Why Does Fishing Continue To Decline In Our Rivers?

[SmallyWally]

I heard a good one years back and this thread reminds me of it. "If fish had antlers the game and fish departments around the country would have an officer behind every bush and at every pool of calm water, young man you have to understand Bucks = Bucks."

DIG IT!

[Hog Wally]

I haven't eaten a bass in a few years but if I was gonna eat them I prefer 10 inchers. Therefore I go to a lake I have access to where the rule is let everything over 14" go I can fill a bucket up with dinks in a couple hours. After they get over 12" I don't care for the texture. Smallmouth numbers IMO are exceptional in my area- overall. Numbers key word.

[mic]

Ok... I'll play devil's advocate here, not for the fool in the pic, but for the actual question of the forum.

1. I can't prove it, but I think it is a safe assumption that catch and release is more common now than 30 years ago.

1a. If we are honest with ourselves, Missourians have had a... not so good relationship with the "feds" and their rules going back to the civil war. I don't think following the rules is ever been a strong point.

2. In 1983 the population in Missouri was around 5 million; in 2013 it is 6 million. That is a lot more people, and there is the same or even less amount of water.

3. I wasn't here, but this forum as told me:

3a. There was a much smaller aluminum hatch 30 years ago.

3b. The banks, bluffs, and river bars were firmer, and thus, there was better habitat. Great habitat equals great fish.

4. Two words... urban sprawl.

5. Jet boats have opened up water to those who wouldn't want to work for it. Equals: more people fishing.

My point, this kid and those like him are probably not the primary reason the decline in fishing.

[Al Agnew]

Mic, interesting points...

Ok... I'll play devil's advocate here, not for the fool in the pic, but for the actual question of the forum.

1. I can't prove it, but I think it is a safe assumption that catch and release is more common now than 30 years ago.

1a. If we are honest with ourselves, Missourians have had a... not so good relationship with the "feds" and their rules going back to the civil war. I don't think following the rules is ever been a strong point.

2. In 1983 the population in Missouri was around 5 million; in 2013 it is 6 million. That is a lot more people, and there is the same or even less amount of water.

3. I wasn't here, but this forum as told me:

3a. There was a much smaller aluminum hatch 30 years ago.

3b. The banks, bluffs, and river bars were firmer, and thus, there was better habitat. Great habitat equals great fish.

4. Two words... urban sprawl.

5. Jet boats have opened up water to those who wouldn't want to work for it. Equals: more people fishing.

My point, this kid and those like him are probably not the primary reason the decline in fishing.

1. True. But there are also more people fishing for stream bass overall, whether or not they catch and release. And what I've noticed as a bi-polar angler who fishes part of the time for wild trout in places like Montana, and part of the time for native Ozark smallmouth, is that it appears that catch and release actually works better for trout fisheries than for smallmouth fisheries. I've fished a lot of very heavily pressured waters out West where the fishing stays very good, but heavily pressured Ozark smallmouth streams have tougher fishing, catch and release or not. I believe smallies have more of a negative (in our viewpoint) response to being caught than trout.

1a. Yep, it's one of the things that drives me nuts about a lot of my fellow Ozarkers...there's a time for independence and self-reliance, but when it turns to outlawry it hurts the rest of us.

2. True, and as I said above, there are more anglers who are really targeting stream bass...and they have more knowledge and better equipment.

3a. The aluminum hatch, while distinctly unpleasant to us anglers, has little effect on bass populations.

3b. True. And that may be one of the most difficult problems faced by what were once the best Ozark streams.

4. Urban sprawl in itself does harm water quality, no doubt. But there are still a lot of places where it is non-existent, yet the fishing is still suffering.

5. Yep. It's one of the biggest of the factors in more anglers having better equipment. Jet boats make fishing the streams a lot more convenient and easy.

As for your final assertion...true to an extent, but if enough people are doing it, or if a few good anglers are doing it on smaller streams, they can and will have a serious effect on the bass population.

The thing that gets me about MDC's approach is that I don't think they are changing with the times fast enough. If all your points are true and all those factors are playing into declining fisheries, then does it really make sense to keep the statewide regulations as they have been since the 1960s? The regs don't directly address a lot of the ills, but if more people are fishing and fishing more effectively, then they are catching a greater percentage of the fish, so it would seem to make sense to have more restrictive regs. And you cannot discount the perception that more restrictive regs promotes. A more restrictive creel limit than 6 12 inchers SAYS that the fish are more valuable than that and need more protection.

I would also submit to those that are saying that the numbers of stream bass are just fine on the Ozark streams that it very much depends upon the stream, and how heavily pressured the stream is. I absolutely guarantee you that the jetboatable streams do NOT have the numbers of fish in them that they had in the pre-jetboat days. I can still go to some of my favorite smaller streams, canoeable but not jetboatable, and expect to catch 50 or more bass on any summer day and 75 or more on a good day. I do NOT expect to catch anywhere near that many on the middle Meramec in the summer, even though theoretically the larger stream should have MORE bass per mile.

[ozark trout fisher]

I guess I don't get the point of view that wants to let people (like the person who posted this photo) off the hook. At best, they kept a few short fish, and broke some laws in regard to keeping everybody's limit seperate, etc.

But more than that, the days of holding up a massive string of dead game fish as a monument to your own ego should probably be at an end. Legal or not, there are too many of us fishing Ozark streams for that to be sustainable. If you must keep a couple for the table, fine, it's none of my business, but this type of blood-fest doesn't fit with our present resource at this point.

[Wayne SW/MO]

I don't think it can be pinned on one thing, but I personally think the biggest problem is gravel that is filling in too many holes that are needed for spawning, wintering and protection from predators. Too much civilization improaching on the banks and not leaving a reasonable buffer zone, too many dozers in the rivers and too many backhoes.

[mic]

I guess I don't get the point of view that wants to let people (like the person who posted this photo) off the hook. At best, they kept a few short fish, and broke some laws in regard to keeping everybody's limit seperate, etc.

But more than that, the days of holding up a massive string of dead game fish as a monument to your own ego should probably be at an end. Legal or not, there are too many of us fishing Ozark streams for that to be sustainable. If you must keep a couple for the table, fine, it's none of my business, but this type of blood-fest doesn't fit with our present resource at this point.

Hold on... I'm not letting anyone off the hook. I'm addressing the actual question of the thread.

[Riverwhy]

The reintroduction of otters, cattle grazing beside and in the stream, and gravel deposits due to the effects of logging and clearing are the real culprits. The yahoos keeping small fish make me angry but they are not the prime suspects in our decline in quality stream fishing.

[ozark trout fisher]

Hold on... I'm not letting anyone off the hook. I'm addressing the actual question of the thread.

I really wasn't referring to your post, Mic. What you brought up was more than valid.

Though I would attribute a bit more of the decline to people just like the one in this photo. I've seen too many people keeping everything they catch (legal and sublegal) to doubt that this has an impact. Ultimately, habitat is always going to be incredibly important, but a decline in quality habitat only means we need to be more careful about what we're taking out of the river.

[Flysmallie]

The reintroduction of otters.

Not buying that one. I've caught too many fish in holes that were populated with families of otters. One was over the period of a couple of years and the only thing that ruined the fishing in that hole was a flood that closed it up.