MDC Public Comment Meetings -New SMB Regs

[Guest]

deleted

 

[Dan Kreher]

In any comments sent to the MDC I would recommend that anglers primarily focus on the slate of proposed regulations in their remarks. Tell them what you like about them or what you don't. Once that is covered, then feel free to express your other concerns regarding management of this resource.

Angler comments concerning this slate of proposed regs themselves will likely be taken more seriously at this time than those dealing with enforcement, gigging, poaching, access, fishing pressure, etc. Those are all real issues to deal with, of course, but we need to make sure there is sufficient support for these new regs as presented and/or for the MDC to possibly modify them in some manner to provide even greater protection of the resource.  For example, anglers might suggest extending the boundaries of these proposed stretches or adding regs to adjacent tributaries (Huzzah/Courtois). With enough anglers clamoring for these types of changes, we may get somewhere.

Bringing up the other issues, while not unimportant, will not help advance this slate of proposed regs. We cannot get everything we want or the resource requires all at once. But let's get what we can when we can get it.  

Please don't take this as a criticism. We just need to make sure that those in favor of these proposed regs far outnumber those in favor of the status quo. Overall these regs are a good step in the right direction. Other than reducing the 18" limit on Jacks/Gasconade to 15", I am all for what they want to do. If you don't like that part of the proposal, say so. Perhaps the MDC will listen to a cogent argument here. If you want more special regs areas, ask for those as well with some specifics.

Let's make sure this ball keeps rolling.

 

 

 

[fishinwrench]

Well Dan, what is the point of altering regulations if none of it is enforced ?  

IMO the "old" regulations would serve just fine IF they were followed.  

[H20 Dawg]

I agree, while some of us, including myself, might feel that these proposed additional regulations and expanded areas do not go far enough, we need to express support for them collectively to the MDC.  Believe me, they are going to get a LOT of local feedback at some of the open houses located out state that will be vehemently against any new additions/regulations, especially the proposed new areas on the Current/Jacks Fork Rivers.  The more of us that generally express a clear, concise voice in favor of these regs will generally, I feel, be more powerful than multiple tiresome suggestions and additions the MDC staff will have to wade through and compile.  I know personally, I had a 2 page response to the MDC comments sections ready to be fired off, but have significantly chopped it down after reading others comments and thinking more about it.

On a side note, the only time I have ever been checked for a fishing license after a decade in Missouri, is, and I am dead serious, at the Carondelet Park Boathouse Lake in the south side of St. Louis City.  Can't make that up.

 

[jtram]

I can honestly say from my experience the local warden (Mcdonald /Newton County) Does a pretty good job considering how much water there is. I have been checked on Indian Creek, Shoal Creek, Capps Creek, and Elk River off the top of my head. I do fish a lot, but I am also young. 2 weeks ago I watched a couple locals get nailed for a short smallmouth while carp fishing, after receiving the ticket, they said "at least that means we won't have to worry about getting checked later." Enforcement only matters if it is respected as well as regs.

[Gavin]

Have not sent in my comments yet. Trying to think it all over first. Trying to think outside of the box a bit. I love the extensions of the SMBSMA's but I think what has been proposed is a derivative of the existing structure. Thinking that I'd like to see a 4 fish smallmouth limit  statewide. 4 under 14" our 3 under 14", 1>18" daily limit. Possession limit 8, 7 under 14" 1 over 18". SMBSMA regs, 2 SMB under 14" daily, none over 14". Catch & release River tourney rules, dunno. Thinking they can keep 4 SMB of Any size if they plan to release it no culling. Registration requirements so the MDC folks can gather Data at the weigh in.

[fishinwrench]

I wouldn't pull a brain muscle over it, Gavin.  Odds are it will never get read, and if it does it won't be by anyone that GAF.  

[Gavin]

Your probably right FW, but I will continue. Smallmouth Regs now protect small fish that we don't GAF about and none of the fish we GAF about. Thinking there is a win win if we can get some regs that protect quality fish that we GAF about. Dont really GAF about sub 14 smallmouth, they are abundant. I take care with them and toss them back but still a a dink. 

[fishinwrench]

I don't see that the regs (current or future) are protecting anything.  The "regs" are just some words on a website. Some folks know and follow them and some don't, and the ones that know and care what the regs are don't keep ANY Smallies regardless of size.   So does it really even matter if the regs are changed ?   

Instead of a crew of guys wasting days/weeks/months fretting over the words and numbers posted on a webpage and in a pamphlet lets try putting those guys on the river enforcing it.  They'll be happier away from the office anyway.  We can even buy them rain jackets, bug spray, and hip boots.

[Gavin]

Im not as cynical. Figure that most would abide. The 10% low life stink birds never will. Might make an improvement, we don't know.