MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[Flysmallie]

I'm sure many smallmouth migrate from the James to Table Rock.  

You guys are going to have a hard time getting me to believe that smallmouth migrate like birds and butterflies. I just don't see the reason for them to do so. Maybe in certain areas on certain streams and lakes. But I don't see what the benefit is for a fish to leave the James river to head into Table Rock for the winter.

Maybe we need to start our own tagging and study of fish migration.

[SpoonDog]

Those coldwater stretches are warmer than the rest of the stream in winter- if smallmouth were so adverse to them, we wouldn't see them stacked up in spring branches and deep pools and reservoirs.  Smallmouth have to deal with significant coldwater stretches on the Current, Jacks Fork, 11 Point, Meramec, and probably others- they seem to do OK.  I'd be surprised that nothing lives in that very small portion of Table Rock or that it boogies out whenever temps get cold, and I'd be surprised stacking a whole bunch of Black River fish in a small portion of a small reservoir reduces competition and improves growth rates. 

Maybe we're getting off in the weeds though, debating the aerial velocity of African swallows.  If you guys want to throw out Courtois AND Black AND North Fork, we can talk about the Current at Big Spring, which had serious exploitation, high growth, and no reservoir below it.  How much information would you guys like to ignore while attempting to draw a straight line between harvest and quality? 

[MOsmallies]

You're right, Mitch- the big gigging bust was on Little Black and not the Black River proper.  My mistake.  I was just giving Mitch an example of how you'd quantify the proportion of gigged fish you run into, though- doesn't really have a bearing on anything else. 

 

You're right Clearwater exists downstream of the upper Black.  Bull Shoals exists downstream of North Fork, and we don't see the same relationship.   The mainstem Meramec exists downstream of Courtois, it's more fertile than that stream, and yet we don't see that relationship.  If that many fish are migrating to Clearwater they're doing so at some energy cost, and when they get there they're competing with resident fish for food and space.  If they're being targeted as intensely as we believe- that means harvest rates are even higher than MDC data suggests. 

 

But if that's the relationship you say we see, it means MDC can prioritize enforcement and quality regs to the stream-reservoir combos where they'll have the most effect:  the Black, the St. Francis, the White River tribs, Sac, Niangua, Pomme, Neosho...and they don't have to worry about the Meramec or the Gasconade or the Current.

Why do you think every stream system within our state functions the exact same way? Not every stream is the same. Habitat is different. Climate is different. Populations are different. Human interference is different. Management is different. You can't just make the assumption that the fish in the Black River do the exact same thing as the fish in the North Fork or the Gasconade or the Meramec or the Jacks Fork. Just as the MDC shouldn't assume that the way the population responded to C&R only on the Courtois in the 60's may not be the same way the population responds to C&R on the Meramec in the 2000's. It's not that the science is wrong... It's that it doesn't give a true representation of every stream and every stream's smallmouth population.... In this day and age!

Again Al brings up some great points. The Black River/Clearwater relationship is unlike any other stream/lake relationship in our state. Those fish need protection. I have voiced this to the MDC as I know several others have as well. All we can do is hope is that they take our concerns seriously and make some changes.

[MOsmallies]

You guys are going to have a hard time getting me to believe that smallmouth migrate like birds and butterflies. I just don't see the reason for them to do so. Maybe in certain areas on certain streams and lakes. But I don't see what the benefit is for a fish to leave the James river to head into Table Rock for the winter.

Maybe we need to start our own tagging and study of fish migration.

The MDC biologists I spoke with at the open house at Powder Valley all acknowledged that some Smallmouth migrate in the winter and again in the spring. Now some may migrate less than a mile to a nearby wintering hole. Some may migrate several miles to a spring. Some may migrate more miles than you can fathom. Now not all fish will migrate and every stream is different. I think the MDC's tagging study proved this. The two tagged fish we caught on the Black River in June 2011 were tagged in March of that year 15 and 13 miles downstream. If I also recall correctly, someone on here caught a tagged fish on the Meramec in the winter that was tagged 30 some odd miles up on the Huzzah or Courtois. Not every stream has suitable wintering habitat. And if they have the ability to get to suitable wintering habitat, then why wouldn't they go to a place where they can be comfortable during the colder months?

[Smalliebigs]

The MDC biologists I spoke with at the open house at Powder Valley all acknowledged that some Smallmouth migrate in the winter and again in the spring. Now some may migrate less than a mile to a nearby wintering hole. Some may migrate several miles to a spring. Some may migrate more miles than you can fathom. Now not all fish will migrate and every stream is different. I think the MDC's tagging study proved this. The two tagged fish we caught on the Black River in June 2011 were tagged in March of that year 15 and 13 miles downstream. If I also recall correctly, someone on here caught a tagged fish on the Meramec in the winter that was tagged 30 some odd miles up on the Huzzah or Courtois. Not every stream has suitable wintering habitat. And if they have the ability to get to suitable wintering habitat, then why wouldn't they go to a place where they can be comfortable during the colder months?

hahahahaha.....um Mitch did and that smallie migrated from approximately 8 miles up the Huzzah to the 100 mile mark on the Meramec.....some 40 miles

[SpoonDog]

Why do you think every stream system within our state functions the exact same way? Not every stream is the same. Habitat is different. Climate is different. Populations are different. Human interference is different. Management is different. You can't just make the assumption that the fish in the Black River do the exact same thing as the fish in the North Fork or the Gasconade or the Meramec or the Jacks Fork. Just as the MDC shouldn't assume that the way the population responded to C&R only on the Courtois in the 60's may not be the same way the population responds to C&R on the Meramec in the 2000's. It's not that the science is wrong... It's that it doesn't give a true representation of every stream and every stream's smallmouth population.... In this day and age!

Again Al brings up some great points. The Black River/Clearwater relationship is unlike any other stream/lake relationship in our state. Those fish need protection. I have voiced this to the MDC as I know several others have as well. All we can do is hope is that they take our concerns seriously and make some changes.

 

 I'll be the first to admit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if low harvest=quality fishing represents normal, baseline conditions of Ozark streams, it's really weird the number of times MDC's found a smallie population exhibiting those characteristics is no times.  Zero times.  In 80 years of sampling across the Ozarks you'd  think they'd run into one just out of sheer dumb luck.  Sure we don't have big C&R rivers, but we have big rivers with a range of harvest rates which don't demonstrate relationship to growth.  If you guys want to argue it's because Ozark streams are all unique, ok:  then we have to concede harvest is the driving factor in all of them, or that quality regs will be some sort of silver bullet. 

Rivers don't just change spatially they change through time- if we can't compare the Black and the Meramec, we can't insist MDC create a 1970 Meramec in 2015.  Re-creating a fishery based on conditions which no longer exist is an absurd request.  Courtois' effectively been C&R for 40+ years, with intensive studies in the 60's and in the 2010s.  The results of those two separate studies are very similar....but they represent anomalies.  The Black's an anomaly, too.  So's the North Fork.  So's the Current.  Any evidence MDC collects is an anomaly- it's the data they don't have which is representative of Ozark streams.  That's really convenient.  You want to say MDC's data isn't representative that's fine, maybe it's even true.  But we're right back to the point we realize angler data is no more representative than MDC's. 

 

 

[Smalliebigs]

 

 I'll be the first to admit absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but if low harvest=quality fishing represents normal, baseline conditions of Ozark streams, it's really weird the number of times MDC's found a smallie population exhibiting those characteristics is no times.  Zero times.  In 80 years of sampling across the Ozarks you'd  think they'd run into one just out of sheer dumb luck.  Sure we don't have big C&R rivers, but we have big rivers with a range of harvest rates which don't demonstrate relationship to growth.  If you guys want to argue it's because Ozark streams are all unique, ok:  then we have to concede harvest is the driving factor in all of them, or that quality regs will be some sort of silver bullet. 

Rivers don't just change spatially they change through time- if we can't compare the Black and the Meramec, we can't insist MDC create a 1970 Meramec in 2015.  Re-creating a fishery based on conditions which no longer exist is an absurd request.  Courtois' effectively been C&R for 40+ years, with intensive studies in the 60's and in the 2010s.  The results of those two separate studies are very similar....but they represent anomalies.  The Black's an anomaly, too.  So's the North Fork.  So's the Current.  Any evidence MDC collects is an anomaly- it's the data they don't have which is representative of Ozark streams.  That's really convenient.  You want to say MDC's data isn't representative that's fine, maybe it's even true.  But we're right back to the point we realize angler data is no more representative than MDC's. 

 

 

Man Spoon I'm not sure where you are located??? or if you even fish Missouri streams or rivers???.....but, you just don't seem like you fish these places much by your comments......you just don't know.

   Most people like myself who have allegedly fished rivers, streams and creeks know when you find that 1 in a 100 watershed that for some unknown reason the fisherman have not got to will be so full of fish and very large ones too. How do these little creeks that haven't been hit by your local Fillet O Fish person in a long time have such high fish populations and size density if these Ozark streams and creeks are so infertile and shallow with so little food for these poor fish to be able to grow to large sizes???  Shouldn't that be impossible according to the MDC??? you keep inferring that the numbers say we are at a happy medium between harvest/mortality and growth....it seems like you and the MDC is saying this is as good as it can be on Ozark watersheds for Smallmouth??? Anyone who is out on the water and fishes and observes and has been doing it for more than a decade knows what I am talking about with regards to streams that don't get hit.......they are simply heaven and it's totally possible on any piece of river in Missouri.......you can allege I don't understand algebra and spout the stories the MDC will tell you but, anyone who actually fished creeks and streams knows what I am talking about. 

 

    Also Chief saying that the MSA and it's members are attacking the MDC is complete hawgshiot!!!!!! I do NOT represent the MSA in any shape or form. I give them money but, do NOT represent them in anyway......nor would they want me to  

[MOsmallies]

I need to stop arguing this because I'm not going to change anyone's mind. It's pretty simple... In 13 pages, we've established that...

- SpoonDog and a few others don't think regulation changes, less illegal gigging, less harvest, and/or more enforcement will have any bearing on Missouri's Smallmouth numbers or size. For someone who doesn't even live in this state I'm not surprised.

- Myself and I think many other's on this forum (who I respect greatly) believe that Missouri's Smallmouth numbers and size are not reaching their potential. Current regulations and enforcement are not increasing the numbers and size to what we believe they can be... And we are wanting to see some changes to regulations, gigging, harvest, and enforcement to see if that greater potential is possible again. Our opinions are based off of decades of floating and fishing streams across Missouri during every season. We've seen the good, bad, and ugly with our own eyes. We've seen streams in their hay days and we've seen streams ruined buy pressure and harvest.

I don't need to change SpoonDog's mind. The MDC is who we need to convince of our concerns. They asked for public input and I'm grateful for that. Will they actually listen to us and make changes based on public opinion? Maybe not but maybe they will...They have given us an opportunity and a forum to voice our thoughts and concerns. So I will continue to share mine with them until they stop accepting them. I care deeply about Smallmouth in our state and I'm not willing to concede that Smallmouth fishing cannot and will not improve in Missouri!

[Chief Grey Bear]

Have they made this effort or offered anything in the past 20 years? Nope, they have earned a reputation as do nothing's with a fat budget, but they have finally committed to something here. We can vote to cut funding, and show most of them the door if their recommendations do not meet expectations. Never thought I'd send Jason Smith a check.....but I might. They might be more responsive to hunters and anglers if they had to make their nut on permit fees instead of their 1/8th cent sales tax dole.

 

    Also Chief saying that the MSA and it's members are attacking the MDC is complete hawgshiot!!!!!! I do NOT represent the MSA in any shape or form. I give them money but, do NOT represent them in anyway......nor would they want me to  

My mistake.

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

The MDC biologists I spoke with at the open house at Powder Valley all acknowledged that some Smallmouth migrate in the winter and again in the spring. Now some may migrate less than a mile to a nearby wintering hole. Some may migrate several miles to a spring. Some may migrate more miles than you can fathom. Now not all fish will migrate and every stream is different. I think the MDC's tagging study proved this. The two tagged fish we caught on the Black River in June 2011 were tagged in March of that year 15 and 13 miles downstream. If I also recall correctly, someone on here caught a tagged fish on the Meramec in the winter that was tagged 30 some odd miles up on the Huzzah or Courtois. Not every stream has suitable wintering habitat. And if they have the ability to get to suitable wintering habitat, then why wouldn't they go to a place where they can be comfortable during the colder months?

That and true migration is to and fro. You will never get migration information from a tagging study.  You have to have a multi-year radio telemetry study. Which did happen and if I remember, an extremely small percentage of those fish actually made a true migration. 

Some fish are just wanderers. I have read some fascinating reports of radio-telemetry tagged fish. One such was a Spoonbill tagged in the lower Grand River in OK that was later found in South Dakota. A few thousand mile trip. 

But yeah, you are right, everyone will acknowledge that fish move around to more favorable wintering spots. Some move farther than others. Some don't move at all.