MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[SpoonDog]

Same thing happens in reservoirs.  You start with an low initial population of a species (let's say bass) you dramatically increase the habitat and food base (by creating the impoundment)- and populations and growth rates explode.  That's why there's so many record fish from young reservoirs.  Then the population reaches a new equilibrium- most reservoirs aren't producing as many trophies at 55 as they were at age 5.  Maybe Ozark streams did the same- release a low-density population from exploitation and they take off.  It'd explain why we see high growth and high harvest in places like the Black and low in Courtois- a low density smallmouth population in one, a high-density population in the other.  It sounds like you're arguing a growing smallmouth population should have the same characteristics as a stable smallmouth population- that what happens <10 years after stricter regs is representative.  You're taking the extreme value and insisting its normal. 

I'm not trying to sound slanderous, but it's awfully convenient for anglers that MDC's stats fall apart beyond 18".  It's convenient that Ozark smallmouth grow fastest, biggest, and most abundant when MDC's not looking- I recognize big smallmouth are smart, I don't think they can read logos and license plates and adjust growth or maximum size accordingly.  It's really convenient that the same electrofishing gear, sampling and statistical techniques used to evaluate world-class smallmouth fisheries in VA, PA, MN, WI, TN, OR, ME etc suddenly, magically, doesn't work when you apply them to the Meramec.  Take a step back and look objectively at your position, fellas- it doesn't take a lot of imagination to see why MDC would be skeptical. 

Fifty years ago regs bumped the age of a smallmouth from 2 years to 4 or 5- the middle of their natural lifespan.  You guys want them bumped to 8-10+, the end of their natural lifespan.  It'd be like saying we're only gonna shoot 10 year old bucks or 20 year old geese because that's how one group defines "quality."  I agree protecting big fish will yield more 17-19 inchers.  If you guys are content with that, fantastic.  If you're really going to hold out for those 20+ inchers though, you need to explain how your proposed regulations will extend the natural lifespan of the average smallmouth bass.  You may be able to get them to do it on some stretches of stream- but I doubt you're going to get them to do it statewide, because they don't manage anything that way. 

 I hope Ozark streams can produce more big smallmouth, too.  What I don't understand is why anglers believe Ozark streams could hold more quality smallmouth if we reduced harvest.  That's why you guys like the idea of closing the Meramec- you're assuming you'll see a different outcome because you're assuming harvest is a driving factor.  It's like otters- you can see gig-scarred fish and filleted smallmouth and yokels holding stringers of dead bass on Facebook.  It's visible, but that doesn't mean it's driving population structure. You can look at the relationship between harvest and growth rates and say the picture's unclear- that's being charitable.  You can't look at the information we have and say, with any confidence, lower harvest=better fisheries. 

Let's do more experiments.  I thought the tracking study was pretty cool, and  we learned a fair bit.  Let's determine if Ozark streams have the prey base to support more quality fish.  Let's figure out why some populations have high growth even in the face of high harvest.  Let's figure out if there's any consistent factors (size, nutrients, temperature, land use, whatever) between the streams with the high growth rates or the best population structure and map out trophy waters accordingly.  Current, Castor and Black are all south-flowing streams- is their some funky geologic thing going on?  Something that cropped up due to genetic isolation?  Just less urbanization/agricultural conversion and more intact riparian corridors?  Let's compare growth rates of those fish overwintering in deep pools and spring branches with the general population- maybe not all the fish are moving, maybe the ones which do have the benefit of a longer growing season, maybe protecting those wintering habitats should be prioritized.  There's fifty questions out there, each influencing the quality of our smallmouth fisheries, and we're asking MDC to answer ONE- over and over and over again. 

[Hog Wally]

Man alive the leaves were a pain today.  Only thing you could fish was a Mitch craw.  And boy did they want it. 

[Smalliebigs]

Spoondog and Chief are right.....they obviously  have spent a lot of time reading  about this so listen to them. The citizens of Missouri  should be harvesting these old washed up fish. If you catch a 15 inch smallie consider yourself  very lucky and put that hawg on a stringer and take it back to town and brag like fool, then fillet that SOB and get you 5 ounces of watery meat.

 

By the way Spoon in your reading about fishing you have the little Black river mixed up with the main tributary....nice try, it's  hard to keep them straight  when you are reading  MDC ramblings.

Another thing....all of you should  be ashamed  of your Greed like Chief says. How dare you have soo much greed in wanting  to preserve  the fish stocks .....think of all the people that deserve  to keep a fish....you greedy bastards  need to think about others 

[SpoonDog]

...not unless Al's mistaken, too.  The numbers are pulled from his report of the MDC smallmouth study presented at the MSA meeting here: 

Look, you guys are extremely skilled smallmouth bass anglers. No question.  But you're conferring expertise in one area to expertise in another.  Being a great basketball player doesn't make you a great coach.  Being a great mechanic doesn't mean you're a great racecar driver.  Being a great smallie fisherman doesn't mean you're a great fishery biologist- and having different results than MDC's doesn't mean your results are representative and theirs aren't, no matter how forcefully you insist otherwise.  All it means is they're different. 

[ollie]

Something I find interesting about all these meetings.  Where there any people in the meetings that wanted regs. lifted or easier?  Where there anyone in your meetings that wanted more harvest than less?  I also found it sad that the turnout was less than stellar at any of the meetings.  While C&R is gaining in traction for smallies on the creeks, we all have to remember that we on here are the minority of a state wide population of fishermen.  Someone said that politics play a huge roll in all of this and they are probably right.  It takes moving a mountain to get any changes at this level.  Not saying it can't be done.  Just saying it would be hard to be in a position to balance between the two parties that want more regs and those who do not.

[Dan Kreher]

The MDC is proposing regs changes based on a combination of scientific data, supplemented by angler concerns in an effort to incrementally improve these selected fisheries. Public input on these proposed regulations has been solicited by the MDC in an effort to discuss the merits of these changes and to allow anglers to voice other concerns they may have concerning the management of our stream smallmouth bass fisheries. 

I have no way of determining the totality of angler sentiment they've received either in person or via online comments either in favor or against these regulations. But, judging by the folks who managed to show up at any of the four public comment meetings which I attended, it seems that public support is strongly behind these changes as a minimum measure with an abundance of even more restrictive, quality based regulations suggested by many. Other than the Current River tournament guys in Van Buren, it seemed that most were in favor of these changes. Based upon the fact that these are MDC's own proposals and that public sentiment expressed appears to be supportive, I'd be betting that these proposals move forward. It is also feasible that, based upon additional angler input, we might see the 18"/1 limit remain on the Gasconade quite possibly to include the lower Big Piney as well -- they either need to have both sections at 18" or put both at 15" as they have already proposed. Other enhancements may be possible as well.

The last public comment meeting is this evening in Columbia. If you're in the area, I encourage you to attend. If you cannot make it, continue to send in your comments to the MDC. We can banter back and forth on these issues all we want on this message board -- it can be fun once in awhile -- and sometimes even some knowledge can be gained. Just make sure you direct some of your comments to those at the MDC that shape and control policy. They're the only ones who can affect how our fisheries are managed and how those game laws are enforced.    

 

 

 

[Gavin]

Made my comments, now I'll wait and see. You don't have to agree with what was proposed and you may not like the result...but they are AT the table for the first time ever. That's a start. Make your comments and see what happens. That is the process.

 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

Made my comments, now I'll wait and see. You don't have to agree with what was proposed and you may not like the result...but they are AT the table for the first time ever. That's a start. Make your comments and see what happens. That is the process.

 

 

At the table?

Who are they negotiating with??

[Gavin]

You, me, anyone who submits a comment. They did put high value on public input when they did the trout regs 10-12 years ago. They call it the social considerations. Put in your comments. Follow the process. You definitely won't get what you do not ask for so send yours in. Won't take long.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Oh I did. 

But I don't forsee any give and take happening. 

I think their minds are pretty much made up on what's coming down the pike from the conversations I've had.