Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[ozark trout fisher]

It's just that you don't need to do that. Your point about what the MSA does is good enough in itself, no need to resort to low blows.

Carry on.

[eric1978]

It's just that you don't need to do that. Your point about what the MSA does is good enough in itself, no need to resort to low blows.

Carry on.

I was just pointing out to Dan that it's unnecessary to worry about people who claim to have the same interests yet also appear (for no intelligible reason) to be against the only structured entity in the state who fights for those very interests...which leads me to believe those people may have some issues. That is all. Do carry on.

[Smalliebigs]

OTF, do you fall into this classifcation.. "People who are smallmouth enthusiasts yet rail against the MSA..." ?????? if so I think Eric has a point. The MSA are one of the few true advocates of Smallmouth Bass in Missouri. The guys I have met thru the alliance are soo genuinely concerned and at least trying to do something for smallies that it makes me proud to say that I am a member and willingly give them money and time when I can.They are helping preserve one of my true passions in this crazy f'd up world.

by the way I don't think E was insinuating you had issues or were you that worried E made a un PC statement about someones issues??? either way E is right

[ozark trout fisher]

by the way I don't think E was insinuating you had issues or were you that worried E made a un PC statement about someones issues??? either way E is right

I know that. I was defending someone else in this case, because I thought it had to be done. I don't like it when people assume that those who disagree with them "have issues." That is all. I actually I agree with Eric on the substance of his argument. It's just...all the other stuff.

Anyway I'm done with this silliness for awhile anyway. I've got to get out and go fishing. Speaking of smallmouth, they're finally starting to bite now!

[joeD]

Now that I've mulled it over, I realize that if I didn't jump to conclusions and fly off the handle, I'd get no exercise at all.

[Guest]

Now that I've mulled it over, I realize that if I didn't jump to conclusions and fly off the handle, I'd get no exercise at all.

Nice!

[drew03cmc]

I don't feel the need to give my money to some organization to prove my concern for a species. I didn't pay for my new TU membership, Hodgman waders did.

I agree with the mission of the MSA, however, I don't think that putting signs up is enough. We have this discussion every year, and neither side will change their opinion, but I am on board if anyone ever gets something going in the SW part of the state. I want to see a group give these streams the attention they deserve, and Gary had the right idea, however, meeting dates and times were not conducive to a good turnout.

Eric, you couldn't be more wrong about me either, but that's okay, you have your misguided opinions based entirely upon your holier than thou attitude, so have at it.

[eric1978]

Who said I was talking about you?

If you agree with the mission of MSA, I don't understand why you're constantly badmouthing them. Join, don't join, whatever. Why talk smack about an org that's doing the work we should all be doing?

[Chief Grey Bear]

Then how exactly did the smallmouth make it through the tens of thousands of years when there was NO human impact at all upon their streams? If they so desperately need to be thinned out, they'd be long gone, thousands of years ago. They don't NEED thinning. Never have. That's a problem you run into with little forageless man-made mudholes, not a gushing vein of neverending nutrients. Let's be realistic...the smallmouth would be better off with NO human impact than any arbitrary slot or creel limit. Of course C&R won't be implemented, but let's not pretend we're doing them some biological favor with a slot limit.

Yes, lets be realistic....you fish maybe 12 times a year for smallmouth. MAYBE on a good year. So maybe we shouldn't pretend we have even an adequate grasp of the concept.

C&R may not be a reality but it certainly does work to improve angler catch rates and average fish sizes.

The Special Regs areas were not about accelerating growth rates. They were about lengthing average fish lives essentially. By that I mean, they were about protecting smallmouth bass from harvest to a longer period allowing them to grow to larger sizes. Objectives were to increase average fish sizes and angler catch rates -- which all have largely accomplished to varying degrees (see MDC White Paper on topic). In fact, the MDC was pleased that SMB growth rates did not diminish notably in the Special Regs Areas. There was some concern that fish growth would decline due to greater competition for food resources with more adult SMB in stream under more restrictive regs. Any slowing of growth rates was very slight.

in the Special Regs Areas, the science was proven to work -- not necessarily to the full degree hoped by MDC -- but they were effective. That's why MSA would like to see more of them -- particulary more 18" MLL areas in selected areas as well as a raising of the bar statewide.

The initial results of the MDC's tagging studies, which Al Agnew did a good job of explaining in this initial post in this thread, have shown surprisingly high fishing pressure for SMB in our streams (42% of tags turned in for cash in first 7 months of study). No word yet on what percentage of these legal-sized fish were kept vs. released. We have a lot of anglers fishing for SMB in our streams. We need regulations and education which support sustainable, high quality fisheries that allow a reasonable amount of harvest by those so inclined but not enough to reduce these fisheries to mediocre avg fish sizes and proportional stock densities. Our current regime of maximum sustained yield regs (12"/6 fish) do just that. They are better than what we had before they were enacted some 40-50 years ago when we had a 10 fish creel and no MLL. But, it is well past time for a revision in those statewide regs that better fit current angler preferences (sport vs. food) and allow these fisheries to better achieve their potential if managed more effectively.

Very familiar with the White Pages Dan. That is the very study that I got the info from.

Those far SW MO accesses were posted at some point several years ago, but we unfortunately were unable to get to them last year. Sorry for unintentionally misleading readers.

I won't go as far as saying you guy's never posted any signs down this way but I can say with all honesty, I have never in all my years seen one. Maybe they became collectors items and are hanging in someone's fishing room.

And that just give me a thought. Why not run some by local bait shops when you are out puting these up and ask if you can hang one in their shop. I'd say near the cash register.

Who said I was talking about you?

If you agree with the mission of MSA, I don't understand why you're constantly badmouthing them. Join, don't join, whatever. Why talk smack about an org that's doing the work we should all be doing?

You know you were talking about him and probably me too. And for the record, again, I am in total support of the MSA mission. I just don't see the mission being followed. As it is written. And that is not necessarily a slam against the MSA.

[eric1978]

Yes, lets be realistic....you fish maybe 12 times a year for smallmouth. MAYBE on a good year. So maybe we shouldn't pretend we have even an adequate grasp of the concept.

The only concept I'm not grasping is what the frequency of my smallmouth trips has to do with anything.

How did they make it for thousands of years with zero human intervention if they so badly need thinning? That's my question.