Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[BackCastingGolfer]

I think the biggest point we need to get across is that all bodies of water than are home to fishwere NEVER designed by God/Nature to sustain fishing pressure. I often think about our world without the automobile and how fishing was limited to where you lived and that was it.

[Outside Bend]

Eric- 90+% of the state's muskie are released unharmed- not because MDC requires C&R, but because anglers realized that's what it takes to maintain those trophy fisheries.

I'm not saying it's easy. Just that it does happen.

[Feathers and Fins]

Eric you grasp most of what im saying. But the goverment would not step in unless someone helped bring it to them and force the issue. You want the MDC to step in no diffrent than those who managed to obtain the protection for the wildlife I used as examples. Do you think they did it overnight? I can asure you they had the same struggles you are facing and talking about.

Yes i do understand the ( hillbilly, redneck, jackleg,coonass or whatever you want ot call them) I do know its frustrating to no end some day. But im a stubborn pigheaded mule and love a challenge. Reading over Al's post it appears to be a management issue on a vast and large scale. I do not think from his post you can manage the resource in this instance with a blanket rule or regulation and then there is the issue of enforcement once regulations are in place.

You will NEVER in a million generation get some of the people to obey the law, those need ot be dealt with by Mr. Green Jeans and tougher penalties need to be part of the conservation action. Really is a 50$ fine going to stop someone or threat of taking a license they probably dont have any?

But you might be able to get enough of the "Big city slickers" to get behind you and by sheer numbers force upon the MDC the need to act. But they will take their time we all know that.

I would love to know what you would beleive to be resonable limits or seasons. Al's proposals seemed very well thought out and one people could live with to me. But then im already on the side of conservation.

[ozark trout fisher]

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.

Maybe if you actually kept an open mind about "these people" who live "deep in the woods" and are "cemented in tradition" you would know that a lot of them actually do care about conservation, and that most of them are not ignorant back-woods hicks who have to be treated like children. I am in support of the tightest practicable smallmouth regs, but I am not in support of your stereotypical way of looking at people who live in remote areas of the Ozarks. I have friends in places like Eminence and Winona, family "deep in the woods" of southeast Missouri, and most of them just aren't like what you describe.

I now live right in the middle of a town of nearly 100,000 people. And my favorite smallmouth stream is being trashed by city folk, trashed much worse than any Ozark creek is being by some old-timer bait fisherman who keeps a limit. So yes, city folk can be just as bad or worse in their conservation ethics than people in remote areas. And they often are.

[Smalliebigs]

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.

Awsome dude!!!!!!! best post of the new year for me..........I feel your pain

[eric1978]

Eric- 90+% of the state's muskie are released unharmed- not because MDC requires C&R, but because anglers realized that's what it takes to maintain those trophy fisheries.

Perhaps the average muskie angler is of a somewhat different ilk than your average homegrown Ozark river rat. It'd be an interesting demographic study.

I would love to know what you would beleive to be resonable limits or seasons. Al's proposals seemed very well thought out and one people could live with to me. But then im already on the side of conservation.

Just gotta dig up the archives...they're in there.

I like Al's ideas and I think they make a lot of sense. But my problem with his proposal is there's no way on Earth MDC would be inclined or able to implement such a complicated set of regulations. Would be great, but ain't gonna happen. We can hardly get them to bump up the minimum length or reduce the creel limit.

Reasonable? Well, like I've said before, to me personally, making one species in the state purely C&R is perfectly reasonable to me. And that's what I would do if I were king. But again, it's obviously not realistic, so what I could live with is a slot, 3 under 14" and 1 over 20", or a 1 fish over 18" limit. I would actually prefer the slot, and that would give those poor starving people food on their tables but still leave some good fishing for the rest of us. And yes, I would make it state-wide (southwest and all...sorry Chief) simply to make it easier to understand, implement and enforce.

So yes, city folk can be just as bad or worse in their conservation ethics than people in remote areas. And they often are.

I agree, there are idiots everywhere. But I'd bet my dollars to your donuts that the percentage of "deep-woods" locals keeping their limit (and more) is much higher than the percentage of "city slickers" doing the same. Of course not all of them are that way, and I'd never declare that, but the majority of abuse happening on the rivers I frequently visit is inflicted by the locals. I'm not stereotyping...it's just a fact.

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

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

Have you called Operation Game Thief??

[Tim Smith]

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?

HA!! He's right, Phil. Except there shouldn't be any smallies on that stringer.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Reasonable? Well, like I've said before, to me personally, making one species in the state purely C&R is perfectly reasonable to me. And that's what I would do if I were king. But again, it's obviously not realistic, so what I could live with is a slot, 3 under 14" and 1 over 20", or a 1 fish over 18" limit. I would actually prefer the slot, and that would give those poor starving people food on their tables but still leave some good fishing for the rest of us. And yes, I would make it state-wide (southwest and all...sorry Chief) simply to make it easier to understand, implement and enforce.

Actually, my friend, I seem to remember at the end of our last "discussion", Al and I hammered out a set of regs that I think we all agreed upon. I think we ended up with only two set that covered the whole state. Give me a little time to dig them up.

[Tim Smith]

Points:

1. We don't know if 70% is enough public support for a state wide catch and release to be accepted. Maybe it's enough to try. I'm sure there are policy experts out there who have done the math and know the answer. I bet some of them work for the MDC.

2. I do wonder about Missouri sometimes. I don't live there but I drive through a lot and I've fished it quite a bit. I have fished rivers in over a dozen states and nowhere except in Missouri have other people on the water made me feel unsafe. So yes, you've got some a good share of people of low character. They're everywhere and you've got your share. Maybe more than average.

I agree with Eric that in those cases the only thing that will ever with those people matter is brute force and the likelihood of being caught.

3. F and F is also completely right about the need to keep lines of communication open where you can. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a criminal. There is hope for most people.

4. However you deal with them, giving in to anger doesn't help you. Name calling is almost always counter-productive.