Record

[Mitch f]

Wow, nice fish!!!! thanks for posting

[Wayne SW/MO]

Very nice. I used to have some communication with guys in PA and VA and there is no doubt their averages are much bigger than they are here, but I believe their rivers are bigger and deeper, offering more protection from the grease for one thing.

I always wanted to fish some of the VA rivers, maybe someday.

[buckcreekmike]

Aren't some of the Great Lakes (Lake Michigan) yeilding some huge smallies right now. I recall an In-Fisherman a couple months back that was saying something along those lines. My biggest smallie came form Melvern Lake in KS, it was a tad over 6lbs. Funny thing is I've been to Canada 5 times and not caught them that big there, which really isn't surprising because they grow so slowly up there.

[Gavin]

Lake Erie has a phenominal smallmouth fishery...but its only produced one over 9lbs..

http://www.bassmaster.com/bassmaster-top-25-smallmouth-bass

[josh_mcconkey1978]

I agree. i lived in tennessee for a while when i was in the service, and i was amazed on how much bigger the smallies were down there too. every time i would go out a 3-4 pounder was common, to where in missouri it is not every trip you get one that size. i caught a 24 incher near Clarksville out of Yellow Creek, which dumps into Lake Barkely. I never did weigh the thing, just measured it. then i gave it to a taxidermist to keep frozen for me until i could pay to have it mounted but then me and my ex split up and i had kinda forgotten it, and just too much going on. They do get huge in the great lakes. I dont understand why the record is from Dale Hollow lake in tennessee though if they get bigger up north, but it seems like any place that goes into the Tennessee or Cumberland Rivers are also excellent

[Smalliebigs]

I have to totally agree with you.....Missouri has gone to dung with how we treat our rivers and how a portion of it's residents just absolutely destroy our fish population with meat hunting and gigging. Missouri streams and rivers are in trouble and it is a direct result of the attitudes of the residents of Missouri.....we rape the stream corridors and destroy fish populations with no real penalties for our actions.....it's a joke!!!!

The future in Missouri for fishing for quality smallmouth is in peril.........I might consider moving somewhere like Tennessee....just don't have enough experience there to know where to go and I also don't know the state laws well enough yet.

sorry to sound so negative but after what I have witnessed in the last 4 weeks of fishing on Missouri streams it's hard to see that there is any sort of future with Missouri and river fishing.There are too many corrupt individuals in Missouri that can just desrtoy habitat and organisms way too fast for them to recover.

[Stoneroller]

^^^^ meanwhile MDC 'hides' in the bushes....

[Dan Kreher]

I have to totally agree with you.....Missouri has gone to dung with how we treat our rivers and how a portion of it's residents just absolutely destroy our fish population with meat hunting and gigging. Missouri streams and rivers are in trouble and it is a direct result of the attitudes of the residents of Missouri.....we rape the stream corridors and destroy fish populations with no real penalties for our actions.....it's a joke!!!!

The future in Missouri for fishing for quality smallmouth is in peril.........I might consider moving somewhere like Tennessee....just don't have enough experience there to know where to go and I also don't know the state laws well enough yet.

sorry to sound so negative but after what I have witnessed in the last 4 weeks of fishing on Missouri streams it's hard to see that there is any sort of future with Missouri and river fishing.There are too many corrupt individuals in Missouri that can just desrtoy habitat and organisms way too fast for them to recover.

Although I've not fished their rivers yet, several of Tennessee's better SMB streams (eastern half of state) have been managed under a 13"-17" protected slot limit for the past few years. A few others, including the one that forms Dale Hollow, Pigeon River, I recall, are managed under a 20" MLL. No statewide MLL in Tennessee as their research determined that a 12-13" MLL would have nearly the same impact on river fishereies there as having no MLL at all so they just went straight to the slot limit deal to allow some amount of harvest of smaller fish by folks interested in cleaning a couple of little ones. I am no fisheries biologist, but I do know that slot limits are being increasingly used in many states to manage SMB on some of the better rivers. A fisheries biologist of some experience has told me direct that in stream fisheries with suitable habitat the best regulation is total C&R, followed by a high MLL (18-20"), followed by a slot limit (say 12"-18") and then a 12" MLL maximum sustained yield reg like much of our state has had for many years. From what I've heard from the MDC, they believe slots are specific regs for specific fisheries (mostly smaller lakes with limited food supplies) and are not biologicaly sound measures for most of our Ozark streams. I'll be doing further research on this for The MO Smallmouth Alliance in the coming months as I realize some knowledgeable folks on this board and others who write for certain outdoor publications have been preaching their merits for our rivers. More on this later.

Now, I don't trust for a minute that removing Missouri's 12" MLL would be good for our streams long-term. It's tough enough to find 12"-ers now. With the amount of localized harvest in Ozarks we'd likely be going back 40 years in stream SMB management if we went that route. Perhaps the rivers in Tennessee are as 'loved to death' as ours here in the Ozarks.

Quickly, while I know Al Agnew is down fishing in Arkansas, I'll warn against even suggesting a protected slot from 14"-18" as that would not serve to protect many fish in our streams from harvest. Only about 10-15% of SMB in our streams surveyed through electro-fishing typcially exceed 14" in the first place. So, we'd be opening up a can of worms IMHO with that type of harvest-friendly reg thrown as a bone to the catch & fry contingent as an appeasement for having to throw back some bigger fish. We'd not have any fish surviving long enough to make it into the slot limit in some areas. MSA is not against all stream SMB harvest as a state-wide management tool, but it sure doesn't do any good for the quality of the catch & release angler's experience.

[Al Agnew]

Dan, I see your point about slots, but consider this...at present, relatively few smallies in Ozark streams exceed 14 inches, but why? Is it that too many 12-14 inchers are harvested? Wouldn't a slot limit that cut the number of bass you could keep under 14 inches down from the present 6 to, say, 3 (3 under the slot and one over, for instance) also allow more to reach 14 inches? And after they reached 14 inches, it should make a LOT more of them survive to reach 18 inches, shouldn't it? I still maintain that slots may not be biologically justified if you are simply trying to maximize the numbers of fish in the population by protecting fish old enough to spawn, but I believe it would have a desirable effect on the size structure of the population without cutting down on the numbers. Unless it is small creeks in SWMO that have Neosho genetics, I know of no stream in the Ozarks where we'd "not have any fish surviving long enough to make it into the slot". As I said, we'd be cutting down the harvest of fish under 14 inches from the present maximum of six to a maximum of three for the catch and eat crowd. They are going to keep the maximum number they can, whether it be over 12 inches or under 14 inches.

[Dan Kreher]

Based on what I've been told by learned fisheries biologists, daily creel limit changes have little overall effect on fish populations/size structures. Very few 'average' anglers anglers reportedly actually catch a limit of keeper sized fish. The real good anglers can, but the vast majority of anglers don't. Reductions in creel limit then serve to spread the harvest around amongst more anglers and only prevent the better anglers from keeping more fish. Size limits, particulary high minimum length limits, have a much more widespread impact on size structure than do creel limits as I understand it.

Now, if the premise is that the more proficient anglers, particulary those using natural bait (another issue but likely the most effective and widely used method used by those whose goal is the harvest of SMB), would thereby be limited in their legal harvest of keeper fish if you dropped the creel limit from 6 to 3 fish. That point does seem to have some merit if that is the assumption. Some would bristle at the assertion that it is the catch and keep angler that is keeping our fisheries below their potential because they are harvesting fish at an unsustainable/undesirable rate under our current outdated creel limits. But, we all know that harvest of legal SMB is the biggest reason why the Ozarks do not boast the midwest's best fishing for better average size fish -- too many of them are kept.

In exchange for a more restricted creel limit, what "concession" would the MDC need to then make? In terms of suggesting a protected slot limt from that 14"-18" desired size is concerned, my belief is that the current population of Ozark smallies which would fall within this range is a small minority of the catchable fish -- as little as 15% on most streams.This is far from a natural distribution as we see from our experiences on other streams around the country which lack the harvest tradition we have here in Ozarks. So, if the slots only protect 15% of the catchable fish, regardless of the creel limit allowed below the slot, I'd doubt that the number of fish that would squeeze through the "release to the grease guantlet" would increase markedly. Rather, with the prevalent harvest mentality of many local anglers, we'd see a modest change in harvest within the population with a lower daily creel limit.

I'm sure that the MDC could conduct a myraid of scientific modeling using various potential regulations regimes to determine the expected impact on fish populations, average sizes, expected catch rates, etc. -- and I'm certain they have internally. Judging from the types of special regulations which they've put forth for our streams --- higher MLL and 1 fish creel limits -- I'm thinking that those are the type of regulations they believe are most effective in improving angler catch rates and average sizes. Again, I'm no fisheries biologist -- I just read alot -- and have fished enough areas to realize that angler harvest is the number one limiting factor determining the quality of angling between different streams with suitable SMB habitat.

Now, once a fish manages to get above that 14" suggested slot threshold, it should have a much better chance of eventually reaching that coveted 18" size within about 3-5 years as natural mortality at that size is quite low and typical C&R mortality is usually about 90% or above. They would certainly have a better chance than under a 15" MLL or our general 12" MLL. But an 18" MLL would be much better overall biologically speaking than any proposed slot limit.

Slots are generally used to thin out an overpopulated fishery whose food resources are limiting fish growth and size structure. This is not the case in our Ozark streams. Our stream smallmouth are not "stunted" and are not overpopulated. We don't have too many small fish in the Ozarks -- rather too many of our SMB are small. They grow very slowly and need more protection from harvest not less.

In unexploited or no harvest stream fisheries, biomass of SMB are much higher than we currently have and the proportional size density of larger fish is much better. Larger fish do not get crowded out of feeding lanes/rootwads/etc -- they are the most effective predators in the population. Problem is, a good many of our best holds contain 12"-13" fish rather than the 17'-18" fish they might elsewhere. Somebody keeps putting them on a stringer.

While, if forced to, I would support a protected slot limit of say 12" - 18" or even 12" - 15" with a 3/1 daily limit or similar as that would be a marked improvement over our current 12" MLL/6 fish creel, I would have trouble believeing that a 14"-18" slot would be that effective in improving things here in Ozarks for the reasons noted above.

Now, if everyone would just release all their SMB anyway, we'd be getting somewhere -- those danged Ozark 'traditions'.

Respectfully.

PS -- I would like to have an in depth conversation with one or more of our stream fisheries biologists (either current or retired) sometime soon to kick this discussion around further. Clearly, certain states are implemented protected slots on specific SMB waters but their harvest dynamics may not be the same as ours here. I'd like to get better understanding of their specific rationale.