Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[Guest]

Not following the inclusion of the New River or the Tennessee River. Those are different habitat types, as well as different regions and as such, have minimal application to this discussion. Highly restrictive harvest regulations does not suggest no harvest.

Did you read the first study? It is an ozark stream with NO harvest.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Slot limits on lakes? That's irrelevant..We dont need a slot limit on our rivers and MDC's biologists have flat out said so.

Food is abundant in our rivers, and our smallmouth arent stunted like a bunch of skinny green bass in someone's neglected pond. They dont need to be "Thinned Out". Most fish are small on 6>12" water because its not legal to eat them...Give them time to grow, and they will grow.

I guess if it works on lakes it won't work on streams???

Well, I'll tell ya. You boys do what ever it is you want. I am taking a que from F&F and dropping out. You just can't reason with the unreasonable. Have a ball with your fantasy state wide C&R.

[eric1978]

I'm pulling my hair out. Later fellas.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Did you read the first study? It is an ozark stream with NO harvest.

Just one more. How does this guy know a fish had never been taken from this stream???

[Guest]

deleted

[Al Agnew]

Guys, one of the things the biologist I talked about in the original post (I haven't named him because I never got around to asking him if he wanted to be quoted "in public", but suffice it to say that he is VERY well respected both in Missouri and elsewhere) pointed out specifically was that Ozark streams have ZERO issues with overabundant smaller fish exploiting the forage base, so slot limits are NOT biologically justified on Ozark streams. A stream is an open system, he said, with nutrients continually coming into the system. And I agree with that totally. Geez, one of the characteristics of Ozark streams is the vast abundance of minnows of dozens of different species, crayfish, aquatic insects, and terrestrial critters getting washed in during high water or strong wind. One thing Ozark streams do NOT lack is forage, of all sizes for all sizes of fish. You see a lot of long, lean fish in Ozark streams, but not skinny, big-headed fish. And you see quite a few very chunky fish in the same streams. I suspect the long, lean fish got that way more from living in the current than from lacking in food. The biomass of stoneroller minnows alone is enough to feed a lot more smallies than could possibly live in the creeks. And you can't turn over a rock in most streams without a crawdad or two darting out.

Smallmouth in a natural system are simply rather slow-growing fish. Put them in an artificial lake with vast amounts of shad and they might grow faster, but streams across the country have comparable smallmouth growth rates.

The ONLY stream which I think has a problem with lack of forage is Big River in the sections most affected by the lead mine waste. I don't have time for it right now, but tonight I'm going to post the gigging pictures on here, and I'll also post some "comparison" pictures between big (18 inch plus) smallies from those sections of Big River and same length smallies from other Ozark streams. The Big River fish are very obviously longer, skinnier, with bigger heads and bigger fins. Why? Because the mine waste in the river chokes out the spaces in the rocks and gravel bottoms where many of the bottom organisms that form the base of the food chain live, and it also smothers the places where crawdads live. There are far fewer crayfish in this part of Big Rvier than anywhere else I've seen in the Ozarks. And because of the lack of bottom organisms and beneficial algae, which doesn't seem to grow well on the sterile mine waste, even the minnow population seems to be less than normal.

But that's a special case.

What does a "natural" (which in today's world means mostly unexploited, very seldom fished) stream smallmouth population look like? Well, I know a few of those, and I can tell you (and have told you before) that such a stream has a much more balanced size structure than any stream that is fished a lot. MORE fish of all sizes. But also, a MUCH greater number of 15 inch plus fish and 18 inch plus fish. And like somebody else said here, it's simply not true that only the Meramec and Gasconade systems have the potential to grow big fish. That "secret" stream I've written about here where I have caught far over 100 fish a day and a half dozen or more a day over 18 inches, with a couple of fish over 20 inches? It ain't in the Gasconade or Meramec system. It IS very lightly fished in the summer months. My favorite wading creek, which is pretty tiny, flowing less than 5 cubic feet per second in the summer and with almost no water in it much over 3 feet deep, where I've caught 18-19 inch smallies regularly? It ain't in the Meramec or Gasconade system, either. Current River produces 18 inch plus regularly. The Niangua was once well known to hold big fish. The Kings and Buffalo, as well as Crooked Creek, which are in the same White River system as the James, Beaver, North Fork, and Bryant and should theoretically have fish of the same genetics, have always produced big fish.

Nope, I used to believe that the Ozarks wasn't capable of producing the kind of numbers of big fish that some of the famous smallmouth destination streams do, but I've seen enough evidence of it that I'm now VERY convinced that there's nothing wrong with the ability of our streams to produce big fish. The limitations are not habitat and not genetics, except perhaps in the Neosho streams. We don't have as many big fish because they get cropped off before or as they get big. Either by catch and keep anglers or by giggers (or even by other lawbreakers like those who use fish traps, as I happen to know about first hand).

But getting back to slot limits, like I said in the beginning of this, I'm for them, not because they are biologically justified--they aren't--but because it would be the best way I can think of to protect big fish without making total enemies of the catch and keep crowd. While they aren't biologically justified, they shouldn't be biologically detrimental, and they would be politically acceptable.

We keep going around in circles on the "new regs versus better enforcement" thing. I'm going to try this again, see what you think. When the 12 inch limit was first instituted (I'm old enough to have been fishing Ozark streams before it came along), in the next two or three years fishing improved considerably. The new limit worked. Was everybody following it and being completely legal? Of course not. But the vast majority of anglers ARE law abiding. Doesn't really matter why, whether it's because they fear being caught or they want to be ethical. The thing that matters is, when you put on a new reg, most will follow it. Put on more restrictive regs now, and most will follow them as well, and if well designed, they will work. Maybe better enforcement of existing regs will get you to the same place, or maybe not. But guess what? It is more difficult and costs more to get better enforcement. More restrictive regs don't cost a thing. Sure, I'd like to see better enforcement. Actually, I'd like to see the number of conservation agents doubled, with one agent for each county having responsibility for fishing waters and the other one having responsibility for hunting, with both sharing in all the other duties of CAs. But I don't expect that to happen.

[exiledguide]

I was kind of suprised that no shot down my 6 fish under 12" and nothing over 12" limits. I agree with Al that would allow people who want to keep fish to do so and protect the bigger fish. I also wonder about the idea of catch and release until they catch a trophy. On lakes with a slot limit I keep LM under and none over. With the cameras available today you can get a picture and get a replica mount. I know It's not easy to release an over 7lb largemouth or a 22" smallmouth when I've caught fish of that size I felt it was more due the water I was fishing than my ability to find big fish.

I also would like to know if there is any relationsnip with the size of Goggleye and Sallmouth in the same area of a stream. I fished the upper Big Piney from Simmons Ford to Mineral Springs probably for about 20 years and ended owning a piece of land above the LAD State walk in forrest and below Brushy Creek. I notice that when over 10" Goggle eye were easy to catch over 15" Smallmouth were pretty rare. In the years when over 15" Smallmouth were easy to catch the Google I caught rarely would reach 10". At that time I never fished in a smallmouth stream before Memorial Day and then fished it hard until the river got low in the summer.( i had a lot of vacation time ) so I would take five or six weeks starting the Saturday after Memorial day and fish the river except for my trip to NW Ontario. I have also noticed haveing moved here in Dec of 07 that once I found my secret spot below Shelvin Rock that it's not that difficult to catch quite a few over 15" smallmouth but I have not caught any over 10" goglle eye. Does that mean people are keeping the Goggle eye and not killing smallmouth or is under 10" goggle eye as big as they get. The only place I have ever caught big smallmouth and goggle eye was on the Ouchita River in the tailwtaers below Lake Catherine down to Malvern Arkansas

I just wish some thing was done by the MDC to improve the smallmouth fishing and then enforce the rules and make examples of whoever is caught.

[Flysmallie]

Maybe better enforcement of existing regs will get you to the same place

I agree with everything you said except when I think about "enforcing the regs" I'm including the regs for giggers in there as well.

[drew03cmc]

I agree with everything you said except when I think about "enforcing the regs" I'm including the regs for giggers in there as well.

They need to put a sting on the giggers. I don't care if the giggers are armed. That is part of the dangers of duty as an LEO.

[Al Agnew]

Here are three good sized smallies. This first one is a 20 incher from a small, marginally floatable but mostly wading size stream that is a special management area with a 1 fish, 15 inch limit. As you can see, no problem with skinny, big headed fish here.

This second one is a 17 inch plus Meramec River fish. No problem here, either.

Now this one is from the section of Big River that is the worst affected by mine waste, above St. Francois State Park. This fish is around 18 inches. Note the size of the head and the skinny body. It's fairly typical of bigger fish from this section. More than once I've been fooled by a fish that I hooked, it came up and shook its head on the surface, and I was sure I had a 22 incher or better from the size of the head, but it would turn out to be under 20.