MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[Brian Jones]

That's the thing folks- a lot of the reasons you're so hot at MDC are only reasons if you don't understand what you're talking about.  You're upset MDC's samples aren't 100% accurate?  Let's release every felon convicted with DNA evidence because they're not 100% either- nothing in science is. 

Which is why angler input needs to be a consideration as well.  

I love fishing the middle and lower Gasconade.  I believe, based solely on my personal catches and those of other anglers I talk with, that there is a spotted bass problem in the lower middle to lower part of the river that flows through Maries and Osage Counties.  I've shared my concerns with two biologists who work the river.  Both are skeptical of my findings because the scientific data they have gathered from their electro-fishing studies in Laclede, Pulaski, and Phelps Counties has turned up very few-if any- spotted bass.  By their own admission though, neither has spent any time on the Maries or Osage county portions.  But since science has proven there isn't a spotted bass problem up river,  there cannot possibly be one down river.  That's the silliness of macro management.  It's as silly as someone saying that Branson is a dangerous place to visit because there has been 160 homocides in St. Louis City. You cannot possibly use one set of statistics from one piece of pie and make that the gospel for the entire pie.  I've never caught a trout out of the Meramec while fishing around Pacific, but that doesn't mean they're not thriving in the Red Ribbon section 100 miles up river.  

 

 

[Smalliebigs]

"mostly because they are not nearly as tasty as a sucker"......MOpanfisher I'm glad you use the right reason to not gig a Smallie and not the legal one.....hahahahaha

 

    The drive for five bass a day will be on some of my favorite SW MO creeks, I can't wait!!!!!  I can smell the grease warming up now

[Smalliebigs]

"Changing harvest rates from 30% to 80% doesn't prove MDC's science is junk, it proves you don't understand algebra.  But if you'd like to cut off your nose to spite your face, have a ball."

     I understood algebra.....The MDC's equation is flawed if they rely on CnR anglers to do their part as they said at the MSA meeting.

 

    It doesn't matter what our opinions are in regards to regulations for river Smallmouth and what the MDC does or doesn't do if they don't have the manpower or will to enforce any game codes with a violation because some judge decides any real penalty. It just doesn't matter.....who cares???.... I do and some of my valuable cash will be spent going to other states to pursue Smallies because it just doesn't matter here in the Ozarks of Missouri.

    My wife finishing up her board exam for the NP was when we were going to move to the Ozarks on a river but, that has changed now......Arkansas or Tenessee might be pushing olde Mizzou out the more we look at properties.

[Flysmallie]

    The drive for five bass a day will be on some of my favorite SW MO creeks, I can't wait!!!!!  I can smell the grease warming up now.

 

That will show them! You are only hurting yourself.

[Al Agnew]

Here's the thing, as I've probably said before...there is no good baseline data.  The major studies of MO stream smallmouth populations came back in the 1960s when populations were most likely depressed from habitat problems, lack of catch and release ethic, and most especially very liberal limits (10 fish, no length limit).  They included the Courtois experiment, and resulted in the present statewide regulations.  Then, the next round of studies were not done until the 1990s, I believe, when the first three special management areas (Big River--Mammoth to Browns Ford, Meramec--Scotts Ford to Birds Nest, and Big Piney--Slabtown to Ross Bridge) were being considered.  Of those three, the Meramec was never going to be a terrific producer of bigger fish (too cold), and Big River was already a shadow of the big smallmouth stream it had once been, because of spotted bass encroachment.  Only the Big Piney stretch was both healthy and good big fish habitat (and it wasn't as good as a lot of places).  

Point is, they are using that data and the data they got from follow-up studies of those programs as their baseline for what a "good" Ozark smallmouth population SHOULD be.  Nobody has any good data for what an Ozark smallmouth stream with decent fertility, good habitat, and light fishing pressure CAN be.  Studies in other states might give you similar data, but other states aren't Missouri and the conditions aren't the same.

To a great extent, every regulation change is an experiment.  The Courtois catch and release was truly an experiment at the time, and it gave them some excellent data for what might happen on that kind of small, infertile stream...but you can't compare it to what might have happened if they'd tried it on the middle Meramec.  The first special management areas were also an experiment, and gave good data on what would happen with that kind of regulation, not only to smallmouth populations but also to fishing pressure.

Don't kid yourself, Spoondog, they don't KNOW what is possible in improving smallmouth populations, and they don't KNOW what would happen under various regulation scenarios that haven't been tried.  They don't have that science, and they'll never have it, especially the part about how good smallmouth fishing in Ozark streams could be.  They simply don't have any good examples of what an unexploited smallmouth population in a healthy stream should look like.  

What a lot of us are asking is that they do some more experimenting.  Pick just ONE stretch of stream with good potential to grow bigger fish.  Put SOME kind of regulation on it that protects the 18-20 inch fish, whether it be a straight 20 inch limit, pure catch and release, or a 14-20 inch slot limit.  Prohibit gigging on it the way they do the blue ribbon trout sections.  And enforce those regs.  Study the heck out of the smallmouth population just before implementing those regs, keep them on it for five years, and then evaluate the results.  I would submit that such a program would REALLY give us all a good idea of what's possible, and if it didn't result in significant improvements in the numbers of bigger fish, then I think most of us would shut up and accept it.  If it DID show major improvements, then they'd have all the ammunition they needed to convince a lot of other anglers that somewhat more restrictive regs elsewhere would also benefit the fisheries.

We KNOW that, due to a combination of relatively infertile waters and genetics, Ozark smallmouth populations might never match those of the most famous big smallmouth streams across the country, like the upper Mississippi where most of the fish caught are over 16 inches and a good percentage are over 19.  That's not what we're looking for.  I would be happy if the Ozark streams had twice the number of 18 inch plus fish they have now.  The more that make it to 18 inches, the more likely it is that a few of them will make it to 20, 21, 22 inches.  Unlike people, they don't stop growing with age as long as they have the food to eat, so the analogy to 75 or 100 year old people isn't nearly as valid as it would seem.  Food and genetics determines top end size, not simply age.

[MOsmallies]

Al... No one here could of said it better! These are my sentiments exactly!!! My intent in this thread has not been to come off as an MDC basher... I am not. I appreciate what they do. But as Al states above, more can be done to improve the Smallmouth Bass populations and size in our state. Just a little thinking outside the box is needed!!!

[joeD]

Food and genetics does determine what  fish could be, of course Al, all things being equal. But smallmouth bass thrive in our Ozarks where hillbillys also thrive. Where the culture of anti government anti civilized and appropriate ways of life are not accepted. Societal rules are simply ignored for selfish day to day living. Smalmouth bass in Missouri suffer from illegal harvest and a culture of keeping what one catches, perpetuated by an antiquated wildlife code that thinks fishermen obey rules, and resemble 50's artwork of Ward Cleaver in a flannel shirt and khaki waders and bucket hat replete with flies and a bamboo creel happily landing a 12" trout with a pipe in his mouth. 

Just stop with the "science"  and perpetual "meetings" that corporate animals so love. No more "dialogues." 

Just enforce rules. SHOW that you CARE MDC. Not TELL us you care. 

Again, ad nauseam, smallmouth bass fishing in our Ozarks, suffers because of ongoing illicit harvest that people in charge, and who should know better, do nothing. These regulations and limit proposals from "concerned" anglers amount to nothing. It effects no law abiding citizen. And has absolutely no effect on smallmouth fishing success on any stream. Without any enforcement or consequence, there is no real point to any rule change.

But, feel free to have a meeting and talk about it. Maybe something will come of it. Like another meeting and future study.

[mjk86]

Food and genetics does determine what  fish could be, of course Al, all things being equal. But smallmouth bass thrive in our Ozarks where hillbillys also thrive. Where the culture of anti government anti civilized and appropriate ways of life are not accepted. Societal rules are simply ignored for selfish day to day living. Smalmouth bass in Missouri suffer from illegal harvest and a culture of keeping what one catches, perpetuated by an antiquated wildlife code that thinks fishermen obey rules, and resemble 50's artwork of Ward Cleaver in a flannel shirt and khaki waders and bucket hat replete with flies and a bamboo creel happily landing a 12" trout with a pipe in his mouth. 

Just stop with the "science"  and perpetual "meetings" that corporate animals so love. No more "dialogues." 

Just enforce rules. SHOW that you CARE MDC. Not TELL us you care. 

Again, ad nauseam, smallmouth bass fishing in our Ozarks, suffers because of ongoing illicit harvest that people in charge, and who should know better, do nothing. These regulations and limit proposals from "concerned" anglers amount to nothing. It effects no law abiding citizen. And has absolutely no effect on smallmouth fishing success on any stream. Without any enforcement or consequence, there is no real point to any rule change.

But, feel free to have a meeting and talk about it. Maybe something will come of it. Like another meeting and future study.

kinda what he said....Ya know, part of an experiment to determine the maximum potential of smalmouth in Missouri by sanctioning off a small section of good big fish water, would be protecting that section from illegal harvest through strict enforcement.  Collect data for 5 years....realize illegal harvest is not the reason why Missouri doesn't have consistently giant smallies.  Keep regs the same and continue catching the same size smallies that the Ozarks produces.  The hate for the mdc is just and excuse for lots of 14 inch fish and an inability to consistently catch 4lb fish. Just like on table rock it's the meat fisherman.  Ya see some bass with gig marks and that's what gets the blame.  Beaver lake it's the stripers.  It's definitely NOT the fisherman though.  Let's all just buy some more expensive jerk baits that will solve the problem.

[Smalliebigs]

 

That will show them! You are only hurting yourself.

 

that is tongue and cheek stupidity  from me in a lame attempt  to prove how lame I feel the regs are and the the MDC relies heavily  on CnR anglers. I risk bodily  harm all the time turning  in poachers and go out of my way every  time I encounter a Smallmouth to treat them like the Golden egg......I would NEVER harm a smallie ever

[Chief Grey Bear]

Here's the thing, as I've probably said before...there is no good baseline data.  The major studies of MO stream smallmouth populations came back in the 1960s when populations were most likely depressed from habitat problems, lack of catch and release ethic, and most especially very liberal limits (10 fish, no length limit).  They included the Courtois experiment, and resulted in the present statewide regulations.  Then, the next round of studies were not done until the 1990s, I believe, when the first three special management areas (Big River--Mammoth to Browns Ford, Meramec--Scotts Ford to Birds Nest, and Big Piney--Slabtown to Ross Bridge) were being considered.  Of those three, the Meramec was never going to be a terrific producer of bigger fish (too cold), and Big River was already a shadow of the big smallmouth stream it had once been, because of spotted bass encroachment.  Only the Big Piney stretch was both healthy and good big fish habitat (and it wasn't as good as a lot of places).  

Point is, they are using that data and the data they got from follow-up studies of those programs as their baseline for what a "good" Ozark smallmouth population SHOULD be.  Nobody has any good data for what an Ozark smallmouth stream with decent fertility, good habitat, and light fishing pressure CAN be.  Studies in other states might give you similar data, but other states aren't Missouri and the conditions aren't the same.

To a great extent, every regulation change is an experiment.  The Courtois catch and release was truly an experiment at the time, and it gave them some excellent data for what might happen on that kind of small, infertile stream...but you can't compare it to what might have happened if they'd tried it on the middle Meramec.  The first special management areas were also an experiment, and gave good data on what would happen with that kind of regulation, not only to smallmouth populations but also to fishing pressure.

Don't kid yourself, Spoondog, they don't KNOW what is possible in improving smallmouth populations, and they don't KNOW what would happen under various regulation scenarios that haven't been tried.  They don't have that science, and they'll never have it, especially the part about how good smallmouth fishing in Ozark streams could be.  They simply don't have any good examples of what an unexploited smallmouth population in a healthy stream should look like.  

What a lot of us are asking is that they do some more experimenting.  Pick just ONE stretch of stream with good potential to grow bigger fish.  Put SOME kind of regulation on it that protects the 18-20 inch fish, whether it be a straight 20 inch limit, pure catch and release, or a 14-20 inch slot limit.  Prohibit gigging on it the way they do the blue ribbon trout sections.  And enforce those regs.  Study the heck out of the smallmouth population just before implementing those regs, keep them on it for five years, and then evaluate the results.  I would submit that such a program would REALLY give us all a good idea of what's possible, and if it didn't result in significant improvements in the numbers of bigger fish, then I think most of us would shut up and accept it.  If it DID show major improvements, then they'd have all the ammunition they needed to convince a lot of other anglers that somewhat more restrictive regs elsewhere would also benefit the fisheries.

We KNOW that, due to a combination of relatively infertile waters and genetics, Ozark smallmouth populations might never match those of the most famous big smallmouth streams across the country, like the upper Mississippi where most of the fish caught are over 16 inches and a good percentage are over 19.  That's not what we're looking for.  I would be happy if the Ozark streams had twice the number of 18 inch plus fish they have now.  The more that make it to 18 inches, the more likely it is that a few of them will make it to 20, 21, 22 inches.  Unlike people, they don't stop growing with age as long as they have the food to eat, so the analogy to 75 or 100 year old people isn't nearly as valid as it would seem.  Food and genetics determines top end size, not simply age.

I'm not aware of any agency that manages for what it could have been 80 years ago. I don't know why an agency would attempt to manage to see if it could replicate what the resource MAY have been 80 years ago. We need to manage for the future. 

We will never see those days again. Or it may be much the same today. You cite major studies as the baseline for your argument against the MDC which is flawed. Not only has the MDC continually monitored stream resources but, major universities and other institutions have conducted indepth studies of many stream species including smallmouth and shared the final analysis with them over the last century. Some of which you can find online with some indepth research. 

In regards to your "HIGH FENCED" experiment, let's just say that it does indeed produce a 20 inch fish or two. Then what? Are you going to want this artificial fishery implemented across the state? 

Are you going to force others that may not share your greed to forgo their enjoyment of the resources to so that you may or may not catch one on a stream you may or may not fish?

Now I'm not against some positive regulations that will increase the possibility of catching a larger number of larger fish but, you have to remember that the MDC has to manage for the resouces first and those that use the resources second. And the user section can also be broke down into sections. Mainly the C&R and C&K crowds. Though I belong to the C&R crowd I do understand that the C&K crowd also plays a vital role in the overall health of the stream by harvesting. 

What the MDC is charged with, and with our help, not ridicule, is developing a management plan that is conducive to the resource, the C&K and C&R crowd. 

And it can be done. But there will have to be some give on both sides. It will never be accomplished with the type of rhetoric we are seeing here. Continually berating the MDC does nothing to further the cause. It has never worked for Larry Dablemont and it won't work for the MSA and its members.