MDC Public Comment Meetings - Part 2

[MOsmallies]

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.

The problem with your argument is that you are so focused on the dam biology and science of the matter... You can't honestly say the data that the MDC is basing their opinions on isn't skewed. It's impossible for them to collect 100% factual data just like we can't 100% prove what is limiting the potential of our smallmouth populations and size. It's pretty obvious that smallmouth fishing in our state has been declining for years. The current regulations are not making things better. They aren't necessarily making things worse but they aren't making things better. So an argument of mine might sound a little crazy to you... But maybe we should think outside the box a little. Maybe just maybe an approach we haven't tried before could yield some impressive results. Maybe the data isn't giving a full representation of the capability of our streams. What's the harm in trying? Maybe a few meat hunters get pissed because they can't keep a bunch of 12" smallmouth. Or maybe they are surprised that they start catching better sized fish on a more consistent basis. Who knows? All I know is that strictly basing your opinions on circumstantial data isn't helping make our streams produce better smallmouth fishing. Maybe thinking outside the box and trying something new will!!

[SpoonDog]

The problem with your argument is that you are so focused on the dam biology and science of the matter...

You understand what MDC does, right?  That their job is to manage the state's fish and game based on biology and science?  Couching biology and science as "the problem" is EXACTLY why you guys haven't been able to accomplish anything. 

MDC isn't going to manage smallmouth based on feelings instead of facts, and there's a very good reason:  what do you tell the guy who believes keeping ten 20 inchers isn't harmful?  What do you tell the guy who believes pulling smallmouth off their spawning beds doesn't hurt anything?  Heck- why even have creel limits or closed seasons if what matters isn't the biology or science, but rather what anglers believe?  The fact that they're not caving to the pressure of one group's beliefs or catering to an arbitrary group of anglers is a good thing.  You can write letters and attend meetings until the cows come home- they'll never do what you're asking them to do just because you're asking them to do it. 

You can't honestly say the data that the MDC is basing their opinions on isn't skewed. It's impossible for them to collect 100% factual data just like we can't 100% prove what is limiting the potential of our smallmouth populations and size.

MDC's electrofishing gear targets every fish in the stream with a central nervous system- it's not going to be as effective on the small ones, and they'll miss some big ones, too.  MOsmallies' gear targets the fish that want to eat that lure at that time, are big enough to get hooked, and actually make it to the boat.

Because MDC's sample doesn't just select for hungry fish or big fish or fish that like purple their data is more representative of what's in a stream.  They're sampling a fraction of the fish in the stream, and the one's I've spoken with aren't arguing their data's unbiased.  Anglers are sampling a fraction of a fraction of a fraction and arguing it's as good or better than MDC's dataset.  It doesn't take an advanced degree or fancy math to realize that's ridiculous.  I understand your results are different than MDC's- but that's all you're telling us. 

 It's pretty obvious that smallmouth fishing in our state has been declining for years. The current regulations are not making things better. They aren't necessarily making things worse but they aren't making things better. So an argument of mine might sound a little crazy to you... But maybe we should think outside the box a little. Maybe just maybe an approach we haven't tried before could yield some impressive results. Maybe the data isn't giving a full representation of the capability of our streams. What's the harm in trying? Maybe a few meat hunters get pissed because they can't keep a bunch of 12" smallmouth. Or maybe they are surprised that they start catching better sized fish on a more consistent basis. Who knows? All I know is that strictly basing your opinions on circumstantial data isn't helping make our streams produce better smallmouth fishing. Maybe thinking outside the box and trying something new will!!

Your entire argument is based on circumstantial data.  C&R regs were tried on Courtois and you guys say it's a dink factory. Even so, we STILL want to implement C&R regs in Ozark streams.  Quality regs have been put in place on streams- from what I've read there's more 18" fish but still not many 20+ inchers. You guys insist smallmouth fishing has declined DESPITE restrictive regulations, and use that as justification for...more restrictive regs!  It's a Python sketch folks, not a rational basis for changing regulations- does that HAVE to be pointed out?

Sure, there's a possibility option X, Y or Z could improve smallmouth populations- there's just no numbers, no data, no evidence to support that contention.  It's not even a hypothesis- it's a guess.  Reasonable people would rather base their decisions off something, not nothing- and your guess, by no stretch of the imagination- trumps MDC's numbers, no matter how circumstantial you believe they are.  If you think a management biologist is going to put themselves in a position where they're defending regulation changes to Munzlinger or the legislature not  because of the information they've gathered but because MOsmallies likes the idea, you're daft.

 

Good call.  Michael Scott the most ineffective and oblivious character in an imaginary television series, a fitting mascot for this thread

[Flysmallie]

MDC isn't going to manage smallmouth based on feelings instead of facts

But that's exactly what they are proposing. That's why they are having the meetings, that's why they are asking for comments. They want to know how you feel before they change the regulations. And those that express their feelings the most will get the most benefit from the change. I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet.

[Mitch f]

So Spoon Dog, as Ronnie says, why are they asking for input from fishermen? 

[SpoonDog]

MDC banned hand fishing for catfish despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science indicated it was terrible for the fishery.  They banned commercial fishing on the Missouri river despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science said it was terrible for the fishery.    They banned lead shot on 21 CAs despite the feelings of other hunters, because the science indicated lead shot is toxic to wildlife.  They reintroduced otters despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science indicated it could be done without damaging other resources. They reintroduced elk despite the feelings of many landowners for similar reasons.   They've banned felt-soled wading boots despite the feelings of many anglers, because the science indicates they're vectors for invasive species. 

 

Do you guys see a pattern?

 

Yes, MDC is soliciting angler input and comments.  No, MDC is not saying they'll manage smallmouth based on feelings instead of science.  If they were, they'd be introducing trophy regs or regional C&R or shutting down harvest on a Meramec or Gasconade-size river just to see what happens.  We're not.  That should be our first clue.  They're willing to work with anglers when and where they can, but they're not going to prioritize angler sentiment over the science.  That isn't their job, nor should it be- that's how bad policy gets made.  They're using science coupled with the sentiments of all anglers to propose regulations most anglers are willing to abide by- and that IS their job.  Make whatever suggestions you'd like- if they're pragmatic and reality-based, all the better.  But if you're going through this process with the mentality you're right, they're wrong, and no amount of evidence to the contrary is going to make you think otherwise...I wouldn't hold my breath.  No one wants to work with that guy. 

[Mitch f]

 

Yes, MDC is soliciting angler input and comments.  No, MDC is not saying they'll manage smallmouth based on feelings instead of science.  

Well, here are some of our "Feelings" regarding illegal gigging, (That's all in our heads). Can you figure out how to input these feelings into an equation so it will become science? We've turned these pics and others in to the MDC before and nothing happened. 

[SpoonDog]

....the same way you calculate a batting average.  Divide the number of gigged fish (# of hits) by the total number of fish you catch (# of at-bats) to get a proportion.  Then you can ring up MDC (or email, whatever) and say "Hey!  My buddies and I went fishing and 43% (or 84% or 29% or whatever it turns out to be) of the fish we caught had gig marks." 

 

See?  You sound more scientific already.  It's a neat parlor trick that doesn't require a calculator and it'll impress the heck out of your buddies, plus your friendly local MDC biologist will say thanks! for not filling up their email space with photos.  But that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg:  if you wanted to get REAL fancy you could geo-reference all those photos with GPS points and create a Google Earth layer- not only would it show that smallies are being gigged but WHERE- that's a tool agents can use to concentrate enforcement.  We have the technology.

[Mitch f]

Be condescending if you want, The  MDC is fully aware of the times, locations, etc. Nothing was done. 

[Hog Wally]

I have a idea.   Let's try to make our beloved ozark streams a destination for anglers across the nation for trophy smallmouth.  The fact is, if I decided I wanted to eat smallmouth- I could clean the meramec out in a 20 mile area from my house  5 fish a day. I fish 4 days a week   Do the math   You seem very smart. Figure it out. Electro fishing is not a good way to see what's in the water.  Wait till it's cold and the water is Crystal clear. Then go gig   I enjoy gigging but I think if they would make the penalty for stabbing whatever you see it would change the equation 

[Chief Grey Bear]

Be condescending if you want, The  MDC is fully aware of the times, locations, etc. Nothing was done. 

 

You mean like all the comments towards the MDC?

And I am curious, what was the MDC supposed to do about those allegedly gigged fish?

It appears that what ever happened to those fish was not recent as in hours or days.

Do you know for sure that was the location of the alleged incident? You know those smallmouth in the east migrate. 

Were they supposed to arrive to the scene of the alleged crime and collect data? What data?

What did you want them to do?

How do you know they didn't?