MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[MOsmallies]

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. 

 

Good point... Migration may not be the right word we should use for our smallmouth here in Missouri. What distance constitutes a true "migration" like the paddlefish example you gave, or birds, whales, sharks, etc.?

Our river smallmouth definitely travel whether its 100 yds or 40 miles. Not all of them do it and it depends on the stream. Some streams have several suitable wintering holes so mass migrations aren't necessary and the population can stay spread out. Other streams may not have the depth, cover, and clarity necessary to harbor large groups of wintering fish, and those are the streams where we see large portions of the population "travel" long distances to more suitable water.

[Chief Grey Bear]

For true migration one must have the same beginning and ending point continually. 

Meaning that the smallmouth in question will have to move from its summer hole to its winter hole then back to the summer hole then back to...and so forth over its lifespan. Distance is not a real factor. 

Now there can be variables in that also. It may not be the same exact hole that he comes back to in summer or vise versa. But needs to be in a close proximity. Changes in habit or other factors may cause this action. 

From studies that have been done, it appears that most smallmouth spend the majority of their life in about a 100 yard stretch. But I don't think that means they don't move further for the winter. I think most of that data came before some of the tracking methods we have now. 

I would like to see a large scale radio-telemetry study in our waters. I think the results would be fascinating to study. There would be so many different factions to look at. 

Speaking of of the birds, a few years ago they were doing a study on duck movements. They were in North Dakota and radio tagged a group. This one particular duck the very next day was in southern Arkansas!

Something like a 1300 mile trip in less than 24 hrs! That sucker had a hellasious tail wind!

 

[SpoonDog]

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

You've made it abundantly clear you don't know much about me.  You're using that absence of information to draw a conclusion.  I don't think that's wise, but hey- it's a microcosm of the last thirteen pages.  I've been fishing Ozark streams for twenty years, I've targeted smallmouth for 15, and I've been curious enough to put 200,000+ road miles fishing the Meramec, Castor, St. Francois, Gasconade, 11 Point, North Fork, James, White River Tribs, Niangua, Pomme, Sac, Neosho, and Elk.  And in Arkansas.  My copy of Tryon's (the first, spiral-bound one) book is falling apart, as is my Gazeteer.  I'm also a trained scientist and educator with advanced degrees and experience in that field too.  Oh- and I'm a Pisces, which I think ought to count for something. 

You do bring up an excellent point, though- I'm not arguing about your experience, and I'm not injecting my own.  The only thing I'm using is the information you guys have provided.  It isn't my experience vs. your experience, it's your explanation of an observation vs. an equally probable (again, if we're being generous) explanation of the same observation.

   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.

I really don't know how to make it any clearer- 1 in a 100 is the definition of "the exception, not the rule."  I still don't understand why you insist MDC manage for the exception, not the rule.  By all means, take some time and explain why MDC should manage 99% of streams expecting the outcome of 1% of streams, providing something a little more solid than your amateur assessment of harvest.  You guys catch or see lots of big smallmouth in a small stream and assume it's because there's been no harvest recently- but you don't know what harvest rates were before you got there  You're using the absence of information to draw a conclusion.  Filling in blanks.  At least MDC has the courtesy to base numbers off evidence and state when they're making estimates- you guys pull numbers from your bum and insist they're better because of it.

Al said Courtois was infertile.  Gavin said it was a dink factory.  That wasn't my assessment, it wasn't MDC's asseessment, it was your assessment.  The only reason I'm insinuating there's a happy medium between growth and harvest is because sometimes there is- anyone who's ever fished a stunted largemouth, bluegill or crappie pond has seen it in action.  I don't know whether Ozark streams are overstocked with smallmouth, I do know smallmouth have a finite lifespan, and the results of MDC's harvest and growth studies don't suggest reduced harvest increases growth.

 

 

 

[SpoonDog]

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.

I don't know you, and I don't want to get personal.  But I just checked.

Last Thursday I wrote "Hog- I  agree gigging should receive more attention and enforcement, but I gotta disagree that electrofishing gear isn't effective." 

On Friday I wrote:  "As for the gigging/enforcement/fine issue, it is ridiculous smallies aren't prioritized- it takes what, 4-6 years to produce a trophy whitetail and 10-12 to produce a quality smallmouth?" 

On Sunday I wrote: "I hope Ozark streams can produce more big smallmouth, too."

After thirteen pages it is very simple:  you're not mis-characterizing what I've been saying.  You're fabricating what I'm saying. 

- 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!

No, you don't need to change my mind.  But I promise you'll be more successful changing MDC's mind if you put together a cogent argument.  Harvest is one tree in a forest of variables affecting Ozark smallmouth streams- I see no reason to focus on that one tree unless it's going to impact the rest of that forest.   Convince me otherwise.  Convince MDC otherwise.  But do it based off something more substantial than "because I say so."

 

The difference isn't you guys want quality fishing and I don't  The difference is you guys want stricter regs, I want quality fishing.

[Dan Kreher]

MDC's recent exploitation results on the six stream sections (Current - 2; Black, Castor, North Fork, Courtois) and the subsequent computer modeling all indicated that average sizes of SMB and the numbers of fish > 12" > 15" and > 18" would increase if the streams were regulated under either an 18" MLL/1 fish or 15" MLL/1 fish limit vs. the statewide 12"/6 regime. While the improvement in numbers was not off the charts due to the impact of natural mortality that removes a certain amount of adult SMB from the population from causes other than legal angler harvest; the population dynamics nevertheless improved to varying degrees across the board.

But as the MDC continues to utilize a maximum sustained yield philosophy in the management of these sportfish -- as has been the case overall for the past 40 years -- they saw that in 5 of the 6 areas that yield (defined as the pounds of fish that may be legally harvested under the particular set of regulations) would actually decline. So, as they see this as a negative impact, they did not propose implementing any new regs on any of these new areas outside of the middle section of Current River. On that river section, angler harvest played a larger factor than natural mortality, so they concluded a new reg would effective both to improve the overall quality of the fishery while not negatively impacting yield. 

My point is that the more restrictive harvest regs did indicate improvement in the size structure and biomass of SMB in these fisheries across the board. But, due to a variety of factors limited overall yield of fillets. As that max sustained yield unfortunately remains the MDC's overall philosophy for the management of this species, need to change in order for quality concerns to take center stage for management of this sportfish.

 

 

[Al Agnew]

Thanks, Dan, that's a pretty succinct explanation of the scientific rationale behind advocating stricter regs, AND the main thing that frustrates me about the MDC mindset.  Stricter regs should increase the number of larger fish, while reducing the number of pounds of fillets, in a nutshell.  So using that science, what should MDC do?  Manage for a better quality fishery as defined by a population size structure skewed a bit more toward larger fish, or manage for a fishery that produces the maximum sustained yield?  The science supports both.  So it becomes more of a--for lack of a better word--political question.  Who should they strive to please?  Either way they go, somebody is going to be upset.  That's the same as it is with many of MDC's decisions.

But consider this...their own surveys appear to show that on most streams, the vast majority of anglers release the smallmouth they catch.  Since these guys aren't looking for fillets, it could be safely assumed that most of them would like for there to be more big smallmouth for them to catch and release.  If majority rules, why is it that MDC is still putting so much emphasis on maximizing harvest?

Look, it burns my toast to see people ignore the best science and go by their own feelings or paranoia or political leanings when it comes to many issues, which we won't get into.  So I'm distinctly uneasy about appearing to ignore MDC's science when it comes to smallmouth populations.  At the same time, however, I've got to consider my own experience and try to reconcile that with the MDC findings.  I've been fishing Ozark streams since I was a little kid, which is about 55 years at this point.  I've fished nearly all of them at one time or another.  I fish them in all seasons of the year.  I may not spend the number of days on them that I used to, or as many days as some here do, but I consider myself a very observant and thoughtful angler who is always looking for explanations for what I'm experiencing.

What I've observed, as Smalliebigs mentioned, is that unexploited streams produce better fishing, and by the way, I DO know to some extent how much catch and keep fishing some of my favorites are getting.  I may not know how much pressure some creek on the other side of the state is getting, but on the streams close to me, I'm sufficiently in the loop with other anglers in the area (including catch and keep anglers) that I have a pretty good idea of when a stream that was under the radar for a while starts getting pounded.  The word gets out that a certain creek is fishing very well, and a few very good meat fishermen descend upon it...in part because the streams they had been pounding have gone downhill and they are looking for greener pastures, so to speak.  

And...it seems it doesn't TAKE many GOOD catch and keep anglers to have a significant impact.  I know that my favorite close to home creek was spectacular fishing for its size, until just one or two guys found out about it and started keeping the abundant 16-19 inch fish.  There were about two fish that size (a very few of them were probably 20 inches) in each pool in a 3 mile stretch of creek at its best, and there were about 20 pools that held fish of that size.  Because the stream is usually very clear, and the pools are never more than about 4 feet deep, it was pretty easy to see about how many big fish there were, by the way.  So, about 40 fish that size in that 3 mile section.  I could go there about any time and catch 2-4 of those bigger fish.  Any good angler could.  So say two catch and keep guys, keeping a limit of 6 fish each time they went, 3 of them out of that "reservoir" of 40 bigger fish.  In three or four trips, they'd have halved the number of big fish in that section of creek, and I happen to know that at least one guy fished it a lot more than three or four times.  And the next summer, those fish were simply gone.  These days, you catch about one or two 15-16 inchers out of it, with the VERY rare bigger fish.  It's still got plenty of fish, but we know how long it takes to grow big ones, and whether or not the meat angler has moved on to other places, it'll take a few years at best to build up that population of bigger fish.

So even if only 10% of smallmouth anglers are catch and keep, if a portion of that 10% are good anglers who are inclined to keep the biggest fish they catch (more pounds of fillets), they could have a real impact on the numbers of larger fish.  Cwc can tell you about the minnow fishermen he puts in on Huzzah Creek.  There aren't many of them, but they are out to catch a limit of the biggest smallmouth they can.  Given that the numbers of big fish are low to begin with, good anglers keeping big fish, or fish that are on the verge of reaching "big fish" status, can have an impact even if there aren't many of them.

The biggest question is, should we cater to those few, or should we manage for the majority?  And the biggest related question is, what kind of regulations would give us the most bang for the buck in increasing numbers of bigger fish--or would any regulation make enough of an impact to make the change worthwhile?

[Dan Kreher]

I don't think that anyone at the MDC knowledgeable of Ozark stream SMB biology would dispute that harvest under existing statewide limits is negatively affecting the overall quality of our stream fisheries. Sure there are other factors at work that are more pervasive and difficult to address, but the limits set 40-50 years ago for management of this species no longer serve the evolving interests of the angling public or the potential for the resource. The smart guys with the biology/fisheries management degrees know that the science behind quality management works in our streams. But overall MDC policy continues to reflect a harvest-based mindset established when the majority of stream fishermen fished for food rather than for sport. No one is proposing to outlaw harvest of SMB but it should be done under a management plan that does not unduly harm the overall quality of the resource while supporting the interests of sport anglers interested in the chance to pursue larger fish in a sustainable fishery.

This topic is on the agenda for the MDC Commissioners meeting tomorrow in West Plains. It will require the will of the MDC to make what many on this forum desire -- allow our SMB streams to approach their true potential as world class fisheries.    

[MOsmallies]

Careful Al and Dan... We don't want to piss off any highly educated scientists with advanced degrees.

[Chief Grey Bear]

MDC's recent exploitation results on the six stream sections (Current - 2; Black, Castor, North Fork, Courtois) and the subsequent computer modeling all indicated that average sizes of SMB and the numbers of fish > 12" > 15" and > 18" would increase if the streams were regulated under either an 18" MLL/1 fish or 15" MLL/1 fish limit vs. the statewide 12"/6 regime. While the improvement in numbers was not off the charts due to the impact of natural mortality that removes a certain amount of adult SMB from the population from causes other than legal angler harvest; the population dynamics nevertheless improved to varying degrees across the board.

But as the MDC continues to utilize a maximum sustained yield philosophy in the management of these sportfish -- as has been the case overall for the past 40 years -- they saw that in 5 of the 6 areas that yield (defined as the pounds of fish that may be legally harvested under the particular set of regulations) would actually decline. So, as they see this as a negative impact, they did not propose implementing any new regs on any of these new areas outside of the middle section of Current River. On that river section, angler harvest played a larger factor than natural mortality, so they concluded a new reg would effective both to improve the overall quality of the fishery while not negatively impacting yield. 

My point is that the more restrictive harvest regs did indicate improvement in the size structure and biomass of SMB in these fisheries across the board. But, due to a variety of factors limited overall yield of fillets. As that max sustained yield unfortunately remains the MDC's overall philosophy for the management of this species, need to change in order for quality concerns to take center stage for management of this sportfish.

 

 

Can you provide me with a link to the report you are citing? I want to make sure I'm reading the same report you are. I don't want to speak out of turn without knowing for sure we are looking at the same data. 

 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

Thanks, Dan, that's a pretty succinct explanation of the scientific rationale behind advocating stricter regs, AND the main thing that frustrates me about the MDC mindset.  Stricter regs should increase the number of larger fish, while reducing the number of pounds of fillets, in a nutshell.  So using that science, what should MDC do?  Manage for a better quality fishery as defined by a population size structure skewed a bit more toward larger fish, or manage for a fishery that produces the maximum sustained yield?  The science supports both.  So it becomes more of a--for lack of a better word--political question.  Who should they strive to please?  Either way they go, somebody is going to be upset.  That's the same as it is with many of MDC's decisions.

But consider this...their own surveys appear to show that on most streams, the vast majority of anglers release the smallmouth they catch.  Since these guys aren't looking for fillets, it could be safely assumed that most of them would like for there to be more big smallmouth for them to catch and release.  If majority rules, why is it that MDC is still putting so much emphasis on maximizing harvest?

Look, it burns my toast to see people ignore the best science and go by their own feelings or paranoia or political leanings when it comes to many issues, which we won't get into.  So I'm distinctly uneasy about appearing to ignore MDC's science when it comes to smallmouth populations.  At the same time, however, I've got to consider my own experience and try to reconcile that with the MDC findings.  I've been fishing Ozark streams since I was a little kid, which is about 55 years at this point.  I've fished nearly all of them at one time or another.  I fish them in all seasons of the year.  I may not spend the number of days on them that I used to, or as many days as some here do, but I consider myself a very observant and thoughtful angler who is always looking for explanations for what I'm experiencing.

What I've observed, as Smalliebigs mentioned, is that unexploited streams produce better fishing, and by the way, I DO know to some extent how much catch and keep fishing some of my favorites are getting.  I may not know how much pressure some creek on the other side of the state is getting, but on the streams close to me, I'm sufficiently in the loop with other anglers in the area (including catch and keep anglers) that I have a pretty good idea of when a stream that was under the radar for a while starts getting pounded.  The word gets out that a certain creek is fishing very well, and a few very good meat fishermen descend upon it...in part because the streams they had been pounding have gone downhill and they are looking for greener pastures, so to speak.  

And...it seems it doesn't TAKE many GOOD catch and keep anglers to have a significant impact.  I know that my favorite close to home creek was spectacular fishing for its size, until just one or two guys found out about it and started keeping the abundant 16-19 inch fish.  There were about two fish that size (a very few of them were probably 20 inches) in each pool in a 3 mile stretch of creek at its best, and there were about 20 pools that held fish of that size.  Because the stream is usually very clear, and the pools are never more than about 4 feet deep, it was pretty easy to see about how many big fish there were, by the way.  So, about 40 fish that size in that 3 mile section.  I could go there about any time and catch 2-4 of those bigger fish.  Any good angler could.  So say two catch and keep guys, keeping a limit of 6 fish each time they went, 3 of them out of that "reservoir" of 40 bigger fish.  In three or four trips, they'd have halved the number of big fish in that section of creek, and I happen to know that at least one guy fished it a lot more than three or four times.  And the next summer, those fish were simply gone.  These days, you catch about one or two 15-16 inchers out of it, with the VERY rare bigger fish.  It's still got plenty of fish, but we know how long it takes to grow big ones, and whether or not the meat angler has moved on to other places, it'll take a few years at best to build up that population of bigger fish.

So even if only 10% of smallmouth anglers are catch and keep, if a portion of that 10% are good anglers who are inclined to keep the biggest fish they catch (more pounds of fillets), they could have a real impact on the numbers of larger fish.  Cwc can tell you about the minnow fishermen he puts in on Huzzah Creek.  There aren't many of them, but they are out to catch a limit of the biggest smallmouth they can.  Given that the numbers of big fish are low to begin with, good anglers keeping big fish, or fish that are on the verge of reaching "big fish" status, can have an impact even if there aren't many of them.

The biggest question is, should we cater to those few, or should we manage for the majority?  And the biggest related question is, what kind of regulations would give us the most bang for the buck in increasing numbers of bigger fish--or would any regulation make enough of an impact to make the change worthwhile?

One important factor to remember, you can only sustain so many predator fish per water acre before you break over the line of sustainability.

A pasture will only sustain a certain number of cows. Just because you put more in there and never take them to market, doesn't mean they will grow bigger. Just as some pastures will sustain a higher number of cows per acre than than others, streams are the same. 

But at any point, does anyone have any factual evidence that the current harvest regulations are causing a reduction in smallmouth populations as is continually  marketed as gospel? I myself have yet to hear one fisheries biologist say or see one report stating that.