Crawdad Ban Petition In St Louis

[Daryk Campbell Sr]

Many interesting points have been brought up, and as was stated in the original post I am no biologist. I have read many good arguements for the initial ban. I have learned quite a bit from the responses and I still feel there may be a solution, although it may not be cheap.

I thought more about it this afternoon, and I guess I can't figure how the ban is an attempt to put the screws to small businesses.

There's lots of small businessfolks on this board who rely on our state's streams and sportfish to earn a living. Why should a guide's business be compromised because a bait dealer wants to sell crayfish? Seems just as easy to me to say that doing nothing, and maintaining the status quo, screws small businesses just as much.

Like I said in an earlier post I love patronizing small businesses, I just think we should craft stewardship policy based on the best science, not what's best for small business owners. There's plenty of mom-and-pop logging outfits or gravel mining operations in the Ozarks, that doesn't mean we give them carte blanche to use the resource in whatever way that makes them the most money.

IMO this petition has nothing to do with conservation and everything with businesses trying to protect their bottom line. There's nothing wrong with that, it's what businesses do in order to survive. But we shouldn't pretend it serves anything more than their own interests.

The reason I said the ban may be an attempt to hurt small business is a broad one. But to try to give one possible situation, we all know the little guys are generally more expensive than the megastores. The megastores generally are a few more miles from most of us and we would not go to them in order to get some live bait if we plan to fish close to the house, or in the other direction. I may go to my local tackle dealer for worms/minnows/crawdads/crikets etc, and while I'm there stock up on some hooks/sinkers etc. Now, if I did not need live bait, I would not have went to my local. So, take away the live bait, and I may not go to the small guy unless I needed hooks right now. Mega stores know this and if they can control the way we shop, they can shut down small business and then we have no option.

I guess I also don't see why we have the inalienable right to use store bought crayfish as bait, anyway. I've never in my life bought a crawdad. The bass pros certainly catch plenty of fish in the tournaments without resorting to crawdads. There are plenty of other ways and baits to catch bass and other gamefish. If there's a chance that a bait shop will obtain and sell rusty crayfish, or any other species not native to the streams or lakes where they will be used, then I think you have to err on the side of caution.

The only other solution I could possibly see is researching various native species, and figuring out if any of them are so innocuous that they could be used about anywhere in the state without causing harm, and then allowing ONLY those species to be sold. Not sure that's even possible. I do know that we used to seine crawdads out of a little fishless pond and use them on the river occasionally when I was a kid. I'm pretty sure that species was adapted to that particular habitat and wouldn't have survived and reproduced in the completely different habitat where we were fishing them. It's the generalist species, like the rusty crayfish, that are the worst offenders.

Al, Catfisherman use crawfish, usually they just use the tails, by doing so, the crawfish is not a threat in this situation.

[Outside Bend]

I see your point, Daryk. But don't think Johny Morris is tossing and turning at night worrying about the money he's losing to local bait dealers. They're in different businesses- the big stores have largely captured the market for high-return items, leaving the mom-and-pop shops to fill the niches with products and services not found at BPS or Cabela's. Rods, reels, lines, artificial lures- they don't need to be housed, they don't need to be fed, they have an indefinite shelf life, they can be sold at several times what it costs to produce them. Maintenance and overhead is lower, so that's what the big tackle shops sell. Saying that business model competes with your local mom-and-pop is like saying the $50-a-plate steakhouse competes with your local greasy spoon- kind of, but not really. They're in the same business, but it doesn't mean they're catering to identical markets.

The new rule applies equally to mom-and-pop tackle dealers AND the major players. The local shops aren't at any disadvantage- they still get to pick what they sell and, if they want, can sell the same products at the same prices as the major tackle retailers.

But it's up to consumers to decide.

If the bulk of anglers were genuinely concerned about the fate of local tackle shops, local tackle shops wouldn't be in the position they're in. They wouldn't be relying primarily on bait sales to stay afloat. They wouldn't be bleeding sales to box stores- anglers would be willing to pay the premium on rods, reels, artificial lures, etc to keep the local guys in business. If anglers are concerned about the fate of their local businesses, they should put their money where their mouth is, and patronize local businesses.

MDC's job is to protect our state's natural heritage. Not to protect or support small businesses. The new rule doesn't mean MDC is behaving maliciously, it doesn't mean they're supporting one business ahead of another, it doesn't mean they're trying to stick it to the little guy.

It means they're doing their job.