Thanks for nothing MDC

[MOPanfisher]

I agree with some of what everyone has said.  To me overlaying the SM Management area over the trout area makes perfect sense, that way you don't have 2 different boundaries to try to keep up with.  And while SMB are a "thing" for me, (I personally would love to see a 2 fish 15" MLL statewide), a good percentage of the folks fishing the steams and rivers don't have that outlook.  Very much agree with FW on concentrating on the habitat, but it gets "sticky" when dealing with private land, there is lots of assistance and help for the private landowner if they are willing to go that route, but for many who say graze cattle, taking 100 feet from the river edge and making it a riparian corridor affects their bottom line financially.  I like the idea of a Goggle eye MLL as well, have seen LOTS of little gogglers on stringers over the years.  Habitat and enforcement are important and neither is cheap or easy.

[Chief Grey Bear]

That's the DNR and EPA that monitors that. The MDC is charged with managing fish and wildlife. 

The catch and keep crowd pays taxes too. And that is where the balancing act comes in. The MDC is charged with managing for everyone. But you don't want that. You want everyone to play by your rules. You fish maybe a half dozen different rivers for smallmouth specifically. But you want state wide regs that limit others use of the resource. 

[Gavin]

Best we can do now is email the Commissioners, take the good stuff, and demand a do over.

Commissioners

Mr. David W. Murphy

Chairman

Mr. James T. Blair IV

Vice Chairman

Ms. Marilyn J. Bradford

Secretary

Mr. Don C. Bedell

Member

 

Click on there names to contact them at...

 https://mdc.mo.gov/about-us/conservation-commission/current-conservation-commissioners

 

August 8, 2016

 

Dear

 

I am writing to express my disappointment with the proposed changes to the Smallmouth and Rock Bass regulations that were approved at the August 4, 2016 meeting of the Missouri Department of Conservation Regulations Committee. It is my understanding that these proposed regulation changes will be on your agenda for your August 26, 2016 Conservation Commission meeting and my comments on the proposed changes are as follows;

 

• I fully support the Regulation Committee's proposed changes to the Rock Bass Regulations.

   

• I do not support the Regulation Committee's recommendation to maintain the existing minimum length limit (MLL) of 12 inches and a daily limit of 6 fish for Smallmouth Bass statewide. The public input that the Fisheries Division solicited clearly suggests that anglers want an increased MLL, and a decrease in the daily limit. I would ask the Commission to direct Fisheries Division to review the public comments that they received and provide a better recommendation to the Regulation Committee during the next regulation cycle.

   

• I fully support the proposed expansion of the Smallmouth Special Management Areas (SMBSMA's)  on the Jacks Fork, Big Piney, Meramec, and Big Rivers, and would urge you to approve those changes.

   

• I did not see a recommendation for a SMBSMA on the Current River in the departments email describing the proposed changes. Fisheries division personnel have publically stated that their sampling data supported the establishment of a SMBSMA on the Current River and most anglers seemed to be in favor of the proposal. What happened? Was it omitted from the departments email or omitted entirely? If a proposed SMBSMA on the Current River is included in the recommendations please approve it.

   

• I do not support the statewide decrease to a 15" minimum length limit (MLL) on the Jacks Fork and Gasconade SMBSMA's.  The departments Public Input Summary clearly indicates significant angler support for the 18" MLL on those fisheries, and probable support for an 18" MLL in all of the SMBSMA's. In addition, the 18" MLL should be expanded into the new SMBSMA on the Big Piney river.

   

   

• There was no proposal to limit harvest of migratory Smallmouth Bass on the Black River. Smallmouth Bass migrate out of the Black River into Clearwater Lake during the winter months and they receive significant harvest pressure . Please direct the Fisheries Division to provide a proposal to address this issue during the next regulation cycle.

   

• There was no proposal to limit the harvest of smallmouth bass during the winter months. The departments own studies indicate that river smallmouth bass migrate great distances to congregate near large springs during the winter months. The fish are concentrated then, and they are very susceptible to harvest by legal methods and by unscrupulous giggers. Please direct the Fisheries Division to provide a proposal to address this issue during the next regulation cycle.

   

  What is the value of having public comment process, or the purpose of paying biologists to do surveys and attend public meetings when the public's comments are entirely ignored? Most anglers seemed to support a 15" MLL and a 3 fish daily limit or a more restrictive statewide regulation. Where were the comments in support for the status quo?

   

  I've written many letters to legislators to support the efforts of the Missouri Department of Conservation, and the Conservation Sales Tax over the years but the process that the Fisheries Division managed to improve Smallmouth Bass regulations has been a disappointment to myself and to many of avid anglers that I associate with. Hopefully, the Fisheries Division and the Regulations Committee will address some of these open issues during the next regulations cycle and prove themselves worthy of my ongoing support and the support of other avid anglers in the State of Missouri.

   

   

  Sincerely,

   

   

   

   

 

[fishinwrench]

57 minutes ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

That's the DNR and EPA that monitors that. The MDC is charged with managing fish and wildlife. 

The catch and keep crowd pays taxes too. And that is where the balancing act comes in. The MDC is charged with managing for everyone. But you don't want that. You want everyone to play by your rules. You fish maybe a half dozen different rivers for smallmouth specifically. But you want state wide regs that limit others use of the resource. 

I don't demand statewide regs.   In my eyes nothing should be done "statewide".  Each watershed is different and should be treated/managed independently. 

Managing fish and wildlife begins with habitat.  If you don't manage the habitat then you are wasting your time and the taxpayers money by pretending to manage.  

[SpoonDog]

Nice work, Gavin- I've been working on a rough draft I'll email to the commissioners this evening. 

 

Dear,

 

Missouri's stream smallmouth bass fisheries represent an important part of our natural heritage, a resource prized by resident and non-resident anglers across a broad spectrum of economic, political, and social backgrounds. At times these differences result in conflict with regard to management of stream smallmouth resources, and in general I applaud MDC attempts to manage these fisheries for the benefit of all.

Over the past several years, MDC biologists have conducted a series of research projects with the goal of refining the state's stream smallmouth bass regulations. The result is we have a better understanding of Missouri's stream smallmouth fisheries than at any point in history. We understand growth, harvest, and mortality rates for many smallmouth streams. We see the effects angler-adopted catch and release have on some stream reaches, like Courtois Creek. We now understand smallmouth bass aren't “homebodies,” that many fish move as much as ten miles and some move thirty or more over the course of a single season. And through angler survey efforts, we understand the value this sport fish has for many anglers within the state.

Despite that, MDC fisheries biologists appear beholden to a half-century of management dogma. I understand and fully agree that when stream smallmouth regulations were initially implemented, many anglers believed a 12” smallmouth was a quality fish. Values and attitudes have changed in the intervening decades- many anglers today fish for pleasure instead of protein, and even many anglers who enjoy keeping their catch would like the opportunity for more large fish. I encourage you to read carefully the “Smallmouth Bass and Rock Bass Regulation Changes Under Consideration for the 2017 Season- Public Input Summary” recently released by the Missouri Department of Conservation- in particular the appendices. Increasing minimum length limits and reducing creel limits are two management options most frequently cited by respondents for improving Missouri's stream smallmouth fisheries.

Many respondents suggest a statewide 15” minimum length limit on smallmouth bass, with creel limits reduced to 2-4 smallmouth per day. MDC's own Public Input Survey indicates most anglers harvest fewer than two smallmouth per trip, suggesting a statewide 15” minimum length limit is not only widely adopted by anglers already, but that it would have little impact on the creel of most smallmouth fishermen. Larger fish produce more, better quality eggs, and are better able to defend nests from predators- which may confer some benefit to Missouri smallmouth fisheries. A statewide minimum length limit of 15” would confer protection to smallmouth moving seasonally out of special management areas. Such a measure would also reduce regulation disparities between special management areas and other stream reaches, further simplifying regulations- a stated goal of the current effort.

These points appear entirely ignored by MDC personnel, who have instead proposed maintaining current length and creel limits. In fact, angler responses are misinterpreted as supporting 12” minimum length limit on pages 11 and 12 of the document. When professional biologists misrepresent survey results, it is fair for anglers to question the legitimacy and purpose of the public comment process- the value of participating if management outcomes are preordained. It is fair for anglers to question the purpose and expense of long-term field studies if their results continue to be ignored. It is fair for anglers to question the expense of having so many stream smallmouth biologists when management of these fisheries appears to be on autopilot. At at time when the Missouri Department of Conservation faces routine attacks from the state legislature, the agency literally cannot afford to make enemies out of advocates.

The process to evaluate stream smallmouth regulations has not lived up to the Missouri Department of Conservation's stated values: respecting the opinions and valuing the trust of all Missouri citizens, partnering and communicating with citizens to achieve conservation successes, and promoting fairness, objectivity, integrity, sound science, accountability, and transparency to guide Department actions. As a Conservation Commissioner I encourage you to demand a higher caliber of public service from MDC employees, and that the current proposed smallmouth regulations changes be tabled until the Department personnel are willing to develop a management approach based on the results of their own investigations and the stated values of Missouri's smallmouth anglers. I appreciate your time, and look forward to the outcome of the August 25^th meeting.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[snagged in outlet 3]

Hey guys I'd like to help.  Not to sound stupid but......Can we all send the same letter to the commissioners? 

Pete

[Gavin]

Write your own...but feel free to borrow...

 

[Al Agnew]

About those meat anglers who would supposedly be hurt by lowering creel limit and raising length limit...

A 12 inch smallmouth weighs about 12 ounces.  Let's say half that is edible meat.  If you keep a limit of 6 12 inchers, therefore, you will have 36 ounces of meat.

A 15 inch smallie weighs about 28 ounces.  14 ounces of edible meat.  A limit of three of them will give you more meat than six 12   inchers.  So why not make the creel limit three fish and the length limit 15 inches?

Or, on average a 14 incher will weigh about 24 ounces.  12 ounces of meat.  Three of THEM would give you about the same amount of meat as 6 12 inchers.  Four of them would give you MORE.  So a limit of four, 14 inch minimum, would be better for the meat fishermen.

Is there a valid scientific reason to maximize harvest with a 6 fish limit?  I don't think so on river smallmouth.  There might possibly be a slight decrease in growth rates in some of the special management areas with a one fish 15 inch limit, according to their studies, but it WAS slight, and they rated it insignficant.  Their studies showed that the majority, in places the great majority, of anglers didn't keep smallies.  So, it seems to me it would be pretty simple, and with just a bit of outreach to anglers, easy to justify to the meat fishermen, to lower the creel limit and raise the length limit statewide, it would appease those of us who want more protection for stream bass, and it couldn't hurt and might help.

[joeD]

Lack of fishing success is not a governmental regulation problem.

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

46 minutes ago, Al Agnew said:

About those meat anglers who would supposedly be hurt by lowering creel limit and raising length limit...

A 12 inch smallmouth weighs about 12 ounces.  Let's say half that is edible meat.  If you keep a limit of 6 12 inchers, therefore, you will have 36 ounces of meat.

A 15 inch smallie weighs about 28 ounces.  14 ounces of edible meat.  A limit of three of them will give you more meat than six 12   inchers.  So why not make the creel limit three fish and the length limit 15 inches?

Or, on average a 14 incher will weigh about 24 ounces.  12 ounces of meat.  Three of THEM would give you about the same amount of meat as 6 12 inchers.  Four of them would give you MORE.  So a limit of four, 14 inch minimum, would be better for the meat fishermen.

Is there a valid scientific reason to maximize harvest with a 6 fish limit?  I don't think so on river smallmouth.  There might possibly be a slight decrease in growth rates in some of the special management areas with a one fish 15 inch limit, according to their studies, but it WAS slight, and they rated it insignficant.  Their studies showed that the majority, in places the great majority, of anglers didn't keep smallies.  So, it seems to me it would be pretty simple, and with just a bit of outreach to anglers, easy to justify to the meat fishermen, to lower the creel limit and raise the length limit statewide, it would appease those of us who want more protection for stream bass, and it couldn't hurt and might help.

That's not how you determine harvest of any species.