Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[stlfisher]

I pretty much agree that it needs to be a 3 pronged approach education, enforcement, and regulation. It would be interesting to know which demographic is harvesting the most fish. Is is legal anglers that harvest their limit within the law or is it the poachers. If is the legal anglers then one would assume they would also follow stricter regulations if enacted. Over time that should yield better results. If it is the poacher's that are responsible for most of the harvest then the regulations might not have the effect we would hope for. In that case enforcement of the regulations might yield the best results.

[Chief Grey Bear]

I believe that would be a whole lot better than what we have now. Only possible bad thing about it would be that spotted bass would be SLIGHTLY favored by it. They wouldn't be favored in the under slot fish; you'd catch the same percentages of spots as the others there. But you'd very seldom catch a spot over 18, meaning that overall you'd end up with more spotted bass over 13 inches surviving.

Oh now Al you're starting to nitpik a little.

Of the three black bass native to my area, the spot is a distant 3 in population. I don't really see a that this would be a problem. And of course in the water sheds that have a current relaxed spot regulation, it would not effect them.

I would also quibble a bit on the numbers...I'd somewhat rather see 3 under and 1 over and raise the under to 14 inches. But I could live with what you are proposing. Problem is, slots are not biologically necessary according to the biologists, so I'm somewhat pessimistic about a statewide slot ever happening.

Keep more of the smaller bass in check provides increase forage for those in the protected portion and top end of the slot. Bass in the, say, 7 to 12 or 13 inches have ferocious appetites. I think it is vital and a key componet to the success of the slot program to harvest the smaller fish. That is why I have it at 4. I would actually rather have at it at 5 under + 1 over. But I know that would never go over on here so I just put it at four as my third choice. My second choice would be 4 under + 1 over but again, I don't think you guy's would go for it and I am trying to be fair to all and maximize both the use of and the enjoyment from the resource for all.

So here would be my choices in order.

1. 5 under + 1 over

2. 4 under + 1 over

3. 4 total with only 1 over.

Now before you shreek at my number 1 choice think for a minute. If the survey states that 70% would approve tighter regs than most likely those 70% will not harvest a fish over the high end of the slot but hopefully will on the bottom end. It doesn't mean everyone will still be taking 6 fish home every time.

And of course I would highly doubt that they would harvest more than maybe 25% of there times on the water. I really think that number would be lower. But to make the slot work as designed we would all need to participate.

[ozark trout fisher]

But to make the slot work as designed we would all need to participate.

Well count me out...Make the regs what you will, but I'm not keeping any. I just doubt that all of the people who have been releasing smallmouth habitually for years are all of a sudden going to start stringing them up because of a regulation change. The same people that are keeping fish now would continue to, and those who C&R now would also continue to. There are just too many people out there that will never string up an Ozark stream smallmouth for any plan based on everyone harvesting fish of a certain size to work. And I'm one of them. I just don't think I could even make myself keep them anymore, no more than I could string up a native Adirondack brookie, or a cutthroat in a remote Colorado stream. They just symbolize too much I guess.

[Smalliebigs]

Well count me out...Make the regs what you will, but I'm not keeping any. I just doubt that all of the people who have been releasing smallmouth habitually for years are all of a sudden going to start stringing them up because of a regulation change. The same people that are keeping fish now would continue to, and those who C&R now would also continue to. There are just too many people out there that will never string up an Ozark stream smallmouth for any plan based on everyone harvesting fish of a certain size to work. And I'm one of them. I just don't think I could even make myself keep them anymore, no more than I could string up a native Adirondack brookie, or a cutthroat in a remote Colorado stream. They just symbolize too much I guess.

Very nice OTF!!!!! I couldn't agee more and well stated.

[drew03cmc]

I live in a large metropolitan area with over one million people. My particular suburb has less than 100,000, and I live west of probably 90% of the population. I don't live in the woods, but I've got some trees in my yard. So -- am I a sophisticated city dwelling, meat-eating poacher, or an inbred hillbilly meat-eating poacher? I just want to know which bucket you stereotypists put US in so I can prejudge myself.

Ness, I live southwest of you about a half hour or so depending on where in Shawnee you are. I am sure I am not an inbred hillbilly meat eating poacher, but I am not a city-dweller either...I don't know.

[Addicted to Creeks]

Well count me out...Make the regs what you will, but I'm not keeping any. I just doubt that all of the people who have been releasing smallmouth habitually for years are all of a sudden going to start stringing them up because of a regulation change. The same people that are keeping fish now would continue to, and those who C&R now would also continue to. There are just too many people out there that will never string up an Ozark stream smallmouth for any plan based on everyone harvesting fish of a certain size to work. And I'm one of them. I just don't think I could even make myself keep them anymore, no more than I could string up a native Adirondack brookie, or a cutthroat in a remote Colorado stream. They just symbolize too much I guess.

I'm a redneck who practices catch and release and I approve of this message

[Dan Kreher]

Obviously, there is a ton of interest in improving the managment of our beloved Ozark stream smallmouth fisheries to produce higher quality angling. Biologically speaking in those environments with suitable habitat, restricting angler harverst via catch & release regulations or high minimum length limits is the most effective means to achieve this long term objective. Fish will still grow slowly, but they will be protected from harvest to a much greater degree than they are under current statewide regulations. Slot limits can also be an effective managment tool in those fisheries where fish growth is being curtailed by restricted food supplies and too much competition for the resource to support the population. Not so sure these conditions exist to a large degree in our stream fisheries -- likely not. Most high MLLs and slots both typically include reduced daily creel/possession limits that keep better anglers from overharvesting fish.

Stream smallmouth bass here in the Ozarks represent the apex predator in the food chain and the most sought after game fish in the majority of our rivers. Expecting our fisheries to remain strong and/or improve under the current 12-inch minimum, 6 fish creel limits (which have been in place since the 1970s/1960s, respectively) is ridiculous. Fishing pressure, easier access, jet boats, etc. all place undue pressure on our adult SMB populations to an unprecedented degree. We need help. The existing special regs areas here as well as elsewhere have shown that quality based regs work to improve smallmouth bass fisheries. The science works, now it's down to educating anglers on the steps necessary to make our bronzeback fisheries better in terms of average sizes and angler catch rates -- basically help them reach their angling potential.

Given the majority of anglers preferences today as fishing for the enjoyment of it -- no one really fishes for food in this country (don't even go there) -- our fisheries should be increasingly managed in a manner that serves those interests. I agree, that total C&R on our native SMB fisheries is likely impractical to impose. Perhaps we could propose certain stream reaches for this designation, but they would likely be rather rare. Most C&R is purely voluntary. Updated regs are needed for sure and various proposals have been included here as well as proposed officially to the MDC by the Missouri Smallmouth Alliance (back in 2010). Certainly, there are a number of regs regimes that could work more effectively than the current program in place. I have my concerns about slots limits from both a biological perspective and a angler behavior standpoint. It is likely, based on science, that slots would not be terribly effective in improving angling quality on our SMB streams. Would it serve as a appeasement for catch & keep guys if it the top end of protected range was high enough (18") and the slot wide enough 13"-18"to protect a large swath of adult smallies? Perhaps. I fear that if the regs are liberalized on the low end to allow greater harvest of SMB below 14" for example, come Memorial Day weekend, it will be a free for all by local / consumptive anglers on little smallies on our streams. I'd expect lots of limits of smallish fish to be taken with total harvest numbers initially likely exceeding what we experience under the 12-inch MLL today. But enough on regs.

Folks have commented that we need more angler education on the biology of SMB, growth rates, benefit of C&R, etc. The MO Smallmouth Alliance couldn't agree more. For many years we have posted all public stream accesses in Ozarks with our MDC approved Help Create World Class Smallmouth Bass Fishing in Missouri signs. Likely many of you have seen them in field ove the years. We are in process of updating our signage to be more noticeable and impactful with anglers who gain acces to our rivers at public landings. Our proposed sign update will be posted on the MSA website www.missourismallmouthalliance.org website sometime next week. It features a great SMB illustration by Al Agnew as well as valuable info on the slow growth rates of stream SMB (4-6 years to reach just 12") as well as summarizes the existing statewide black bass regs (12"MLL, 6 fish, closed season). Efforts like these, in addition to growing our membership and circulating conservation messages through our newsletter, MSA is working to imrove angler education any chance we get. Regs certainly work, but providing anglers with knowledge might just get them to modify their behavior in a manner that supports more sustainable fisheries long term. Changing attitudes is the toughest part of the process.

I certainly appreciate the dialog -- sometimes quite colorful -- on this thread and am pleased to see such strong interest in this topic. MSA will keep working for the benefit of like-minded anglers for the betterment of our fisheries. We will be meeting with the MDC Chief of Fisheries, Chris Vitello, this weekend at the CFM annual meeting at Lodge of Four Seasons. We'll try to express our collective desire to get the show on the road with regards to stepping up the MDC's managment efforts for stream smallies. At an appropriate time (post publication of official angler survey results) MSA is poised to approach Conservation Commissioners on this topic as we have been more than patient here.

BTW -- no info on goggle eye angler survey results presented at MSA meeting. Info not yet compiled for publication.

[Dan Kreher]

Very nice OTF!!!!! I couldn't agee more and well stated.

Getting Ozark anglers to hold our native stream bronzebacks in the same esteem as these other treasured fish is key to changing angler behavior. Some will continue to keep all they catch but hopefully others will value catching that fish too much to reduce it to merely a fried hunk of protein.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well count me out...Make the regs what you will, but I'm not keeping any. I just doubt that all of the people who have been releasing smallmouth habitually for years are all of a sudden going to start stringing them up because of a regulation change. The same people that are keeping fish now would continue to, and those who C&R now would also continue to. There are just too many people out there that will never string up an Ozark stream smallmouth for any plan based on everyone harvesting fish of a certain size to work. And I'm one of them. I just don't think I could even make myself keep them anymore, no more than I could string up a native Adirondack brookie, or a cutthroat in a remote Colorado stream. They just symbolize too much I guess.

Very nice OTF!!!!! I couldn't agee more and well stated.

I'm a redneck who practices catch and release and I approve of this message

Getting Ozark anglers to hold our native stream bronzebacks in the same esteem as these other treasured fish is key to changing angler behavior. Some will continue to keep all they catch but hopefully others will value catching that fish too much to reduce it to merely a fried hunk of protein.

That is certainly your right. But, if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem. Total C&R is not a solution or even a reality.

And I am glad you brought up growth rates Dan. Years of studies have show there is only a 1/2 inch difference in smallmouth bass from age 1 through age 10 between the SMA's and non-SMA's. Sure a 1/2 inch is a 1/2 inch but are we really getting our return on investment. (not that we have really invested any money per sa, just a way to word my point/question.)

[jdmidwest]

I tried to eat a smallmouth one time, it was wormy and tasted like carp. Give me a trophy stream fed trout any day and a smoker.