Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[Dan Kreher]

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.

Once again Al has brought perspective, clarity and insight into our discussion. Thank you.

[FishinCricket]

Once again Al has brought perspective, clarity and insight into our discussion. Thank you.

Don't bother tryin to woo him, I've tried it... He ain't gonna take you fishin either.. (just teasin, of course.. I get tired of just sayin "x2")

[Outside Bend]

I was outta town for work. Glad to see you guys were able to get this all figured out and squared away.

Dan- I've seen several of the MSA signs around fishing accesses, they're a great way of helping get smallmouth conservation into angler's minds. One thought I had- I know Johnny Morris/Bass Pro has been working closely with MDC to improve the fisheries on Table Rock and Taneycomo. Have MSA/other groups approached those folks to see if they'd be interested in helping promote stream smallmouth conservation? Sorta along the lines of what Chief (I think) was saying- publicity at local shops, and I think Bass Pro would have the network of shops/dealers that that route could really benefit the effort.

Al- Gigged fish suck, and I sure understand your frustration- it's illegal, it's obvious, and it wouldn't take much to curtail. I'd suggest forwarding your results to Traveler and some of the other regional outdoor magazines- maybe more publicity of the issue would spur MDC into action.

[BackCastingGolfer]

Having worked at that the Bass Pro Headquaerters for a few years I'd be willing to bet that Johnny Morris would be more than happy to help with this if contacted.

[hank franklin]

OK, there's 70% support in MDC survey, science that says fish numbers decline after 12 inches, support from the top smallmouth org in the state. So Ziehmer needs to tell his staff, develop a new reg and bring it to the Commission, put it out for comment. See what comes of it.

Simple.

Dan and Al, forgive me if I've missed something but to date no actual draft reg has been brought to the Commission? Is there a draft reg under development in MDC, with directive to bring to Commission when complete? If not there should be.

[drew03cmc]

Why draft more regulations Hank? They don't enforce the ones we already have. Maybe we can start by enforcing these, before we get more regulations thrown at us.

[Outside Bend]

OK, there's 70% support in MDC survey...

I think the 70% figure is very positive, and I definitely believe it's a good thing to bring up to MDC as these discussions evolve. But IMO there's a difference between 70% of anglers supporting new regs when asked by MDC, and 70% of anglers banging on MDC's door asking for new regs. I support conservation of all sorts of species- quail, waterfowl, walleye- even though I don't spend much time pursuing them. If asked whether I support new regs for those species I'd likely say yes, even though it's not a major priority when it comes to my outdoor recreation.

[eric1978]

Why draft more regulations Hank? They don't enforce the ones we already have. Maybe we can start by enforcing these, before we get more regulations thrown at us.

I'm breaking my vow of silence to let Al respond to this...again.

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.

[drew03cmc]

We have regulations now that are not enforced, so to add more to them, is foolish. I know what Al says on the issue that when a new regulation is put into place, people follow it, however, people don't always know of the changes to the regulations for something like bass. Everyone can quote Al if they want, but Al is just like everyone else on here, a conservation-minded sportsman who enjoys the outdoors and the bounty that the rivers of Missouri offer. I want everyone to see that line at the end of Al's quote. "More restrictive regs don't cost a thing. Sure, I'd like to see better enforcement." I guess that doesn't amount to anything either.

[Al Agnew]

Drew, I guess I'll respond to that myself...the "enforce the existing regs" meme is getting pretty old. The existing regs are not designed to do what we want to do. I wanted to put that last sentence in all caps, but decided it would be impolite. But geez, if every person in the state obeyed the 6 fish 12 inch limit, we'd STILL have that precipitous drop-off in the size structure at 12 inches. That's scientific fact according to the biologists. What we are trying to get is more fish over 12 inches, which leads to hopefully more fish over 15 inches, which leads to more fish over 18 inches. Tell me, how is enforcing the 12 inch limit going to do that?

And another thing...the idea that existing regs aren't being enforced is simply an excuse to do nothing. Aw gee, if only we could get MDC to enforce the existing regs, everything would be perfect. Well, you are NEVER going to get near perfect enforcement. Not that they shouldn't try for it, but in however many years MDC has been in existence, they haven't got there yet. What makes you think they ever will?

Regulations work, even with imperfect enforcement. If they didn't, why bother with having them? You design the reg to accomplish what you want to accomplish, factor in a certain amount of non-compliance, and go for it.

There are some regs that, if better enforced, WOULD be more valuable. The gigging reg is one. It is DESIGNED to protect game fish from gigging. If it is enforced better, it protects more big smallies. But the 12 inch 6 fish limit is simply not designed to do anything but protect fish up to 12 inches, giving them a chance to spawn once or twice before being cropped off. It is not designed to increase numbers of quality fish, so there's no way it can do so with better enforcement.