MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[Al Agnew]

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. 

 

 

And you won't.  As we've continually tried to point out, that's not the issue.  In most streams, the numbers will always be there, because smallies start spawning before they even reach the current 12 inch minimum length, and most years they produce plenty of little smallies.  The goal is NOT to produce more smallmouth by stricter regulation.  It's to change the population structure to where there is a greater percentage of bigger fish in the existing population.  Which is why I've always been a bit uneasy about the special management area regs.  They offer some modicum of protection to larger fish, but a LOT more protection to smaller fish.  It's easy to see how that could result in slower growth rates.  More smallmouth in that 12 to 15 inch range, eating up a lot of food that would otherwise put inches on bigger fish.  MDC's studies after the first special management areas were instituted show slightly reduced growth rates, at the same time they show more fish surviving past 15 inches.

In my experience, which is not backed up by MDC's studies simply because they never did the studies on my most fished sections of stream, numbers of smaller fish are far less than what they used to be in the middle Meramec and Big River.  Upper sections of both streams have numbers about as good as they ever were, except that on Big River the numbers are now divided between smallmouth and spotted bass.  In other words, I used to catch an average of 50 bass a day on any of those stream sections.  Now, I still catch about the same average on upper Big River and upper Meramec, but on Big River these days it's getting close to equal numbers of smallies and spots, while on the upper Meramec it's still mostly smallmouth (as it is on Huzzah and Courtois creeks, my other two usual fishing areas).  But on the middle Meramec, the average is probably half that during the summer.  It's about the same on middle Big River.  So in my experience those two streams are NOT producing the numbers they once did.  On middle Big River, the percentage of big smallmouth in the population is probably about as good as it's going to get, due to spotted bass (the fewer smallmouth in the population, the fewer of them will reach large size).  On the middle Meramec, perhaps increased protection overall would benefit numbers as well as size.  Perhaps the reason we still catch big fish on the Meramec, mainly during the winter when they are concentrated, is because they have fewer small fish to compete with and therefore have better growth rates.  Maybe.  It could also be that the wintertime population of big smallmouth on the middle Meramec is being swelled by some big fish migrating from Huzzah and Courtois creeks and from farther upstream on the Meramec.

I know MDC has an understandable aversion to making regulations too complicated.  I also know they don't have the time or budget to study EVERY stream section.  But the above just seems to point out that there are a LOT of differences in streams, and what one section might need doesn't necessarily apply to every other section.   

[Al Agnew]

While I'm thinking about it, though, I'd like to address the whole "too infertile, not enough food" thing a bit.  We look at Ozark streams and see that clear water and rather clean gravel bottom, and immediately think "infertile".  Yet, compare them to, for instance, a north country lake.  There is a LOT of critters in an Ozark stream.  Vast schools of minnows.  Crayfish under every rock.  Lots of aquatic insects.  The young of several kinds of suckers, sunfish, and other fish.  Canadian Shield lakes, that produce good numbers and sizes of smallmouth, have FAR less food.  

I catch some big, healthy-looking smallmouth from streams that are small, extremely clear, the definition of "infertile".  In fact, the only stream where I regularly catch long, lean fish with big heads and tails is the part of Big River that's so heavily affected by mine waste that most of the crayfish and aquatic insect habitat is smothered in mine tailings.  Sure, you'll catch a skinny big fish now and then on any stream, and probably those are fish that are nearing the end of their life span.  But for the most part, the big fish I catch are healthy-looking.  Maybe not fat--a fish in a stream environment which has to fight current probably isn't going to get really fat.  

I would submit that we've always just repeated the infertility thing like a mantra, without really examining it closely.  Smallmouth evolved in clear, relatively infertile waters.  They should have feeding and growth strategies to deal with it.  And like I said, there seems to be plenty of smallmouth food swimming and crawling around in most Ozark streams.

[Chief Grey Bear]

 

 

And you won't.  As we've continually tried to point out, that's not the issue.  In most streams, the numbers will always be there, because smallies start spawning before they even reach the current 12 inch minimum length, and most years they produce plenty of little smallies.  The goal is NOT to produce more smallmouth by stricter regulation.  It's to change the population structure to where there is a greater percentage of bigger fish in the existing population.  Which is why I've always been a bit uneasy about the special management area regs.  They offer some modicum of protection to larger fish, but a LOT more protection to smaller fish.  It's easy to see how that could result in slower growth rates.  More smallmouth in that 12 to 15 inch range, eating up a lot of food that would otherwise put inches on bigger fish.  MDC's studies after the first special management areas were instituted show slightly reduced growth rates, at the same time they show more fish surviving past 15 inches.

In my experience, which is not backed up by MDC's studies simply because they never did the studies on my most fished sections of stream, numbers of smaller fish are far less than what they used to be in the middle Meramec and Big River.  Upper sections of both streams have numbers about as good as they ever were, except that on Big River the numbers are now divided between smallmouth and spotted bass.  In other words, I used to catch an average of 50 bass a day on any of those stream sections.  Now, I still catch about the same average on upper Big River and upper Meramec, but on Big River these days it's getting close to equal numbers of smallies and spots, while on the upper Meramec it's still mostly smallmouth (as it is on Huzzah and Courtois creeks, my other two usual fishing areas).  But on the middle Meramec, the average is probably half that during the summer.  It's about the same on middle Big River.  So in my experience those two streams are NOT producing the numbers they once did.  On middle Big River, the percentage of big smallmouth in the population is probably about as good as it's going to get, due to spotted bass (the fewer smallmouth in the population, the fewer of them will reach large size).  On the middle Meramec, perhaps increased protection overall would benefit numbers as well as size.  Perhaps the reason we still catch big fish on the Meramec, mainly during the winter when they are concentrated, is because they have fewer small fish to compete with and therefore have better growth rates.  Maybe.  It could also be that the wintertime population of big smallmouth on the middle Meramec is being swelled by some big fish migrating from Huzzah and Courtois creeks and from farther upstream on the Meramec.

I know MDC has an understandable aversion to making regulations too complicated.  I also know they don't have the time or budget to study EVERY stream section.  But the above just seems to point out that there are a LOT of differences in streams, and what one section might need doesn't necessarily apply to every other section.   

What do you think a 15"-1 or 15"-3 or 18"-1 or any current proposal is going to do to overall populations?? It's almost a zero harvest.

You will substantially increase the younger class fish which consumes the vast amount of available forage. Since these are also the more active fish and larger population wise, this can inturn cause even slower growth rates in what fish that do start reaching the sizes you are desiring. 

EDIT:

i should have read your whole response. 

You can tell where I stopped reading by the addition of my last paragraph. 

[Chief Grey Bear]

While I'm thinking about it, though, I'd like to address the whole "too infertile, not enough food" thing a bit.  We look at Ozark streams and see that clear water and rather clean gravel bottom, and immediately think "infertile".  Yet, compare them to, for instance, a north country lake.  There is a LOT of critters in an Ozark stream.  Vast schools of minnows.  Crayfish under every rock.  Lots of aquatic insects.  The young of several kinds of suckers, sunfish, and other fish.  Canadian Shield lakes, that produce good numbers and sizes of smallmouth, have FAR less food.  

I catch some big, healthy-looking smallmouth from streams that are small, extremely clear, the definition of "infertile".  In fact, the only stream where I regularly catch long, lean fish with big heads and tails is the part of Big River that's so heavily affected by mine waste that most of the crayfish and aquatic insect habitat is smothered in mine tailings.  Sure, you'll catch a skinny big fish now and then on any stream, and probably those are fish that are nearing the end of their life span.  But for the most part, the big fish I catch are healthy-looking.  Maybe not fat--a fish in a stream environment which has to fight current probably isn't going to get really fat.  

I would submit that we've always just repeated the infertility thing like a mantra, without really examining it closely.  Smallmouth evolved in clear, relatively infertile waters.  They should have feeding and growth strategies to deal with it.  And like I said, there seems to be plenty of smallmouth food swimming and crawling around in most Ozark streams.

I agree. 

There is a proper balance of forage and consumers. But we also need to maintain that balance. 

It's a tough living in the Ozarks. This region is not known for growing anthing large except it's women. Look at the deer. Overall there are no huge deer harvested. But that doesn't mean that occasionally a large buck won't be taken. The Ozarks has smaller, fast flowing water. The fish expend a great amount of energy here. As compared to the "world class" areas you want to pattern this area after. 

Can 20" fish be had here? Yes it's been proven. Consistantly? Maybe. But it's not as easy as just changing regulations. There are many factors that create fish like that. Habitat is a very key factor and as more and more people move into the Ozarks and land use changes, so does the equations that are conducive to what you are wanting. 

 

[SpoonDog]

Now we're talkin'!  Thanks Dan and Al, for laying out your ideas explicitly, I really do think we'll be more effective if we make them based on a logical train of thought.  I don't know the answer and maybe you guys do, but lots of times productivity/biomass is measured as weight/area (hay yield, for example, is measured as tons/acre).  Maybe that's just the unit they're reporting results in, not necessarily an indication they're stuck in 20th century harvest mode.  

  It isn't a dichotomous, black-and-white scenario where you're either a meat angler or a C&R guy, there's a gradient of folks fishing for all sorts of reasons.   There is no uniform, standardized definition of "quality," and what may benefit "trophy" smallmouth anglers isn't uniformly positive for other angling groups.  An acre of water that can support ninety 12" smallmouth may support fifty 15" smallmouth- you're making smallies bigger, you're also making smallies less abundant.  That means lower catch rates for the average angler, even if average size is bigger.  I'm not sure what proportion of the general angling public (not just quality anglers) are willing to accept that tradeoff- MDC's probably asked the question but I'm too lazy to look.  Not saying it's a good thing or bad, just that it's important to keep in mind as we ask MDC to craft regulations for a broad range of anglers with varied goals and interests.

[joeD]

Dan is correct and should be listened to on this particular topic. He is on the ground, talks to everyone, is well informed and sensible, and has Missouri smallmouth fishermen's best interest in mind. He works hard at bringing about change to a bureaucratic stone wall. We should be thankful that he is on our side, despite contrarian opinion, like mine. 

Yes, Dan is also correct about me being a naysayer, I am a premature curmudgeon. A negative Nelly who plays the devils advocate with a little too much gusto. Which is an easy route to take for a cynic like me.

Oscar Wilde on the definition of a cynic: A man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."Jan 17, 2012

At some point, decisions should be made, compromised or not, and move this narrative forward. Until the next argument.

[Dan Kreher]

No problem with the overall population. The 12 inch limit allows our smallmouth fisheries to be self-sustaining. However, the MDC's recent modeling strongly indicates that average sizes would increase if harvest was delayed until 15" or 18". It only makes sense.  Our streams are far from their carrying capacity for adult SMB. 

[Dan Kreher]

For some good info on Ozark stream SMB biology and the origins of our current statewide length limit go to an article written by retired MDC fisheries biologist Spence Turner wherein he interviewed longtime MDC biologist Otto Fajen. It appears in the July/Aug 2013 issue of the Bronzeback News as found on the MSA website at www.missourismallmouthalliance.org 

Spence originally wrote that piece back in the late 1980s when it appeared in the long defunct Fishing and Hunting Journal (Ron Kruger editor). The info in that piece has stayed with me (and Spence) for the nearly the past 30 years. It is a good read and may help clear up some misconceptions. Unfortunately, we are still fighting the same battle but at least we are starting to get somewhere now. 

 

 

[Dan Kreher]

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, it can be found on the MSA website www.missourismallmouthalliance.org under the Conservation tab under MDC documents. Its the Harvest Evaluation document.  

[Al Agnew]

The fact that the studies from the original smallmouth management areas show only a slight decrease in growth rates, several years after instituting a 1 fish 15 inch limit, points to the likelihood that these streams can handle such regulations without totally swamping them with lots of little bass.  I'm not too worried about overpopulating the streams with such regulations.  I'm just concerned that they don't go quite in the best direction to increase the numbers of 18-20 inch fish.  I'd still be happiest with a 14-20 inch slot limit.