MDC Smallmouth Regs Recommendations

[Dan Kreher]

Really it's the combination of natural and harvest mortality that is the determining relationship in the MDC's modeling. They can fairly accurately determine total mortality in the population and then try to calculate harvest mortality using tactics such as the reward tagging study. Sure, there are lots of potential problems in coming up with that -- guys don't turn in tags, guys say they released a fish when they kept it, etc. Once they subtract harvest mortality from total mortality they're left with mortality from everything else as "natural mortality." I know there's more to this equation but these are basics as I understand them.

Many question the calculation of harvest mortality for the reasons noted above. Many would believe that the MDC's harvest rates are understated but that's largely anecdotal. A low harvest rate means a high natural mortality rate since total mortality is a given based on size/age distribution in the population. Leaving many to then question the high natural mortality rates on adult SMB. Most are puzzled by what natural causes that a 12-inch smallmouth can die from other than C&R mortality, otters, they're too big for a heron and probably for eagles/ospreys as well by that point. Floods and drought happen as well as disease, but it does seem sort of strange to many that we could be seeing 30% natural mortality of adult SMB in our streams. Maybe that's correct, but it just strikes many as unbelievably high. MSA has asked MDC for additional clarification on this topic.

If harvest is understated and natural mortality is overstated -- a two way street as these are the only two factors in the mortality equation -- then the MDC's modeling results would be highly inaccurate. In areas of high angler mortality, special regs work very well to improve a fishery. But in areas with low harvest and high natural mortality, harvest is not the limiting factor rending the imposition of restricted harvest regs much less effective.

I think it quite difficult to positively impact natural mortality of adult SMB unless we can turn back the clock to put all the gravel back in the hills, restore all of our watersheds to 1850s conditions and remove river otters from headwater reaches. Other states have done things to improve spawning success / recruitment by placing log structures in rivers/lakes while habitat improvement/bank stabilization can be effective on smaller streams. Very difficult to have a major impact on larger river habitat -- and quite expensive.

So much for the science behind their thinking.

Now, we need to convince them that a majority of Ozark anglers want this sport fish managed as a sport fish with harvest availability of limited importance. That's what the MDC seems to be hung up on in taking a more aggressive approach towards imposing higher MLLs that may negatively impact yield.

Back in 2010, MSA proposed 18/1 regs on Gasconade (expansion of existing area upstream), lower Big Piney (to match existing Gasconade regs), middle Current (in the Two Rivers/Powder Mill area that is currently in play) and the Meramec (Birds Nest down to Blue Springs Ck). Now MDC is looking to change Gasconade to 15"/add lower Piney to 15", implement 15" reg on middle Current and extend 15" limit area on Meramec. So, while MDC didn't come all our way with 18-inch regs, they seem to be proposing to implement 15" regs in these same areas.

We also proposed new 15"/1 regs for NFOW, Bryant, Courtois/Huzzah and Bourbeuse as well as extending 15/1 regs upstream on Meramec, Gasconade, James and Big Piney. MDC does not seem prepared to do anything on these streams although 2 of them (Courtois and NFOW) were included in Exploitation study along with Black and Castor.

We did not propose any new regs on SWMO streams (other than James) as the MDC had already evaluated many of those during their White Paper effort and had decided against imposing special regs on them (other than on Elk River). And, although it has great habitat and potential, Niangua was left off the list due to Niangua Darter concerns (the MDC's not ours).

The Eleven Point features more special regs by species than any stream in the Ozarks and folks don't seem to have a problem understanding those - 15 inch SMB, 8 inch goggle eye, 18 inch walleye, Blue/White Ribbon trout.

So, MSA did try to get a broad distribution of more special regs waters in our effort back in 2010.

Agreed that we need to ask those future oriented questions as well about how will MDC evaluate the effectiveness of any special regs going forward.

I will send you a PM to have further conversation on these other topics -- if you are interested in doing so.

[rFisherk]

This is a lively, intelligent and somewhat complicated discussion, and I don't mean to further complicate it, but two important aspects of management are not being considered.

They are quite simple, actually.

One is the Black River, and how the almost total migration of the river' smallmouth population congregates along Bluff View and other spots in Clearwater Lake during the winter. This makes them very vulnerable to fishing pressure, which has increased dramatically during the past couple of years. I strongly suspect the anger mortality of these river fish during these few winter months in Clearwater (no smallmouth are caught in Clearwater during the summer) is greater than the entire angling and natural mortality in the river during the entire spring, summer and fall. A 14- or 15-inch MLL (at the least) there would do more to improve the smallmouth population in the river than any regulations on the river itself.

The other is that all the special regulation on our favorite streams only covers a small percentage of our smallmouth waters. The rest are left to a 12-inch MLL. This is an antiquated rule, implemented when fishing quality was not addressed, only maximum harvest while still allowing a population of mature individuals to provide the next year class for the population. The idea was that smallmouth become "mature" at about 12-inches. What I've noticed, however, is the vast majority of the individuals are not 12 inches, but slightly under. Raising the state-wide limit to 13 inches would, I think, greatly increase the number of mature individuals actually able to spawn successfully, etc., which would not only increase the average size statewide by an important inch, but boost the population statewide.

I firmly believe that within a year or two of a state-wide 13-inch MLL, the number of "harvestable" fish in the population would equal (possibly exceed) the number of 12-inch fish now available for harvest.

[SpoonDog]

You guys are way better at keeping up with all these white papers and reports than I am.

One is the Black River, and how the almost total migration of the river' smallmouth population congregates along Bluff View and other spots in Clearwater Lake during the winter. This makes them very vulnerable to fishing pressure, which has increased dramatically during the past couple of years. I strongly suspect the anger mortality of these river fish during these few winter months in Clearwater (no smallmouth are caught in Clearwater during the summer) is greater than the entire angling and natural mortality in the river during the entire spring, summer and fall. A 14- or 15-inch MLL (at the least) there would do more to improve the smallmouth population in the river than any regulations on the river itself.

Yeah. These are interconnected systems, and (to my knowledge) most of our movement data is restricted to the Current and Jacks Fork- pretty narrow watersheds without a ton of large tributaries and nothing in the way of large impoundments. How applicable is that to other watersheds in the state? How much time did MDC personnel spend huffing it up smaller tributary streams looking for these fish...how many tags were reported from mainstem rivers versus tributary streams. We've probably all ran into some surprisingly big smallies on some little streams, and I think it'd be important to know whether they're residents or they're coming from somewhere else. I was surprised looking at MDC's smallmouth management maps last night- specifically the middle Gasconade- there's protective regs on the mainstem river but not on the lower Big or Little Piney. Theoretically you could sit at the mouth and just tow the fish over to where it's legal. Given what we know already, it wouldn't surprise me at all if fish were moving between the mainstem Gasconade and the Big or Little Piney, or between the mainstem Meramec and Huzzah/Courtois/Bourbeuse/Big. These fish can obviously make these sorts of movements...are they? Maybe the solution isn't reduced regs, just more well thought-out regs.

The other is that all the special regulation on our favorite streams only covers a small percentage of our smallmouth waters. The rest are left to a 12-inch MLL. This is an antiquated rule, implemented when fishing quality was not addressed, only maximum harvest while still allowing a population of mature individuals to provide the next year class for the population. The idea was that smallmouth become "mature" at about 12-inches. What I've noticed, however, is the vast majority of the individuals are not 12 inches, but slightly under. Raising the state-wide limit to 13 inches would, I think, greatly increase the number of mature individuals actually able to spawn successfully, etc., which would not only increase the average size statewide by an important inch, but boost the population statewide.

Sometimes I've wondered whether restrictive regs shift harvest to other areas. Or if the few quality sections act as source populations that are feeding harvest elsewhere on the rivers. More studies could address those concerns, it's just a question of finding the interest and the money.

[Dan Kreher]

MDC did some analysis of shifts in angling and harvest-oriented pressure on the first 3 regs areas on Big Piney, Big and Meramec back in the early 1990s. That info is contained in their White Paper published in late 2009 as I recall. In a nutshell they found that initially fishing hours decreased dramatically in the special regs areas and moved to 12/6 regs areas up and downstream. This was most notable on the Meramec section. After a few years the numbers became closer to baseline but the overall angling pressure on both the Meramec regs and control area never did return to their pre-regs enactment levels -- at least at the time this data was gathered from about 1990 to about 1996. See the White Paper for more -- good luck finding on MDC website = ha ha.

To my knowledge no other angling effort studies were performed on the other special regs areas in the state. I think the MDC is comfortable that the consumptive-oriented anglers went elsewhere as more C&R guys focused on the regs areas. Angler Survey results showed that most were aware of and OK with the special regs areas thereby somewhat validating MDC's management area approach.

On the tributary migration route - yes, it would be interesting to see the tagging results for the Courtois as well as the Black River from the Exploitation study regarding where and when were these tagged fish caught and were they harvested or released. It seems that vast majority of Courtois fish were released -- many likely caught by CWC87 -- leading to the 7% computed harvest rate while harvest rate on Black was several times higher than this. I know that many Courtois fish in the cooler months were caught from the main stem of the Meramec but I have no idea where the fish were taken on Black other than noting that over 1/2 of tagged fish were caught within 30 days of the season opener in May. Then likely that fewer tagged fish made it back down to Clearwater by the winter months. Now for those untagged Black River fish - that's another story that would take a separate research project by MDC to investigate.

Clearwater has NO minimum length limit with no closed season in play during winter making them vulnerable to harvest when concentrated there. So Ron's concerns appear quite legitimate to me.

Al Agnew may be best to expound on seasonal fish migrations out of and into tributary streams given his vast knowledge of the Ozarks. My take is that Little Piney fish likely move down into Gasconade in colder months as it has better wintering habitat then migrate upstream on both LP and BP in spring to find spawning areas. Fish on Courtois and Huzzah migrate to/from Meramec for sure. Likely that fish move in/out of Little and Big Niangua into Lake of Ozarks seasonally - at least they get 15" MLL on the Lake. James and Table Rock -- both have 15 inch MLL in those most affected sections. I doubt that many fish move into/out of Bourbeuse/Big into Meramec as both of these slower streams should have suitable wintering habitat -- but that's just a guess on my part. I am sure there are many other migration situations across MO/AR as well -- Crooked/White/Buffalo system that others would be more knowledgeable of that I.

MDC seems to be seeking to align special regs on Gasconade/lower Big Piney with their new proposal -- details still sketchy -- to account for the MLL discrepancy. Also planning to have Jacks Fork and middle Current under same 15/1 regs regime which makes sense. Osage Fork/upper Gasconade still an issue above Hazelgreen access -- another reason why MSA suggested upper Gasc be on 15/1 regs. Courtois/Huzzah/Meramec situation may complicate with expansion of 15/1 regs on Meramec downstream -- presumably they will go past confluence with Huzzah above Onondaga but not sure as MDC has not divulged its proposed regs plan yet. In addition to seeking more standardized regs, MDC is lengthening several of the management areas to account for seasonal migrations.

Questions have been posed to MDC by MSA on this topic awaiting response.

[rFisherk]

There was one short paragraph about the Black River migration at the end of the study. Even though the report shows that 87 percent of tagged fish reported were caught within 5 miles, and only 7 (didn't state percentage of total) fish were reported from Clearwater, the majority of the time all bass were up in the river to be caught (hence the 87 percent); as you stated, half of them caught within the first month. Only 13 percent of tags survived to migrate to Clearwater, so 7 fish, I think, constitutes a huge percentage of the remaining survivors, and as the survey showed, these fish migrated up
to 28 miles, which was from the confluence of the three forks. That's as far upstream as they tagged. If any fish had been tagged in the upper forks of the river, this distance would be greater, because they all migrate. I've carefully check many portions of the Middle and West forks during the winter and found no fish in them. None.

The Black is a very unique ecosystem, with probably the most extensive and lengthy migration of smallmouth in the state, requiring unique protection. If protected in Clearwater during the winter, there's no telling how good a fishery the Black could become, because the fish that do migrate to Clearwater are comparable to see-run salmon, taking it easy and fattening up all through the winter. During the especially warm winter we had a few years ago, I was able to fish the migration back up the black in early spring. I saw schools of smallmouth working their way up river, and most of them were of 2 and 3 pound. Every fish I caught was fat, almost football fat like those I catch from Dale Hollow.

I would strongly suspect that bass from the Courtois and Huzzah also have an extensive migration to the Meramec River, but there they are protected by river regulations. In Clearwater, it is a free-for-all.

[SpoonDog]

Knowing what we know, it wouldn't surprise me at all that smallies would move to a big, temperature stable reservoir like Clearwater during the winter. Honestly, given the landscape Black River drains (nutrient poor St. Francois Mountains) and the amount of total destruction in terms of lead mining, it's pretty wild trophy fish come from that system at all. The fact THAT watershed may benefit a thousand percent from different regulations may be something to bring to MDC's attention.

[rFisherk]

The Black is very infertile. That's why it is so extremely clear. I've checked the bottom rocks in various areas, and they have almost no aquatic insect nymphs. About the only thing it does have in abundance is crawfish and tadpoles (later frogs). I believe these sustain the fish during the summer, but when the frogs go away and the crawfish burrow in to hibernate, the bass all head for the more fertile waters of Clearwater. Once they leave, I think all fish leave, including panfish, because I don't see anything, except the occasional sucker in the river during the winter.

Likewise, I believe that as soon as the crawfish come out of hibernation, the smallmouth smell it on the currents entering Clearwater and head back upstream. The two winters I checked the migration closely, as soon as I found crawfish, I found bass. One might think the trigger for return migration is a spawning urge, but they run back up more than a month before they actually spawn. During the warm winter that I was really able to keep tabs on the migration, I saw and caught my first smallmouths around CC access in February. I kept following them upstream and finally caught smallmouths at Sutton's Bluff two weeks later, around the first of March.

The following year, with more normal weather, they didn't start until mid-March. Water temperature may have something to do with this also, but water temperature also prompts the crawfish to climb out. I strongly suspect they don't make a move until they smell succulent crawfish on the currents to fuel their journey.

[SpoonDog]

While we may not be able to put the gravel back on the hills, we can help landowners fence livestock out and quit exacerbating the situation. We can report folks running ATVs up and down streams destabilizing riffles and gravel bars. We know smallmouth growth rates are highest around 70 degrees, we know smallmouth quit growing when temps are in the upper 70s, and that they quit growing when the water's up in the high 70s. The Current, Gasconade, lower Big Piney, 11 Point, Jacks Fork and North Fork are all in good shape, but water temps are up in the 80s in the Big, Bryant, upper Gasconade, upper Big Piney, Bourbeuse, middle Meramec, and the James- fish in those systems aren't growing right now, in fact they may be losing weight due to increased metabolic activity.

If it helps sequester that gravel we're worried about, lengthen the growing season, reduce summer stress, eventually provide in-stream habitat (logs, rootwads), contribute to the food base (leaves feeding bugs feeding crayfish and minnows and all the other stuff smallmouth eat), maybe the boring and un-sexy work of habitat improvement should get a little more attention. And with all the other groups out there- MDC, NRCS, Stream Teams, nonprofit watershed coalitions, there's already a lot of avenues in place for more smallmouth anglers to get involved.

[Chief Grey Bear]

While we may not be able to put the gravel back on the hills, we can help landowners fence livestock out and quit exacerbating the situation. We can report folks running ATVs up and down streams destabilizing riffles and gravel bars. We know smallmouth growth rates are highest around 70 degrees, we know smallmouth quit growing when temps are in the upper 70s, and that they quit growing when the water's up in the high 70s. The Current, Gasconade, lower Big Piney, 11 Point, Jacks Fork and North Fork are all in good shape, but water temps are up in the 80s in the Big, Bryant, upper Gasconade, upper Big Piney, Bourbeuse, middle Meramec, and the James- fish in those systems aren't growing right now, in fact they may be losing weight due to increased metabolic activity.

If it helps sequester that gravel we're worried about, lengthen the growing season, reduce summer stress, eventually provide in-stream habitat (logs, rootwads), contribute to the food base (leaves feeding bugs feeding crayfish and minnows and all the other stuff smallmouth eat), maybe the boring and un-sexy work of habitat improvement should get a little more attention. And with all the other groups out there- MDC, NRCS, Stream Teams, nonprofit watershed coalitions, there's already a lot of avenues in place for more smallmouth anglers to get involved.

The more you keep posting, the more it mirrors exactly the things I have said over the years.

I hope you get further along than I did.

[Al Agnew]

Interesting observations from rFisherk. There's no doubt that a lot of smallmouth move in and out of Clearwater; with the pressure it gets, if they didn't move out very early in the spring there would be a lot of smallies being caught in the lake during the warmer months. Do all of them? Maybe, maybe not. In other streams, including upper Big River which I know so well, there are still fish there, but in those smaller streams with less good wintering habitat, the fish seem to go almost dormant and find places where they can really hide. One of the biologists told me that one time they shocked a large number of smallmouth in early November that were hiding beneath a huge concrete slab, where they could get far back under it. They were crowded together under the slab. Those fish basically disappeared for the winter, because where that slab was, there was no good wintering pool that anybody would think of fishing anywhere near it. Which brings up the question of otters...which, it would seem, could really put a hurt on such a group of fish during the winter. On Big River, which has a much greater population of largemouth than Black River, during the winter you'll mostly find and catch largemouth (and these days, spotted bass) in the wintering pools, with the occasional smallie mixed in, so when it comes to wintering, smallmouth are very different from the other two species. But the smallies are still there somewhere...they don't all go down 75 miles of Big River to the Meramec, and although you can do a little better in the lower middle Big River on smallmouth in the winter, there aren't huge masses of them down there that moved out of the upper river, either.

So I suspect that some smallmouth (and quite possibly many of the smaller ones) spend the winter in Black River and don't migrate to the lake, but they are like those on upper Big River, well hidden beneath huge boulders and such most of the time and are not susceptible to being caught except in very rare circumstances (like a major warming trend that lasts long enough to get water temps up close to 50 degrees for a few days).

It's also obvious that Black River is very infertile; all you have to do is look at how clean the gravel is (except for that brownish algae that mats on it in slow water during the summer). However, I have a very unproven theory that minnows, especially stonerollers which are pretty fat minnows and probably much more nutritious than crayfish, make up a very significant portion of the diet of the larger fish. There are still plenty of stonerollers in Black River. Smallies are always going to eat a lot of crayfish, but I suspect that the ones that grow best are those that utilize the stonerollers to a much greater extent once they get up in that 15 inch range.

I've seen good numbers of smallmouth moving up Courtois Creek in early March during a warm early spring when the water temps were already in the 60 degree range. These fish were moving steadily upstream in the middle of the channel and had no interest in feeding (or at least taking any lure I threw at them). Much of my experience has been that the upper rivers "come alive" by late March most years, but a lot depends upon the type of rains. A warm spring thunderstorm that dumps a lot of warmer water into the stream and gets it up at least a couple of feet will trigger a major migration.

It's funny...MDC's earlier studies when they were considering the first smallmouth management areas showed the larger fish to be real homebodies, always being shocked within a half mile of the same spot multiple years. But the shocking was almost always done at about the same time each year. Now we've really learned that some move, some don't, some move long distances, others move only to and from the nearest good wintering pool or spring. I suppose it's a good thing they don't all move to the same spots, because, like upper Clearwater Lake, if they did the anglers would really decimate them. MDC REALLY needs to change the regs for Clearwater smallies in the winter.