MDC Smallmouth Regs Recommendations

[joeD]

[Gavin]

Might be easier if they did not have their 1/8 cent sales tax funding, Might have to pay attention to the folks who buy permits for a change,

[Dan Kreher]

SpoonDog,

You raise many good points and have offered a multitude of ideas and potential projects and initiatives that conservation-minded anglers and/or an organization such as MSA could undertake. Generally there is no problem coming up with projects and ideas that may be helpful to varying degrees. The problem lies in having sufficient manpower and resources to actually DO any of these things successfully. I don't believe that we've met, but if you are interested in lending your energies towards getting things done -- either as part of MSA or as an individual -- I welcome that for sure.

If it be your intention, I suggest we get together along with the MSA board and figure out which projects and initiatives would be most helpful in achieving mutual objectives to improve and protect our Ozark SMB stream resources. And, then determine the resources and manpower necessary from volunteers to get those accomplished.

As far as MSA's position on the MDC's nascent SMB regs proposal is concerned, despite the displeasure expressed by certain of our members on this forum, the organization itself will certainly support it. While not as comprehensive as our organization first proposed to the MDC back in 2010 when Al Agnew, myself and other MSA members met with Regulations Committee of the MDC, these regs clearly represent a step in the right direction. Details on their proposal have yet to be published, but we welcome expanding special regs water on the Big Piney, Meramec, Jacks Fork and Big Rivers while adding a new area on Current River. Hopefully, the MDC will continue to refine its SMB management plan further in the coming years.

Although MSA lacks financial clout and remains a pretty small group today, I do not believe it presumptuous that these new proposed regs would not have come into being without MSA’s insistence over the years to enact additional quality-based regs on our waters. We planted the seed back in 2010, and after 5+ years of study by the MDC (angler survey, exploitation study, movement study, updated info on growth rates/ages/special regs waters), the MDC is now coming forth with something substantive as a result. Again, may not be everything that MSA or many other anglers want and it may not result in widespread improvement of our stream fisheries; but, it is definitely a step in the right direction in MSA's opinion.

Thankfully, as you point out, today quality-based (restrictive) regs are unnecessary to prevent a collapse of our stream smallmouth populations. Thanks to more widespread conservation practices over the past 50 years and a modicum of protection afforded by the12-inch MLL, our streams contain good numbers of smallmouth bass and are self-sustaining. So the call for enacting more restrictive harvest regulations is indeed a "socially-based" sentiment aimed at increasing sport anglers' enjoyment of the resource in practicing their favorite social activity in which they like to engage - fishing. However, regs such as these are also scientifically-based in that restricting and/or delaying harvest of adult SMB will certainly result in more catchable fish in the stream and more fish both below and above the desired legal length limit -- whatever that may be. The MDC's research and modeling clearly support that premise although the effectiveness of various regulations varies depending upon the nature of the fishery. So the science works to produce more and larger average size fish if you protect them from harvest for a longer period of their natural lives.

The stumbling block remains the MDC's predisposition to equally value the impact on angler harvest/yield in this equation. In a situation where angling quality -- exhibited by angler catch rates, average sizes, etc -- is gained at the expense of the pounds of harvestable fish, which is the case supported on 5 of the 6 stretches in the exploitation study, quality regs then take a back seat. This sentiment is clear in the body of the MDC’s Exploitation Study report. They don't want to promise much better fishing, including more keepers, only to leave the consumption-oriented portion of the angling public be disappointed that they cannot take home as many pounds of filets as before. It does not appear that the MDC has the political will to take that chance. This then leads them to the less aggressive path they appear to have chosen at this time.

Regarding angler support, the 2011 Angler Survey showed solid support for the existing special regs areas as well as an increase in the statewide MLL and a reduction in the creel limit. Generally about 50% of respondents would support an increase in the MLL and an even greater percentage a reduction in the creel limit. In addition, there was very strong support -- over 70% -- for the establishment of catch and release regulations on certain streams/stretches in that survey. So, there does seem to be good support here in Missouri for improving the resource through more progressive management in the form of restricted harvest. It just appears that the MDC is not sufficiently convinced of this condition to go too far out on that limb with more widespread changes.

As far as other states go, some of the more restrictive regulations were indeed brought about, in part, by strong localized support by conservation-minded anglers and/or organizations. The 12-20 inch slot on the upper Mississippi, the 22-inch minimum on Chequamegon Bay of Lake Superior and other areas are situations where groups of anglers (including The Smalllmouth Alliance in Minnesota) were influential enough to prompt fisheries managers to enact regs to preserve and improve outstanding fisheries. Other special regs like those 13-17 inch protected slot limits in place on many SMB rivers in eastern Tennessee had less organized angler support with more of the impetus coming from the state's fisheries managers seeking to enhance angler success. The smallmouth bass management program in the state of Arkansas, where no significant organized stream smallmouth bass constituency exists, is, arguably, much more comprehensive than what we currently have here in Missouri. In that state, having very similar geography and angler composition, some 450+ miles of SMB water are under 14-inch, 2 fish limits while another 135 miles feature 18-inch, one fish limits (Crooked, Buffalo, Kings, Little Missouri). Presently, there are about 310 miles of water under the 15/1 regs here in MO with another 45 or so under and 18/1 that are slated for reduction to 15/1 going forward. In addition, managed stream sections are generally much more lengthy in Arkansas allowing for more widespread protection of SMB from harvest until these higher minimum length limits are reached. Extending the length of management areas appears to be a component of Missouri’s new proposed regs which is welcomed.

So, angler support is definitely part of the equation, but fisheries managers also need to be willing to take a bit of leadership here as well.

Let's make sure to let the MDC know our thoughts and concerns at these upcoming meetings in a constructive manner. Support what they are trying to do but continue to challenge them to move further for the betterment of the resource and to promote the enjoyment of our sport.

And remember that MSA can sure use the help of any folks who want to make a tangible contribution to smallmouth bass conservation.

[Flysmallie]

Might be easier if they did not have their 1/8 cent sales tax funding, Might have to pay attention to the folks who buy permits for a change,

Doubtful. One, the fisherman that would like to see a regulation change on river smallmouth is a drop in the bucket of license sales. Besides, are you really going to not buy a license and just quit to prove a point? Do you think they will care? Really? Really? Yeah, me neither.

But honestly I don't have a problem with smallmouth fishing right now. It's a blast. Would I like to see some better fish? Yep. But I'm not going to turn something that I love doing into a big ball of stress for me. (Look at how many time Smalliebigs has quit because he was so frustrated) Besides, I've grown past the point that I need a big fish to prove it was a successful trip. If I go it's considered a successful trip to me.

Plus if I have to get involved in politics to make things better then you can just count me out. Take a look around. Politics isn't making anything better.

[rFisherk]

"Regarding angler support, the 2011 Angler Survey showed solid support for the existing special regs areas as well as an increase in the statewide MLL and a reduction in the creel limit. Generally about 50% of respondents would support an increase in the MLL and an even greater percentage a reduction in the creel limit. In addition, there was very strong support -- over 70% -- for the establishment of catch and release regulations on certain streams/stretches in that survey."

Interesting statistics, Dan. Back in the 1970s, a large portion of Courtois Creek was an experimental catch-and-release area. I fished it often and caught my first really big smallmouth there. The study included daily creel surveys conducted by MDC employees that would float the river each day and talk to all fishermen they encountered. When the experiment ended, they lifted the restrictions and never pursued the matter further.

I've tried to find the results of this experiment and survey with no results. Does anyone have a copy of it, and can they share?

Might make another interesting thread.

And Flysmallie: Even with the Conservation Sales Tax, nearly half of the MDCs operating funds still comes from the sales of fishing and hunting licenses and matching federal funds from Pitman/Robinson, which is based upon these sales. One of the many bills attacking the MDC and conservation in general in the previous session of the General Assembly was to eliminate all the revenue from the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. Thankfully, enough people got involved to defeat this and other measures.

I also understand and share your sentiments about politics in general, but we are in a political era where true conservation is under serious attack (not just here, but across the nation). Even if you don't want to get involved physically (and I suspect most don't), supporting groups like MSA and CFM with memberships would be a wise investment in the future for you and your offspring, because it supports those willing to get involved to protect your interests. Politics today is the way it is primarily because of a general apathy and ignorance among the voting populace. We all like to bitch about it and feel somewhat disenfranchised. But the reason we feel disenfranchised is because of our apathy and unwillingness to investigate the issues. At the very least, sending an email to your representatives about upcoming issues wouldn't cost anything or take more of your time than posting here.

[Flysmallie]

Politics today is the way it is primarily because of a general apathy and ignorance among the voting populace. We all like to bitch about it and feel somewhat disenfranchised. But the reason we feel disenfranchised is because of our apathy and unwillingness to investigate the issues.

That's the most ignorant thing I have heard.

I have knowledge of the inner government workings of the state of Missouri. If you feel you have a chance then please continue on. But don't talk down to those of us that know the truth. You could probably buy the regulations you desire from our government, but I won't be a part of that.

You want me to give money to a couple of conservation groups? Then you give me an example of where they have made a true difference, a measurable difference. I'd rather take that money and spend it on a trip outdoors with my family.

[SpoonDog]

Twenty percent of Missourians never graduated high school and most folks read at a 5th grade level. People like pretty pictures of butterflies and fuzzy, adorable mammals. Maybe Conservationist's bias is a reflection of the population at large instead of another sinister MDC plot?

Guilty...I'm a member and love to fish, but with family obligations and such, I don't have the time or desire to spend much of my free time volunteering.

I'd wager MDC biologists have spouses and kids and other work obligations too. I bet they'd be far more interested in sitting down to dinner with their family than having their studies or proposals trashed at an MSA meeting or online. That's sort of my point- we're constantly asking them to shoulder the burden of protecting the resource, and when it's time for us to put some skin in the game- we're too busy.There's lots of big-fish pictures on this forum, I haven't seen any with folks I recognize as field biologists, their supervisors or administrators, agents, CFM bigwigs or conservation commissioners. We can go fishing AND take these folks along- six or eight hours of their undivided attention and a demonstration of what Ozark smallmouth fisheries could be may work wonders. We can do a fishing trip/spotted bass roundup AND a trash cleanup- I quit counting the number of tires in the river last time I was on Mineral Fork. We can spend four or five hours putting in willow stakes on a CA AND spend the rest of the weekend chasing smallies. It isn't either/or.

I'll be the first to admit I'm not in a place in my career where I can devote a ton of time to many of the projects I listed earlier- aside from occasionally volunteering with kid's fishing clinics or helping scouts with angling and environmental science merit badges or donate a box of flies. I don't have the skill set to generate websites or brochures, and I'm probably not the guy you want gladhanding biologists or sponsors. But I'm happy to help find folks with those talents, I'd be happy to share and cultivate contacts with MDC and other groups, and I'll be sending messages to Ron and Dan about projects and opportunities.

Dan and Al bring up some really great points on length/creel limits and how they're paying dividends in other states, and if we can get MDC on board with more restrictive regs in the next few weeks or months I'm all for it. I'm just not sure how willing they are to go with something more restrictive. But if they're willing to tweak these regs, maybe they'd be receptive to other suggestions along with it.

MDC's data may not give us science-based justifications for an 18/1 or C&R rule, but if harvest rates are so low and voluntary release rates are so high, why do we have such an effing long harvest season? Knocking off a couple months in late autumn through winter won't effect early-season harvest, and it'd protect the fish MDC's studies demonstrate are making long-distance movements between summer ranges and wintering spots. If a couple folks can clean out a stream reach in June, what happens when all those fish are stacked in a few places during January- there may not be many winter anglers, but they may have an outsized impact on the resource. Because their numbers are so low, they may not be effectively captured in a random angler survey- and if we know the number of anglers differs seasonally, why would we expect a uniform tag return (and therefore harvest estimate) rate? That's just one proposal- maybe we can work out others if we invested as much time looking at MDC's data as we do trashing it.

[SpoonDog]

You want me to give money to a couple of conservation groups? Then you give me an example of where they have made a true difference, a measurable difference. I'd rather take that money and spend it on a trip outdoors with my family.

Trout Unlimited has done some pretty significant habitat work on Mill Creek. Looks like Missouri's wild turkey federation is partnering with Missouri's Prairie Foundation to restore grasslands, they're doing riparian work at Mule Shoe CA, they're restoring grasslands around Mark Twain Lake, they're doing cost-share with landowners for habitat improvements, they're working with the National Forest to manage grasslands and forests, they're funding prescribed burning equipment for the Nature Conservancy (another citizen organization which protects and manages a whole bunch of places in the state), they're purchasing equipment for 4H groups, they're helping with a girl's summer camp, they're helping fun Share the Harvest, FFA, scholarships and a whole host of other stuff. You've prioritized outdoor trips with the family and that's fantastic- but there's no question conservation groups have made real, measurable differences.

[Smalliebigs]

" Back in the 1970s, a large portion of Courtois Creek was an experimental catch-and-release area. I fished it often and caught my first really big smallmouth there. The study included daily creel surveys conducted by MDC employees that would float the river each day and talk to all fishermen they encountered. When the experiment ended, they lifted the restrictions and never pursued the matter further.

I've tried to find the results of this experiment and survey with no results. Does anyone have a copy of it, and can they share?

Might make another interesting thread"

My dad and my Uncle always talked about how good the Courtois was during the CnR days, they also would talk about some creek that ran into the Northern side of LOZ before the dam that was CnR only for a time and it was also extremely good fishing. I have never been able to find info or studies as hard as I have tried to find it from any study on either of those creeks........it is extremely hard info to find. I have only heard first hand accounts of how good the fishing was. They are the only two creek I know of in Missouri that were put under a full CnR, that could have been used as a baseline for results but good luck finding any info on them.

[Mitch f]

I'd wager MDC biologists have spouses and kids and other work obligations too. I bet they'd be far more interested in sitting down to dinner with their family than having their studies or proposals trashed at an MSA meeting or online. That's sort of my point- we're constantly asking them to shoulder the burden of protecting the resource, and when it's time for us to put some skin in the game- we're too busy.

Big difference is, they are paid to do this, and volunteers are not.