MDC Smallmouth Regs Recommendations

[joeD]

"They seem to simply be afraid to do anything meaningful or try anything experimental."

Bingo.

Remember folks, MDC is a governmental organization, and will behave as such. And we live in a state with two pronunciations, as I like to insert in many of my comments. Their fishing mindset seems to be still stuck in the 50s and 60s , in order to accommodate erstwhile Andy Griffiths and Opies to go to their fishin' hole and catch a mess o' fish.

[trythisonemv]

Small mouth are supported by a small group of small groups. Tourism and the Missouri fishing industry is supported statewide for its financial support to our economy. The mdc being a state tax funded entity must appease the majority as they pay their salaries. As we have all duly noted they always seem to want to do the right thing but don't always have the backing to do so. I think this step is a good foot in the door towards creating small mouth management needs awareness statewide. You are going to have people seeing new regs and signage, and they are going to wonder why. then they will learn why and will probably be ok with it as it will mean bigger fish in areas where they have already been trying to create better fishing. If anything it will.push meat fishers down or up stream away from our big fish. Not to say that there won't be a few poachers but overall it's at least an attempt to get the ball rolling on small stream brownie management improvement.

[Dan Kreher]

The Missouri Smallmouth Alliance is requesting more information/clarification from the MDC with respect to these proposed regs changes. While we remain disappointed that the MDC is not planning to do more to actually improve the size structure of our SMB stream fisheries, we will certainly support any expansion of quality-based management that we can get here at home.

Its difficult to speculate, but the reduction in the MLL on Gasconade/Jacks Fork from 18" MLL to 15" may or may not have much of an impact on fishing pressure, the types of anglers (sport vs. consumptive) and/or harvest practices going forward. If the creel limit is kept at 1 fish, it still won't make much sense for an angler looking for fillets to chase smallies in these management areas. Yes, there may be some additional selected harvest of 15"+ SMB here and there but we can only hope that the impact in minimal. Hopefully the expansion in the regs area on Jacks (boundaries still unknown) as well as extending a 15/1 up the Big Piney -- perhaps all the way to existing special regs area at Ross Bridge will help the situation much more than lowering the MLL from 18 to 15 will harm it.

Hoping that the proposed area on Current River will be lengthy enough to really make that a great fishery. It clearly has the habitat to grow some nice fish. We are assuming that Two Rivers will certainly be included -- in conjunction with sizeable special regs section on adjoining Jacks Fork -- downstream to some place like Log Yard. A great upstream boundary would be Round Spring or Hwy 19 bridge crossing there.

Meramec expansion -- assuming here -- would likely be below Birds Nest downstream to possibly Onondaga (about 20 miles or so). That would make sense to me but could be a bit problematic with adjoining Huzzah Creek. That's one reason why MSA proposed having both Meramec and Huzzah under special regs when we met with MDC back in 2010.

Not sure how much more of Big River to be expanded to -- go upstream as far as there's water and leave it at that. Still not sure why they couldn't just slap a 15/1 on Bourbeuse River which has many of same problems (spots)/characteristics as Big River, but I am assuming they are hanging their hats on relatively low computed harvest rates determined about 15 years ago as rationale for no action on Bourbeuse.

MSA will definitely support the MDC's proposals at public meetings while continuing to push for voluntary catch and release and to increase angler awareness of the need to protect these fisheries.

We as an organization cannot make "better" be the enemy of "perfect" when it comes to improved regs on our SMB streams. We certainly wish the MDC had the political will to do something more comprehensive here, but harvest oriented interests (real or imagined) and the status quo are large impediments to progress at times.

Regarding goggle eye regs - seems odd to propose 7 inch MLL when current regs areas are 8 inches and angler support (per the 2011 Angler Survey) strongly supported 8" MLL statewide by 7 to 1 margin.

[Riverwhy]

Smallmouth bass can best be protected if we commit to winning the hearts and minds of the MDC and the fishermen who desire to harvest a portion of their catch. Recognizing and supporting the MDC in their small steps forward will help to build the bond with our fishery managers and we will not be seen as a group that serves no purpose but to complain.

Most importantly, I think a civil discussion in the public forums on the benefits of reduced harvest and length limit protections will yield much better results than verbal abuse of those fishermen that support resource harvest. The battle is being won in changing attitudes towards keeping a limit of smallmouth bass but I think every time we pull out the terms such as meat fishermen, knifers, etc. we have alienated the majority of fishermen in this state and we serve to reinforce their attitudes and practices. We are not going to change attitudes by making this a fight between C&R and harvest fishermen.

[Smalliebigs]

Hahahaha so calling a dude who goes to the fiver for a mess of fish a meat hunter is offensive? ??

Let's see...how about fish fry interested participants? ?? Or McFisherperson or fillet people???

I have heard everything on here hahahahahahaha time to drink my scotch

[Brian Jones]

I hope they expand the Big River management area all the freaking way to Council Bluff dam. All the local butchers who used to float the entire river are now focusing on the area between Cedar Creek and Leadwood and pounding the stretch pretty hard; especially since we've had an unbelievably wet summer.

[Dan Kreher]

"local butchers" == now that is a term I have not heard very often. Must be some hungry people up that way. "Fillet people" sounds a much gentler tone.

On a more serious note, MSA will let folks know what the MDC is willing to say right now about proposed regulations changes once we get some feedback from them.

[cwc87]

Facts of how we know what needs to happen versus the way MDC biologist stats prove.

One time I had all the stream biologist on a float / meeting on the lower six miles of both huzzah/courtois creeks. We talked over a lot of issues. One of the top guys out of the Sullivan office looked in amazement at my 3/8 oz spinnerbait and could not believe how it caught smallmouth. Difference what fisherman and biologist view in our world.

My take on regs. Two fifteen inch fish Or two 14inch fish statewide. Let's get this right

[Seth]

Smallmouth bass can best be protected if we commit to winning the hearts and minds of the MDC and the fishermen who desire to harvest a portion of their catch. Recognizing and supporting the MDC in their small steps forward will help to build the bond with our fishery managers and we will not be seen as a group that serves no purpose but to complain.

Most importantly, I think a civil discussion in the public forums on the benefits of reduced harvest and length limit protections will yield much better results than verbal abuse of those fishermen that support resource harvest. The battle is being won in changing attitudes towards keeping a limit of smallmouth bass but I think every time we pull out the terms such as meat fishermen, knifers, etc. we have alienated the majority of fishermen in this state and we serve to reinforce their attitudes and practices. We are not going to change attitudes by making this a fight between C&R and harvest fishermen.

I'm all about a good fish fry and come cold beer, but I also enjoy catching nice fish. Just be smart about it and keep the smaller keepers for the table and let the big ones go. This is my opinion on all species of fish. For example, two weekends ago we went catfishing and landed six blue cats between 2-25 pounds. The whole point of going was to get some fish to eat and we kept the five smaller ones up to 11 pounds and put back the 25 pounder. I'm sure there are a lot of hypocrites on here that cry about killing a bass, but would have no problem knifing a big catfish. There are enough conservation minded catfishermen out there that they were able to convince MDC to add special regulations for Truman and LoZ.

[Dan Kreher]

Facts of how we know what needs to happen versus the way MDC biologist stats prove.

One time I had all the stream biologist on a float / meeting on the lower six miles of both huzzah/courtois creeks. We talked over a lot of issues. One of the top guys out of the Sullivan office looked in amazement at my 3/8 oz spinnerbait and could not believe how it caught smallmouth. Difference what fisherman and biologist view in our world.

My take on regs. Two fifteen inch fish Or two 14inch fish statewide. Let's get this right

Unfortunately, the MDC does not seem to share our enthusiasm for "getting this right" in terms of improving the overall quality of our SMB stream fisheries. Sure, they'd like fishing/size structure to improve but not if it is at the expense of yield -- meaning pounds of fish that may be legally harvested. Certainly the standing crop of 12.5 to 15 inch fish would improve markedly if new statewide regs were implemented -- which would be a great improvement over the current situation --- but the amount of SMB fillets available or harvest with a 15 inch minimum would generally suffer based on the MDC's modeling. As long as yield is valued as highly improving the fishery, regs changes here will likely be limited in scope and disappointing to those anglers seeking a more comprehensive solution.

Many anglers who have read their study still scratch their heads at a supposed 30%+ Natural Mortality Rate for adult (great than 12 inch SMB) in our streams. While many others question angler harvest rates of just 10-20%. Unless the annual harvest rate is greater than the annual natural mortality rate, implementing more restrictive regs' positive impact will be limited.

If the management objective is to grow a bunch of 18-20 inchers, I agree that something quite significant would need to change in MO as far as regs are concerned. And, even then, fish that large would not be commonplace given the lack of fertility in our streams and all the angling pressure. But, if we were just trying to improve our fisheries to catch more "nice" fish, it wouldn't take too much to get that done.

Its hard for us to dispute the science behind the MDC's conclusions. However, we can certainly influence their understanding of what the majority of serious SMB anglers want across the state at these upcoming public meetings. As Ron Kruger points out, that will be our real opportunity to provide feedback to help shape SMB management here. So let's all make sure to attend one of more of these meetings when held later this year.