Smallmouth Issues/msa Meeting

[drew03cmc]

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.

Al, what you and your boys club want is catch and release. That will never fly, and contrary to your opinion as a fisheries biologist, will not work. What are you and the bass club from St. Louis looking to do? Do you want every fish you catch to be 20" long and weigh three and a half pounds? Guess what, that isn't going to work either. What we have happening over 12" is a natural drop off in size. You cannot have the majority of your population be over 12" long. It doesn't work that way. There is a natural drop in numbers from 12" to maximum size, and it is almost an exponential inverse, much like the deer population, you can have fifty 8 point bucks in a county, but there might only be ten ten point bucks, three twelve point bucks and maybe one over 12. That is the way of nature. If every fish were created equal in size, it would be boring, would it not? You can continue to propose your regulations to benefit yourselves, which is all you are going to do anyway, and see little to no change in fish size demographic in the immediate future or you can get onto the MDC about getting some agents on the water in the winter time to cut down on gigging, which is the latest horse you are riding. Returning to the regulation discussion, the state of Missouri has a history of residents eating the fish from the streams and lakes, but to maybe produce one more 20" fish, you would be willing to damage that history and tradition? I think that is a very selfish and single-minded thing to think. Do you know why the 12" minimum was enacted to begin with? What difference do you think a 15" length limit will have? Really? Do you think the numbers of 15" fish is going to skyrocket because it is no longer legal to keep anything smaller? Do you think the number of 20" fish is going to increased markedly? I know you all are against a slot, but listen to this. How about a 14-20" slot, four fish limit, one of which over 20". Anything in that range has to be released. That will allow people to keep some of the 10" smallmouth that are so common in Ozarks waters, along with their one big fish. Wouldn't this protect the fish you are trying to protect, while reducing competition for food that the smaller fish, being much more common, can easily outcompete the larger fish? Wouldn't this also, minimize harvest as the 14-20" fish are those that are most commonly kept anyway? I don't know what you want, but catch and release isn't a viable option in the state of Missouri.

Yours and the MSA's attitude regarding all of this is a little excessive. People are not allowed to disagree with you or the MSA, otherwise they get told to pay their money, join the MSA or shut up. if this is the MSA's attitude toward finding new members or recruiting members it will get them nowhere. I respect your years on the water as well as your experience but your attitude regarding regulations is a bit much. Several members of the MSA have been quoted in this thread saying just that, either pay your money and join or shut up. It seems that several MSA members have an issue with dissenters, which is part of a discussion. Having one side forced down your throat, when you don't agree with it, isn't conducive to a good discussion on the matter.

[Daryk Campbell Sr]

How about putting signs with pictures of the gigged fish in the areas that they have been found. There are many notice boards that have plenty of space. If the ones who are doing it realize that someone is on to them, maybe they will think before they do it again. Whether it was intentional, mistaken breed etc., if they see that these fish are not just disapearing and out of sight out of mind, they would make better choices. It will also alert others who use the area to be on the lookout for this type of activity. Enforcement starts with the average angler. This is OUR resource, WE must protect it if we wish to continue to use it. You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

[eric1978]

http://youtu.be/Lb9n4oa_Pus

[Al Agnew]

Al, what you and your boys club want is catch and release. That will never fly, and contrary to your opinion as a fisheries biologist, will not work. What are you and the bass club from St. Louis looking to do? Do you want every fish you catch to be 20" long and weigh three and a half pounds? Guess what, that isn't going to work either. What we have happening over 12" is a natural drop off in size. You cannot have the majority of your population be over 12" long. It doesn't work that way. There is a natural drop in numbers from 12" to maximum size, and it is almost an exponential inverse, much like the deer population, you can have fifty 8 point bucks in a county, but there might only be ten ten point bucks, three twelve point bucks and maybe one over 12. That is the way of nature. If every fish were created equal in size, it would be boring, would it not? You can continue to propose your regulations to benefit yourselves, which is all you are going to do anyway, and see little to no change in fish size demographic in the immediate future or you can get onto the MDC about getting some agents on the water in the winter time to cut down on gigging, which is the latest horse you are riding. Returning to the regulation discussion, the state of Missouri has a history of residents eating the fish from the streams and lakes, but to maybe produce one more 20" fish, you would be willing to damage that history and tradition? I think that is a very selfish and single-minded thing to think. Do you know why the 12" minimum was enacted to begin with? What difference do you think a 15" length limit will have? Really? Do you think the numbers of 15" fish is going to skyrocket because it is no longer legal to keep anything smaller? Do you think the number of 20" fish is going to increased markedly? I know you all are against a slot, but listen to this. How about a 14-20" slot, four fish limit, one of which over 20". Anything in that range has to be released. That will allow people to keep some of the 10" smallmouth that are so common in Ozarks waters, along with their one big fish. Wouldn't this protect the fish you are trying to protect, while reducing competition for food that the smaller fish, being much more common, can easily outcompete the larger fish? Wouldn't this also, minimize harvest as the 14-20" fish are those that are most commonly kept anyway? I don't know what you want, but catch and release isn't a viable option in the state of Missouri.

Yours and the MSA's attitude regarding all of this is a little excessive. People are not allowed to disagree with you or the MSA, otherwise they get told to pay their money, join the MSA or shut up. if this is the MSA's attitude toward finding new members or recruiting members it will get them nowhere. I respect your years on the water as well as your experience but your attitude regarding regulations is a bit much. Several members of the MSA have been quoted in this thread saying just that, either pay your money and join or shut up. It seems that several MSA members have an issue with dissenters, which is part of a discussion. Having one side forced down your throat, when you don't agree with it, isn't conducive to a good discussion on the matter.

Aw, I don't know why I even bother, but there's so much wrong in this that I guess I'll have to keep plugging.

There are those in the MSA that would love to see catch and release, but I don't think you can find anywhere on here where I advocate it except perhaps in a few special circumstances, and in fact I have repeatedly advocated for slot limits precisely to allow people who wish to keep fish, while protecting the larger fish.

The assertion that what we're seeing is a natural drop in size at 12 inches is patently ridiculous...sorry, but when you see a 15-20% mortality up to 12 inches and then a sudden rise in mortality that more than doubles at that point, that's not natural. When you see the numbers of fish caught drop in half around that 12 inch mark, that's not natural. And the biologists, by the way, will tell you that. I'm not a biologist but I'd be willing to bet I have more knowledge of Ozark smallmouth biology and a heck of a lot more practical experience on the rivers than the vast majority of anglers in this state. It's been a passion with me for nearly 50 years, not a hobby and not a sport, and I'm the kind of person who tries to learn as much as possible about the things I'm passionate about.

Another straw man you're constructing is that I or the MSA want all the fish to be 20 inchers, or the majority to be over 12 inches. Nope. What we want is for MORE fish to survive to be over 12 inches, and over 18 inches. You are absolutely right that it would be boring, as well as biologically impossible, if every smallie you caught was over 20 inches. But you CAN put more protection on larger fish, resulting in more larger fish WITHOUT compromising the numbers of smaller fish. You apparently still believe that the streams are maxed out on total bass biomass, that more big fish would automatically mean fewer small fish. The biologists disagree with you there, too. What the goal is, is to have a more even distribution of each size class. You're right that you'd never get a truly even distribution, let alone a preponderance of big fish, under Ozark stream conditions, but it is certainly possible to raise the PERCENTAGES of over 15 inch and over 18 inch fish, without lowering the NUMBERS of under 15 inch or under 12 inch fish. If that wasn't the case, then the original 12 inch limit wouldn't have done a thing to raise percentages of 12 plus fish (it did) and the 15 inch and 18 inch limits wouldn't have done a thing, either (they did). So you don't have biology on your side there, either.

Am I, or is the SMA, asking for regs changes for our own selfish purposes? Of course, in part. But wouldn't better fishing benefit everybody? The role of advocates is to advocate, part of the role of MDC is to balance competing interests. I am quite certain that there will never be complete catch and release on Missouri Ozark streams. I am also pretty certain there will never be a ban on gigging, for that matter. But if all that is ever advocated is wishy washy "well, can't we do something to make the fishing a little bit better", that serves absolutely no purpose. You have to have a goal and suggestions on how to get to that goal, advocate for those, and let the professionals sort it out, but the first and most important thing is to show that you have the goal and are a force to be reckoned with. I still haven't seen a darned thing from you on any of these issues except to say that what we want isn't needed and we shouldn't even be asking for it because it might keep the poor catch and eat anglers from having their own fun, and the MSA is a worthless elitist organization. Hey, if that's what you believe, so be it. Don't join, don't form your own group, don't do anything...or join some group that will work against the MSA's goals if you are so inclined.

Sure, eating fish is traditional. I believe it's a valuable part of the angling heritage and should be continued. Again, I'm not advocating strict mandatory catch and release, and even though it is on the "wish list" of many in the SMA, they are realistic enough to know it's pie in the sky and they are NOT officially advocating for it. In fact, while I'm for their main thrust, which is to lower the statewide creel limit and raise the minimum length limit, and to have more special management areas, I'm actually a lot more supportive of slot limits than they officially are. Dan Kreher is a much better spokesman for the MSA that I am, I'm my own spokesman.

But examine that eating fish thing again, with an eye to all factors and not some "traditional" thing. Other parts of the country have recognized, more so than in Missouri, that there is greater economic value and intrinsic value to having larger fish in the waters than in furnishing a purely consumptive resource. In other words, bigger fish in the water are worth more than smaller fish in the frying pan. Worth more in bringing people into an area who spend money there. Worth more as a quality of life issue for those living there. Worth more simply because big fish ARE scarcer than small fish "naturally" and therefore more individually valuable. Not so valuable individually that they all deserve complete protection, but valuable enough that eating apex species should be limited while eating of non-apex species is encouraged. Most of us believe that Ozark stream smallmouth are more than just a food fish. We believe that the fishing could be of higher quality for EVERYBODY with regulation changes, and that there are many other species that are more suited to intensive harvest, but we accept that there is no biological reason to make smallmouth some kind of sacred cows that must never be eaten.

Finally, I don't know what you want, Drew. Are you perfectly happy with things as they are? Do you think that a few more agents on the water making sure everybody keeps no more than six fish over 12 inches is going to magically make fishing so much better that those of us who would like to see a few more big fish will be happy?

[ness]

So...who's everybody rooting for in the final Border War this weekend? When my baby girl chose K-State a couple years ago, I had to switch allegiances.

[drew03cmc]

Another straw man you're constructing is that I or the MSA want all the fish to be 20 inchers, or the majority to be over 12 inches. Nope. What we want is for MORE fish to survive to be over 12 inches, and over 18 inches. You are absolutely right that it would be boring, as well as biologically impossible, if every smallie you caught was over 20 inches. But you CAN put more protection on larger fish, resulting in more larger fish WITHOUT compromising the numbers of smaller fish. You apparently still believe that the streams are maxed out on total bass biomass, that more big fish would automatically mean fewer small fish. The biologists disagree with you there, too. What the goal is, is to have a more even distribution of each size class. You're right that you'd never get a truly even distribution, let alone a preponderance of big fish, under Ozark stream conditions, but it is certainly possible to raise the PERCENTAGES of over 15 inch and over 18 inch fish, without lowering the NUMBERS of under 15 inch or under 12 inch fish. If that wasn't the case, then the original 12 inch limit wouldn't have done a thing to raise percentages of 12 plus fish (it did) and the 15 inch and 18 inch limits wouldn't have done a thing, either (they did). So you don't have biology on your side there, either.

Am I, or is the SMA, asking for regs changes for our own selfish purposes? Of course, in part. But wouldn't better fishing benefit everybody? The role of advocates is to advocate, part of the role of MDC is to balance competing interests. I am quite certain that there will never be complete catch and release on Missouri Ozark streams. I am also pretty certain there will never be a ban on gigging, for that matter. But if all that is ever advocated is wishy washy "well, can't we do something to make the fishing a little bit better", that serves absolutely no purpose. You have to have a goal and suggestions on how to get to that goal, advocate for those, and let the professionals sort it out, but the first and most important thing is to show that you have the goal and are a force to be reckoned with. I still haven't seen a darned thing from you on any of these issues except to say that what we want isn't needed and we shouldn't even be asking for it because it might keep the poor catch and eat anglers from having their own fun, and the MSA is a worthless elitist organization. Hey, if that's what you believe, so be it. Don't join, don't form your own group, don't do anything...or join some group that will work against the MSA's goals if you are so inclined.

Sure, eating fish is traditional. I believe it's a valuable part of the angling heritage and should be continued. Again, I'm not advocating strict mandatory catch and release, and even though it is on the "wish list" of many in the SMA, they are realistic enough to know it's pie in the sky and they are NOT officially advocating for it. In fact, while I'm for their main thrust, which is to lower the statewide creel limit and raise the minimum length limit, and to have more special management areas, I'm actually a lot more supportive of slot limits than they officially are. Dan Kreher is a much better spokesman for the MSA that I am, I'm my own spokesman.

We believe that the fishing could be of higher quality for EVERYBODY with regulation changes, and that there are many other species that are more suited to intensive harvest, but we accept that there is no biological reason to make smallmouth some kind of sacred cows that must never be eaten.

Finally, I don't know what you want, Drew. Are you perfectly happy with things as they are? Do you think that a few more agents on the water making sure everybody keeps no more than six fish over 12 inches is going to magically make fishing so much better that those of us who would like to see a few more big fish will be happy?

I am glad that you support slot limits. I, personally, think they are the way to better smallmouth bass fishing in the Ozarks, but when people are saying that slots mean the fish need thinning out, they don't seem to understand a slot limit. We can protect bass from x-y length while allowing harvest of shorts or of one big fish without hurting the resource.

Al, how does a natural distribution of size break down in percentages, approximately?

You know what I want. I want a group, namely, the MSA, to at least support regulations that offer a modicum of protection for Neosho smallmouth bass. Everytime it comes up, we are told they aren't different, they don't need protection, etc.

Now, yes, I will go so far as to say that the MSA is a self-righteous group, believing their own interests to be better than another. I also believe that the MSA has a good motive for their beliefs. They obviously love smallmouth bass and there is no fault in that. When someone doesn't believe in your methods, it doesn't mean you tell them to shut up, pay their money or go away. There are ways to avoid doing that.

[Al Agnew]

Well, Drew, we agree on slots. As for Neoshos, I don't think the MSA has ever said that Neoshos aren't different or don't need protection. We've already hashed out that the MSA started in the St. Louis area, and although it has members in other parts of the state and a chapter in SE MO, it isn't well represented in SW MO. So if it's priorities don't seem to include Neoshos, that's somewhat understandable. The effort was expended to try to get more people in SW MO interested, but any organization is only as good as the participation of its members. Gary Lange did what he could at the time. I came down to give a talk hoping to draw in some people. That didn't work. As you know, it isn't easy to get people to come to meetings from a widespread area. But it needs to be tried again...but you gotta have several somebodies willing to put in the preliminary work to get things started. I will do whatever I can to help get things started again down there, and I'm sure the MSA officers will do what they can as well, but there has to be a nucleus of people from the area willing and able to do the hard work. That's just reality for any organization trying to get started. It's the way the MSA got started, and every other state Smallmouth Alliance. One guy can't do it alone, and it can't be done from 250 miles away. If you don't have the time, expertise, money, or whatever to help get it started, that's perfectly understandable. But don't expect it to get done by magic.

Personally, I think I've always shown interest in the Neosho issues, and have been willing to listen to whatever you, Chief, and others have to say about it. I certainly agree that they are important and worth protecting. I'd like to see MDC get serious about studying their genetics and their conservation issues, and doing whatever is warranted. And whatever voice I have in MSA, I will advocate for all that.

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)

[drew03cmc]

Yep, I was willing to try to make that work with Gary, but when the meetings are on a Wednesday or Thursday night, that doesn't work for anyone who has to drive from any distance and work the next day. If the meetings were on weekends, it wouldn't be a big deal, and honestly, Monett is an ideal location for a get together to see about setting something up. I talk to Chief about it on a weekly basis and we are both looking at ways to get things organized. The MDC needs to get some genetic testing done, because just looking at the fish, you can tell the difference. I do understand geography dictating priority, and honestly, that is why something needs done in the western Ozarks, specifically the Elk and Spring drainages.

Ness, how dare you ask about those Chickenhawkers. I live close to their campus up here and honestly, their fans are only sports fans from November, after Mizzou kicks their butt in football until April, or after they lose to VCU or Davidson in the tournament.

[Smalliebigs]

" their fans are only sports fans from November, after Mizzou kicks their butt in football until April, or after they lose to VCU or Davidson in the tournament."

Now thats funny Drew!!!!!

[drew03cmc]

I live with a Chickenhawk fan...hell, I married one.