smallies off the logo stringer?

[Feathers and Fins]

There it is what I was wondering if that was the motive, "MY"! Sir you DO NOT own the fish or game and are wanting to stop people from having them because you beleive they belong to you. That is the ammunition and arguement any person will use against any arguement you will have from that point on.

Here is a pointer and im not meaning to degrade or put you down, Try say "our" and take yourself out of it. You will get more people to pay attention to you when you show them its about everyone not just YOU or THEM but everyones best interest. You are showing to me someone who understands where your coming from and would be supportive of your efforts the disrespect you say you are getting from the ones your trying to change. I tend to not take people as serious when they disrespect others. Other people do the same.

[eric1978]

But you are wrong Eric, I have seen it work, but it took time and a great deal of banging heads on walls and keyboards. Where once the Gopher tort was just that annoyance to builders now there are preserves for them. Where once there wholesale killing of Eastern Diamond back rattlers there is now protection, Where there use to be a Good Gator is a Dead Gator mentality there is limits and protection. Infact one of the greatest conservation stories in this Nations is that of the American Alligator. Or how about the Turkey or Whitetail deer. My friend there are many success stories.

But here's my point, F&F...the builders didn't have anything to do with protecting the gopher tortoise; the "only good snake is a dead snake" type of person had nothing to do with the protection of the rattlers; and swamp people don't have anything to do with the protection of gators. The government mandated the protection of these animals, and the locals bitched and moaned but begrudgingly complied...for the most part. Eventually they got used to it and maybe even a few can now actually see that it was a good move. But you're not gonna win a majority of their hearts and minds...that kind of Cinderella story only happens in Disney movies.

The popularity of C&R has rapidly grown in the last few decades, and that's great...and let's keep educating, I'm all for that. But it doesn't seem to penetrate deep into the woods. These people are cemented in tradition, and no one is gonna tell them what to do. Facts, science and reason are no matter to them. They don't care. And I'm living on the planet NOW, so I don't have the time to wait for these people to catch up with modern conservation science. They need to be led by the hand.

And the other thing is, since when does someone lobbying for ANYTHING worry about what other groups of constituents want? We all have a particular interest, and keeping as many smallmouth in Ozark rivers is mine. Why would I care what some greedy meat hunter wants? That would be like a pro-life lobbiest worried about upsetting Planned Parenthood.

[eric1978]

There it is what I was wondering if that was the motive, "MY"! Sir you DO NOT own the fish or game and are wanting to stop people from having them because you beleive they belong to you. That is the ammunition and arguement any person will use against any arguement you will have from that point on.

Say WHAT? Cricket lets his fish GO. Remind me again...who acts like it's MY river? Who thinks the river belongs to him? The selfish people are the ones who diminish the resources by killing everything they catch, not the C&R anglers. Nothing says "I own this" like tossing it in a cooler and removing its flesh.