Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[Buzz]

I honestly believe that everyone wants something positive to happen with the regs. I personally don't have much use for slot limits. But on the other hand, they can be just complicated enough to discourage harvest of any kind. Catch and Release? Yep?

Why in the world would any person want to even try to fillet a 12" bass, especially a smallmouth? Hell after you cut out all of the worms you wouldn't have more than a few nuggets to fry. Any serious fisherman would only be after the bigger fish anyway. And I don't buy the BS about having to fish for food. If a guy wants to eat some fish he can catch some for a fish fry, but to say that there are a lot of people who have to keep fish just to survive is hard to believe.

Tradition is another thing. Sure there are those who always catch and keep a limit of fish each time they go. But as most of us know, most people grow out of that and tend to keep a couple of fish every now and then.

As far as regs go, I would submit a simple plan of 4 black bass over 14" ( except for the current SMA's and steams where Spots are an issue ) and no creel from November 1 to Memorial Day weekend.

I don't know if this would work statewide, but I do believe the MDC would be more apt to adopt a simple plan than a complicated plan with a bunch of different regs for different streams and regions.

[drew03cmc]

Buzz, did you skip the last 12 pages? We have hashed out regulations that would work, but the issue is getting across the barriers that organizations and bureaucracy have placed before us. You are against a slot limit, but I fear that you don't understand the concept of a slot. By proposing a 14" length limit, it does nothing more than the 12" limit that we currently have, other than let the fish spawn ONE more time. Catch and release isn't a viable option in Missouri. It will never happen for a species that is so common.

You do realize the distinction that I want to have for our fish in the two drainages in SWMO, right?

[hank franklin]

Al, just to clarify, is there a new smallmouth reg now under development in MDC?

Following the survey and the newer staff research, has there been a directive from Ziehmer or the Commission to work on a new reg based on results of the survey and science?

I think of new smallmouth regs in the context of the 4-point rule. Hunters want bigger bucks. Surveys and the hunter orgs showed support. MDC says fine, develop a new reg. Now we have 4-pt rule. I personally don't like the rule but it's the law.

New smallmouth reg is similar. Surveys show support for bigger fish. Fishing groups support as well. MDC should say OK, draft a new reg. Not everyone will like it but it will be based on angler input and science.

Al, maybe result of recent smallmouth survey and science is new reg development in MDC. On this point I am unclear. If you have info on this please share.

Thanks

[Buzz]

Buzz, did you skip the last 12 pages? We have hashed out regulations that would work, but the issue is getting across the barriers that organizations and bureaucracy have placed before us. You are against a slot limit, but I fear that you don't understand the concept of a slot. By proposing a 14" length limit, it does nothing more than the 12" limit that we currently have, other than let the fish spawn ONE more time. Catch and release isn't a viable option in Missouri. It will never happen for a species that is so common.

You do realize the distinction that I want to have for our fish in the two drainages in SWMO, right?

Yep I've read it all. Like I said, I believe that over complicating the regs is why we don't have any new regs. This is all just my opinion, but I think in order to get anything moving through MDC it will have to be something a little more simple. 4 fish over 14" is a good start IMO , at least in our neighborhood. I've never caught a smallmouth over 17.5 inches out of our local waters but I would like to see more in the 14 to 15 inch range. By raising the length even 2",I believe, would go along way to improve the numbers of fish in that size bracket. Which in turn should increase the number of fish in the 15 to 17 inch range. This "idea" would not be the end all to the issues we all have, but any positive change, even an incremental change could be the start to more comprehensive regs. A simple reduction in creel limits would go a long way.

I understand the distiction between the Eastern side of the state and SWMO and obviously we couldn't ask for a length limit like what they could. The genetics of the Neosho won't allow for much more lenght than what we normally find.

Even unpopular opinions are just that "opinions".

[Feathers and Fins]

If the goal is protection and simplifications just make the limit on smallmouth 2 fish over 15’’ on all state waters. Then to make it even easier and more protected make gigging illegal of all fish illegal. Also for tournaments make it illegal to cull any smallmouth. That is protection and simplification of the regulations.

[drew03cmc]

If the goal is protection and simplifications just make the limit on smallmouth 2 fish over 15’’ on all state waters. Then to make it even easier and more protected make gigging illegal of all fish illegal. Also for tournaments make it illegal to cull any smallmouth. That is protection and simplification of the regulations.

I like your thinking on simple, but honestly, when does a bureaucrat ever go the simple way?

[Feathers and Fins]

Thanks Drew, Regs shouldnt need to be 176 page books we have ot get every year. Make them simple to understand and follow. Stop breaking it down by region, by area by water etc etc... How hard really would it be to simply say X size on X bass Y limit on Y bass. Or X limit on X trout and Y limit on Y trout. The more simplified the regulations are the less possibility of not following them. I've spent alot of time this last week this subject on my mind and reading over other states regs which are far more simple to follow and understand.

[drew03cmc]

My issue is that other states do not have the luxury of having two strains of smallmouth in their waters. The only three others that do are Kansas (not much access to said fish), Arkansas and Oklahoma (will not stock northerns because of Neosho presence). We are very lucky to have this problem, but this problem necessitates a little extra regulation for two drainages, a lower slot or lower limit, but we can debate that later. I think for the 90% of the state where the northern strain smallmouth dominates, we should have a simple regulation (I would prefer a slot though).

[Feathers and Fins]

Drew one of the lakes i grew up on in Cali and was the holder of the world record ( Perris for Alabama spots) somehow ended up with Florida Strain Largemouths. Instead of setting 2 diffrent regs they stuck with a 2 bass 15 inch minimum size. It worked great. I talk to my dad often who fishes it daily and he says its still a super lake. My thought is to many people cant tell one bass from another so to protect the stupid people Cali made it very simple. Simple is the best IMO. Take the guess work out of it.

I seldom keep a bass it really has to be deep hooked for me to think about it. But the worms in smallies would not phase me a bit. Sea Trout are full of them and they dont add or detract flavor from the trout. Then again Ive been to south america and some of what ive ate there i dont want to know.

[ness]

Ness...you mean that insignificant team from LowRents, KS, otherwise known as the Beakers? I think I've heard of them. Mizzou all the way. (not that I'm making any predictions)

Rock Chalk, and bye bye.