Question About Gigging/spearfishing?

[Chief Grey Bear]

I probably wouldn't be very good at it. I stick with one story.

But you on the other hand.......

[Al Agnew]

Chief, if you go back and read one of my posts, I say that the problem is that there is no baseline data. Look at the history of these rivers. They did not get a lot of publicity and floating did not get popular until after a lot of the original logging of the Ozarks was done. By the time that all those articles were written about Jim Owen and the wonderful floating and fishing on Ozark streams (which really often wasn't all that great), the streams were already pretty damaged. By the time the modern MDC was established, the heyday of floatfishing was already passing. So there was and is no data as to bass populations before the logging dumped so much gravel into the streams and the log drives tore up the banks and bottom continually. There wasn't any data except glowing magazine articles about what it was really like during the floatfishing era. The first real data on smallmouth populations was probably Fleener's study of Courtois Creek before and during an experimental catch and release reg back in the 1960s. By that time the streams were recovering from the logging boom, but were getting fished by a lot of meat fishermen.

My point is, MDC does not and cannot know what these streams are capable of producing under optimum regulatory conditions. They do not know what the population structure would be without illegal gigging. So what do you do? Assume the gigging is not affecting anything? That seems to be their modus operandi. The other choice would be to change the gigging regulations or ban gigging on one or two sections, special management areas where you already have very recent population data, for a set number of years, and study the population while the change or ban is in effect to see if it makes a difference. I'm not advocating banning gigging on all Ozark waters, all I'm saying is the only way you'll ever have the data to tell if it's a problem or not is to do an experimental ban and see how the population of larger fish responds. And unfortunately, the only thing, it seems, that COULD get MDC, with that lack of baseline data, to even consider the idea that it's a problem is the complaints of those anglers who spend the most time on these rivers.

[Feathers and Fins]

Al,

With rivers and streams changing all the time and possible flood years and drought years potential in your ( experimental area ) it would be very difficult to gain any decent biological data. But now throw in predation differentials and certainly poaching ( possibly to scew the data intentionally as we know those areas could not have 24/7 enforcement ) it is not a practical and any data obtained I would look at as no good as there would be way to many outside influences to have a good baseline control group.

I mean come on just go to a trout park and you see people breaking the law all the time and you can tell me if you close an area that's even harder to police that it wont become a direct target just because of the that very protection.

Hey I understand protection of our resources and im all for it, But we have laws already on the books that with the current number of Officers cannot be enforced! You can do all the studies in the world but you cannot account for poachers unless you catch everyone of them and that goes back to not having officers. The solution for this and many problems is not the laws, its getting the officers to enforce it and that means either more taxes or some other way to pay for them.

[grizwilson]

Al,

With rivers and streams changing all the time and possible flood years and drought years potential in your ( experimental area ) it would be very difficult to gain any decent biological data. But now throw in predation differentials and certainly poaching ( possibly to scew the data intentionally as we know those areas could not have 24/7 enforcement ) it is not a practical and any data obtained I would look at as no good as there would be way to many outside influences to have a good baseline control group.

I mean come on just go to a trout park and you see people breaking the law all the time and you can tell me if you close an area that's even harder to police that it wont become a direct target just because of the that very protection.

Hey I understand protection of our resources and im all for it, But we have laws already on the books that with the current number of Officers cannot be enforced! You can do all the studies in the world but you cannot account for poachers unless you catch everyone of them and that goes back to not having officers. The solution for this and many problems is not the laws, its getting the officers to enforce it and that means either more taxes or some other way to pay for them.

Just an example of how the rivers and conditions change:

http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2000/01/sucker-showdown-taneycomo

As a MSA member who also gigs not against research, but understand enforcement needs help, sounds like the Merrimac needs a major bust. We simply do not see that in the areas we fish and gig. Float the canoe during day, catch smallmouth, check out water, then through at night gig, eat suckers.

g

[Seth]

Just an example of how the rivers and conditions change:

http://mdc.mo.gov/conmag/2000/01/sucker-showdown-taneycomo

As a MSA member who also gigs not against research, but understand enforcement needs help, sounds like the Merrimac needs a major bust. We simply do not see that in the areas we fish and gig. Float the canoe during day, catch smallmouth, check out water, then through at night gig, eat suckers.

g

My experience is on the Gasconade which is why the problem doesn't seem as dire in my eyes. The Gasconade has a lot more hidey holes and doesn't stay quite as clear as the Meramec. The majority of the "gig anything that swims" stories I have heard come from the Bourbeuse crowd that puts in on private land.

[Al Agnew]

Al,

With rivers and streams changing all the time and possible flood years and drought years potential in your ( experimental area ) it would be very difficult to gain any decent biological data. But now throw in predation differentials and certainly poaching ( possibly to scew the data intentionally as we know those areas could not have 24/7 enforcement ) it is not a practical and any data obtained I would look at as no good as there would be way to many outside influences to have a good baseline control group.

I mean come on just go to a trout park and you see people breaking the law all the time and you can tell me if you close an area that's even harder to police that it wont become a direct target just because of the that very protection.

Hey I understand protection of our resources and im all for it, But we have laws already on the books that with the current number of Officers cannot be enforced! You can do all the studies in the world but you cannot account for poachers unless you catch everyone of them and that goes back to not having officers. The solution for this and many problems is not the laws, its getting the officers to enforce it and that means either more taxes or some other way to pay for them.

That's why you don't do it everywhere. Any good study needs a control. Pick a stretch of the Meramec to do it on, study that stretch and the section immediately above and below that section. Compare them. Yes, you might have problems with poaching, but that's any study you do. By using the control section, which should have pretty much the same drought or flood conditions, you should get a pretty good comparison.

Maybe, for whatever reason, the problem IS much worse on the Meramec and tributaries than anywhere else. I don't spend much time on other rivers during gigging season, so I'll take you guys' word that it isn't bad on the Gasconade. And yes, ideally, all that needs to be done is a lot better enforcement. But I just don't see that happening, when it's a sport that's inherently difficult to police and that takes place during the hunting seasons when hunting seems to be the agents' priority.

[Feathers and Fins]

That's why you don't do it everywhere. Any good study needs a control. Pick a stretch of the Meramec to do it on, study that stretch and the section immediately above and below that section. Compare them. Yes, you might have problems with poaching, but that's any study you do. By using the control section, which should have pretty much the same drought or flood conditions, you should get a pretty good comparison.

Maybe, for whatever reason, the problem IS much worse on the Meramec and tributaries than anywhere else. I don't spend much time on other rivers during gigging season, so I'll take you guys' word that it isn't bad on the Gasconade. And yes, ideally, all that needs to be done is a lot better enforcement. But I just don't see that happening, when it's a sport that's inherently difficult to police and that takes place during the hunting seasons when hunting seems to be the agents' priority.

Al,

Do you honestly believe that giggers, snaggers, fishermen are honestly going to stop for a stretch of river, when they can do it above and below that ( closed zone )? In a perfect world sure they would but this is no perfect world and as I said before, I have seen use of unapproved baits, snagging, and out right illegal activities in trout parks, Those make far more money for MDC than wild rivers and are far easier to patrol if they chose.

By your own admission all that is needed is better enforcement, so it seems like a big waste of department resource for study that's conclusion most already know the answer too.

I will say it again ( If fish had antlers DNR agencies would have officers behind every bush and rock ) Probably even have a dummy in a deep hole complete with moving tail and mouth.

[Flysmallie]

ideally, all that needs to be done is a lot better enforcement. But I just don't see that happening,

So what's the point of the study if the outcome is going to be more regulations that will never be enforced? The problem is right there slapping you in the face.

and that takes place during the hunting seasons when hunting seems to be the agents' priority.

I'm not convinced of that. There are no hunting seasons going on during the summer but I rarely see an agent.

Back when I fished a lot of tournaments I was checked by agents at night on Table Rock and there were always 2 agents in the boat. One of those times it was almost 2am. I'm not buying the difficult to patrol story. If they want to make a difference they can.

[fishinwrench]

I could use a Winter gig...Job that is.

Did I sound like Foghorn leghorn when I said that ?

[Flysmallie]

I could use a Winter gig...Job that is.

Did I sound like Foghorn leghorn when I said that ?

Maybe a little.