MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[Flysmallie]

Why are we protecting 8 inch fish that came out of a hatchery 2 days prior while native smallmouth that have very slow growth rates are being poached throughout the Ozarks.

Money. They care more about dollars generated through tourism. 

[fishinwrench]

Tim you bring up some great points!!! One of the biggest issues I have with the MDC is that they really seem to care more about protecting non-native, stocked trout than protecting native smallmouth... It makes ZERO sense to me. The biologist Mitch and I talked with at Powder Valley mentioned several times that it's difficult for the agents in certain counties to patrol the rivers often because they have to patrol the trout parks. My jaw hit the floor. Why are we protecting 8 inch fish that came out of a hatchery 2 days prior while native smallmouth that have very slow growth rates are being poached throughout the Ozarks.

Because you can patrol a trout park without getting out of your truck and getting mud on your shoes.  Those guys have to look clean and neat at all times, they can't just go walking off into the woods, breaking a sweat and getting all dirty.    Look at the pics of them in the Conservationist Mag....... Clean shaven, not a hair out of place, manicured nails, shiney shoes, pressed slacks.  Very dapper !   

[SpoonDog]

It's as if they are resigning themselves to the fact that that a 20" smallmouth is an unachievable goal, that's why. We know different.  I've never seen a 100-year-old man as healthy as some of these 20 inchers that I find. 

A centenarian can do a thousand pushups a day, run a marathon, an Iron Man, pull a 747 with his teeth, whatever- if he isn't 6 feet tall by 100, it's pretty dang unlikely he'll be 6 feet all by 101. Your kid's gonna grow faster at age 5 than 55.  Your puppy's gonna grow faster at 4 months than at 4 years.  That's what MDC's saying Mitch- not that 20" smallmouth are unhealthy- that they're growing very slowly late in life. 

 

All sorts of factors play into growing quality fish, over the course of their entire lifetime.  The 20 inchers we occasionally catch today have as much (probably more) to do with a good water year, a cool summer, or a poor age class five or six years back when they were dinks and growing rapidly as it does any reg MDC has or could put in place.  Restrictive regs like C&R don't change that. 

You guys are arguing we'll produce 6'0 tall 100 year olds if we produce more 5'10" 85 year olds without ever stopping to think maybe i's an oversimplification of the world around us.   I'm not sure how you can rationally be upset at MDC for not buying into it.

[Dan Kreher]

I think we all are proving that while we may not get any taller as we reach middle age, we seemingly get heavier with each passing year. 

On a more serious note, 20-inch Ozark stream smallies will never represent a majority of our catch - regardless of what regulations are imposed and vigorously enforced. We all know that more restrictive harvest regs, improved angler education and more aggressive enforcement of violators would all combine to produce more 15-18 inch bronze in our stream fisheries. Can we get more 19-20+ inchers through the funnel with better regs? Absolutely. But due to slow growth rates and natural mortality issues, having 20 inch fish swimming in every pool should not be our expectation (for most streams at least) nor the ruler by which success is measured. 

It can get better than it is if there is political will -- both among the MDC and smallmouth anglers -- to make it better. 

I think it is productive that anglers have been able to voice their concerns about the management of our stream fisheries and the enforcement of our game laws directly to employees of the MDC responsible for establishing and implementing policy during these public comment meetings. Anglers are holding actual conversations with those in positions of authority and having a dialog on these issues. I'd encourage this to continue. 

Don't forget that you can send additional comments on this topic to the MDC using the link found above in this thread.

 

[Mitch f]

You guys are arguing we'll produce 6'0 tall 100 year olds if we produce more 5'10" 85 year olds without ever stopping to think maybe i's an oversimplification of the world around us.   I'm not sure how you can rationally be upset at MDC for not buying into it.

You call it an over simplification, ok. The MDC can never convince me that its statistically so rare to see a 20" smallmouth. I've seen it with my own eyes. In the winter, these fish are in certain spots, and each good spot could hold several fish that size, especially 15 years ago.

The best approach is for me to just send MDC my comments and hope it falls on the right persons desk. Someone who uses common sense along with his statistical algorithms. Arguing with the MDC employees on a forum who use fake internet names doesn't help convince anyone.

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

I think we all are proving that while we may not get any taller as we reach middle age, we seemingly get heavier with each passing year. 

On a more serious note, 20-inch Ozark stream smallies will never represent a majority of our catch - regardless of what regulations are imposed and vigorously enforced. We all know that more restrictive harvest regs, improved angler education and more aggressive enforcement of violators would all combine to produce more 15-18 inch bronze in our stream fisheries. Can we get more 19-20+ inchers through the funnel with better regs? Absolutely. But due to slow growth rates and natural mortality issues, having 20 inch fish swimming in every pool should not be our expectation (for most streams at least) nor the ruler by which success is measured. 

It can get better than it is if there is political will -- both among the MDC and smallmouth anglers -- to make it better. 

I think it is productive that anglers have been able to voice their concerns about the management of our stream fisheries and the enforcement of our game laws directly to employees of the MDC responsible for establishing and implementing policy during these public comment meetings. Anglers are holding actual conversations with those in positions of authority and having a dialog on these issues. I'd encourage this to continue. 

Don't forget that you can send additional comments on this topic to the MDC using the link found above in this thread.

 

Finally!!!

As I have stated before, the Ozarks are just not going to produce a plethora of 20+ inch smallmouth in streams. 

Hell, even the Ozark lakes don't grow very many 20 inchers. And they have a much easier life! 

Enjoy the ones you do catch. They are a special treat. 

Kudos to you Dan for posting this!!

[mic]

Mitch... I'm confused.  Did they say that you are not catching that many 20"?  Or, did they say a 20" is in the category of someone that is 100?  If the later, that makes sense to me.  I think they figure that like they do dogs.  They sample the age groups and use percentages per age group to compare to the sample group of humans.  Makes sense to me.

[Flysmallie]

The best approach is for me to just send MDC my comments and hope it falls on the right persons desk. Someone who uses common sense along with his statistical algorithms.

You'd have better luck finding a unicorn. These people work for the government.

[SpoonDog]

You call it an over simplification, ok. The MDC can never convince me that its statistically so rare to see a 20" smallmouth. I've seen it with my own eyes. In the winter, these fish are in certain spots, and each good spot could hold several fish that size, especially 15 years ago.

The best approach is for me to just send MDC my comments and hope it falls on the right persons desk. Someone who uses common sense along with his statistical algorithms. Arguing with the MDC employees on a forum who use fake internet names doesn't help convince anyone.

 

 

You're making my point for me, Mitch.  We know smallies stack up and that they are in certain spots in winter, and you can just as easily find reaches devoid of 18-20" fish November through February.  Fact is, neither of those observations are representative of what Ozark streams can produce.  For the sake of argument let's say there's 50 miles of wintering habitat on the mainstem Meramec.  What you're suggesting is MDC base smallmouth regs off what happens in 23% of the stream three or four months out of the year because of biased sampling- personal observations which maximize timing, location, and angler skill 

I reckon MDC gets a hundred letters a week from folks asking to change regulations because they want regulations changed.  Farmers who believe taking gravels from streams improves habitat or believe cow or pig poop in streams is harmless.  ORV riders who believe riding buggies through the gravel bars doesn't do damage.  Canned hunt operators who believe domestic deer aren't introducing disease or all the other random folks who believe black helicopters are dumping bears and cougars and rattlesnakes and cobras in the dark of night.  There's a reason MDC doesn't implement regulations based on what people believe.  Just because I'm not on the "screw MDC!" bandwagon it means I'm some sort of mole.  I'm not an MDC biologist, I'm not an MDC employee, I'm not even a Missouri resident.  I'd like to see more enforcement more comprehensive smallmouth management areas, I'd like to see winter harvest curtailed, I'd like to see more habitat improvement to increase growth, survival and carrying capacity.  I also know it's tough beating a good argument with a  bad argument, no matter how many letters you write.

 

 

Make a good argument.

[Mitch f]

But MDC isn't going to abandon their position because you don't like the facts behind it-

True statement.

Bottom line is their base line is inadequate over a broad range of streams. So, IMO, They don't have enough data to make accurate decisions. I'm not part of the "Screw the MDC" bandwagon at all, BTW.  We are being asked to comment. I'm skeptical, to say the least, whether it's being duly noted. At least they are asking for comments, which is better than nothing.