MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[Flysmallie]

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. 

neither will continually sucking them off and trying to protect them. Change will only come if you want to buy a lobbyist. 

[Chief Grey Bear]

neither will continually sucking them off and trying to protect them. Change will only come if you want to buy a lobbyist.  

So maybe that's what they need to do. 

Suck them off and get a lobbyist. 

You're not doing anything. Maybe you can help them out.

[Flysmallie]

So maybe that's what they need to do. 

Suck them off and get a lobbyist. 

You're not doing anything. Maybe you can help them out.

I no longer worry about politics. I don't make enough money to make a difference to them. I worried about all that crap and educated myself and voted and NOTHING has changed. Then I saw how things really worked so I'm out. 

 

Good of luck to you though!

[Chief Grey Bear]

And that is just it. 

This shouldn't be political at all. But this thread reads just as if it is Congress. Never willing to work with all involved for the common goal. 

[Flysmallie]

I think that's what everyone was trying to do until you and spoon whatever came rushing into to protect the MDC. 

 

But whatever. I'm out of this ignorance. 

[Chief Grey Bear]

If that was the case, then you wouldn't have to use the term, "...came rushing in to proect the MDC"

That is the classic admission to what everybody claims they are not doing. 

[SpoonDog]

And we don't have historic data on anything, Al- black bass, walleye, trout, deer, turkeys, ducks- nothing. Not only does data on unexploited game populations not exist for the Ozarks- it never existed.  Exploitation has always been part of the equation- removing exploitation doesn't give you a baseline, it gives you an outlier.  That's why MDC isn't shutting down harvest on Table Rock or closing deer season in a five county area just to see what happens- it isn't representative of "normal" conditions.   It would be a neat study, and maybe MDC would be game if they had unlimited funds, unlimited enforcement resources, and there was no sociopolitical blowback- but you guys are trying to argue it's necessary for good management, and that's not true. Nor should MDC responsibly manage resources based on unrealistic assumptions.  Setting no-harvest as the "baseline" assumes Ozark smallmouth populations were historically unexploited- that isn't the case.  And getting "baseline" data as you guys are defining it goes beyond no harvest- it means no angling so as to avoid C&R mortality.  If Al and Mitch want to design an MDC study to gather the "baseline" data they feel is necessary, Al and Mitch can offer up their most productive reaches with the highest proportion of quality fish and sit on their hands for five years.

I've said repeatedly science isn't 100% accurate, let's get that straight.   What I am saying is MDC is making a case based off information while anglers are just going with their gut.  We can ignore Courtois, but if low exploitation= ideal size structure, places like Black River and the lower Current- with their high exploitation AND high growth rates- shouldn't exist.  Why are we, as anglers, basing our management recommendations on a relationship which doesn't show up in the real world?

 

I drew you guys a picture, and I apologize in advance for going all-out nerd. But look:

 

 

"High" is the maximum (average) MDC reported across streams at a given age- not perfect, but a general idea of how fish are growing through time. "Black" are those crazy freak fish in Black River that are sixteen inches at age three and eighteen inches at four- under some of the highest exploitation rates in the Ozarks.  You can plug ages in for the x-value in either equation and it'll spit out a length estimate.  You don't get to 20" under "high" until the fish are around 15 years old- Pflieger states most Ozark smallies only live 10-12 years.  You DO start seeing 20 inchers in the Black River around age 8, but that's the most irrationally optimistic "hope MDC did all their aging correctly,"data set.  If you think MDC's "normal" numbers are bogus there's NO WAY you'd blindly accept the "ludicrous" values. Point is you can't get to 20 inches over the lifespan of an average smallmouth and you only get to that top line by arguing outliers aren't outliers.  The biology says their aren't many 10+ year old smallmouth in Ozark streams.  Both MDC data and angler observations suggest you don't see many 18" smallmouth in Ozark streams.  All those lines of evidence are pointing at the same thing...and you guys are trying to argue they aren't.  Boosting numbers of 18 inchers 10 year olds doesn't mean you'll boost numbers of 20 inch 15 year olds if most everyone's dying at 12.  Especially if you're not paying attention to factors like prey and habitat availability- having more big fish competing for the same resources doesn't improve survival.  I'd love to double the number of big fish in Ozark streams too, Al- farmers would love to double the capacity of their chicken coop without increasing space or feed. You guys aren't fighting against harvest- you guys are fighting against time.  Smallmouth's Grim Reaper, isn't holding a spinning rod OR a stringer. 

A whitetail reaches quality size around five years, and may live five more.  A wild turkey reaches quality size at two years, and can live two more.  Brown trout reach quality size at two or three or four years, and can live at least a couple more.  A Canada goose matures at 2 years and can live twenty more.  A "normal" Ozark smallmouth isn't going to make it beyond fifteen inches, an exceptional one reaches quality size at ten years old and dies at eleven or twelve. You guys say you want MDC managing smallmouth the same way as everything else except when they're managing smallmouth like everything else- based on the average instead of the extreme. 

[Al Agnew]

Spoon, I understand what you're saying, and for the most part agree with you...but why is it that anglers' experiences appear to show things to be somewhat different than your table?  Are there a LOT of 20 inchers swimming in all the Ozark streams?  No.  But I've fished these rivers for a LONG time, and I've seen times when the numbers of 18-21 inch fish being caught were better than they are now, and that includes summer fishing when they aren't concentrated as they are in the winter.  Over the years, I've averaged somewhere around one 18 plus inch smallmouth for every 10 hours of fishing, not all of it on the "best" waters.  I averaged a little better than that back in the period from 1975 to 1985, when the population of bigger fish seemed to explode as the more restrictive regs took full effect, and before the advent of jetboats and better angling technology appeared to begin to depress the populations of bigger fish on some of my best waters--and I wasn't nearly as good an angler back then as I am now. Point is, my experience, bolstered a bit by the records I used to keep up until a couple of years ago, would seem to show it to be possible to grow 18-20 inchers, especially on rivers like the middle Meramec, middle Gasconade, and the other larger streams.

Nor am I advocating trying to find out what the population structure was like many years ago.  I'm advocating doing some experimenting to see what it COULD be IF the bigger fish got more protection.  In my opinion, none of the present regulations are designed to optimize the numbers of 18 plus inch fish.  15 inch limit?  Protects fish up to 15 inches.  18 inch limit?  Protects fish up to 18 inches.  And I'm not sold on the one fish limit on the special management areas, since even MDC's studies have shown at least a slight decrease in growth rates under those regs.  Many, though not all, streams have plenty of small fish that may already be hogging too much of the food.  MDC seems to be rejecting the idea of slot limits out of hand, yet they have worked in other states, and they could certainly be designed to protect big fish while allowing plenty of harvest of smaller ones.

Look, I don't pretend to have any of the answers.  Maybe MDC is right all the way down the line.  I sometimes have the feeling that nothing we can do will increase those numbers of big fish by much as long as the levels of fishing pressure, even catch and release pressure, remain high.  Smallies don't seem to respond to catch and release the way trout do.  Trout streams seem to be able to sustain very heavy fishing pressure and still produce good fishing, while smallmouth streams seem to suffer with heavy pressure even though most of it might be catch and release.  Maybe there's a lot more delayed mortality of released smallmouth than we think, or maybe smallies learn faster and better than trout.

But I'm still not ready to throw in the towel and agree that what we have is the best we can get.

[fishinwrench]

In the end I don't think any smallmouth management rules are gonna change.  I do believe they'll designate a new length and creel limit on Goggleye, but nothing else.  

They prolly just initiated this whole discussion because they knew if they changed Goggleye regs without altering any smallmouth regs then the SM guys would throw a tantrum.    This way they thwart the tantrum before ever getting started, by asking for input that they have no intention on considering.    Head games.

[fishinwrench]

I remember when the powers that be at Bennett spring were all begging people to please come to the meeting and the "We need to know how you feel" crap was going on.   Everyone demonstrably opposed the construction they were considering but at the same time a few (myself included) was pushing for a revised definition of "fly" because the old regs had new materials on flys outlawed (so to speak).  It was piddly crap.....truly.

Well they gave in and revised the definition of what a "fly" could be BUT they went right ahead forward with their "new construction" initiative even though NOBODY I ever heard from was in favor of it.   And then treated the whole deal like they were bending over backwards to appease the masses.   WTFever!