Thanks for nothing MDC

[Dan Kreher]

Appreciate Gavin, Al's and Spoon's posts on topic. It may or may not be helpful to write the four Commissioners at this point. I'd say that the MDC's mind is likely pretty set on these proposed regs at this stage of the game. But feel free to express your opinion.

As others have pointed out, the once-proposed regs on Current River are conspicuous by their absence. 15/1 regs were proposed for Current from Two Rivers to Van Buren but are not being moved forward apparently. We know that the Current River Smallmouth Association was adamantly opposed to these regs on that section of Current River as it would have effectively eliminated their club tournaments held out of Van Buren -- and to a much lesser extent -- Doniphan during the summer months. Now I understand that by and large they are a conservation-minded fishing club that release all fish post weigh-in, but nevertheless the more restrictive regs would have required them to drastically change how they run their club tourneys which they clearly did not want to do. 

MDC report notes a special public comment meeting held in Van Buren at request of their group back in the spring. Over 60 folks were in attendance there presumably in a last ditch effort to keep any regs changes from being made on "their river." While the public comments coming from that meeting are not spelled out in the MDC report, they must have been pretty persuasive at that meeting for the MDC to do the about face on their proposal. It seems that folks who are against a particular rule or regulation change get listened to much more closely that those that may be for such a change. 

It was quite surprising to me that the MDC would abandon their science-based approach to fisheries management to assuage public opinion of a relatively small group. This is particularly troubling in that the particular section selected for the proposed regs was the only one of the six studied in the tagging/exploitation project that would achieve -- based on MDC modeling -- the dual objective of improving angling quality (avg sizes/catch rates) and yield defined as the pounds of SMB harvested by implementation of a 15/1 limit. Admittedly this is a tall order given growth and mortality rates (both angler and natural). So I figured the MDC was dead set on implementing this change. 

The MDC did clarify in an e-mail to me that extended Jacks Fork reg will run all the way down to Two Rivers access on Current River. Not sure how an agent would handle those found with more than 1 smallie under 15" in that short stretch of Current below confluence but I guess the MDC doesn't think that will be much of an enforcement problem. I know, I know because no agent is going to be there to enforce the rules anyway.

Not surprised that MDC went away from 18/1 trophy regs to the 15/1 regime on Jacks and Gasconade. Seemed to value conformity and simplicity over trophy regs. Pleased they extended the area on Big Piney and Jacks Fork as well as Big and upper Meramec -- but we all know they could do much more if they had the will power to really improve our stream fisheries. But if maximum sustained yield remains your overriding management objective, it's hard to come around to more progressive thinking in management of sportfish such as smallmouth bass.

The MDC's work really wasn't to determine if they should change the statewide regs or not. They merely wanted to know anglers' thoughts on the new proposed regulations changes. If they been interested in considering a statewide regs change, the vast majority of public comments were in favor of more restrictive regs from what I read in their report. Perhaps we wanted to much from the MDC, I'm not sure. 

It did not seem like the MDC wanted to provide me with much additional insight into how they changed their mind on Current River or whether they are considering moving the proposed special regs stretch farther upstream on Current River away from the tournament anglers primary competitive water. They'd need to study that section from Round to Two Rivers more intensively -- which will take another 5 years in all likelihood -- and only if it met the dual litmus test of quality fishing and yield enhancement would they move forward with any new special regs. I won't hold my breath on that one.

 

 

 

 

 

[Ham]

It is an odd balancing act for Game and Fish. WE want what we want. We want more and bigger smallmouth with minimal harvest, BUT their are other user groups that want to go to the river and get some fish to eat. I think I am right to want more and bigger, but what makes my opinion better than the other guy's. And what if there are more people in the "catch and eat" group than the "release and protect" group? Do you really expect Game and Fish to listen to the more passionate minority rather than a majority that thinks things are fine as they are?

I appreciate that there needs to be science behind decisions, but the science is only as good as the methodology and it takes a long time and a lot of money to get good numbers. Obviously, there are plenty of smallmouth in plenty of places. I hate that people would rather eat them than release them, but that's where we are.

It is a shame that guys are holding up improvement in the Regs on the Current River so they can run up and down the river in their jet boats and trade money having smallmouth tournaments. They could change the format of their tournaments with catch, measure, and immediate release which would benefit the fish and they would still get their ego stroked.

IF MDC wanted to grow the biggest smallies possible in flowing water, they should focus on the heavily spring fed systems like the Current due to the year round feeding and growth cycle. Educate anglers and minimize harvest. Maximize the benefit for the fish my having special non weigh in regs on tournaments.
 

[Mitch f]

From what I understand Ham, it was one radical guy from Van Buren who started all the crap. I guess it's like PETA, they love to intimidate Super Models who wear fur on runways, but never mess with bikers wearing leather.

[Ham]

I would love any additional regs that would protect SMB on the Current. I'd be all about protecting them from Round Spring to the 106 Bridge. Two easily to identify landmarks with a one fish over 20 inches or 3 fish under 12 inches would be fine by me.

[Chief Grey Bear]

2 hours ago, Ham said:

It is an odd balancing act for Game and Fish. WE want what we want. We want more and bigger smallmouth with minimal harvest, BUT their are other user groups that want to go to the river and get some fish to eat. I think I am right to want more and bigger, but what makes my opinion better than the other guy's. And what if there are more people in the "catch and eat" group than the "release and protect" group? Do you really expect Game and Fish to listen to the more passionate minority rather than a majority that thinks things are fine as they are?

I appreciate that there needs to be science behind decisions, but the science is only as good as the methodology and it takes a long time and a lot of money to get good numbers. Obviously, there are plenty of smallmouth in plenty of places. I hate that people would rather eat them than release them, but that's where we are.

It is a shame that guys are holding up improvement in the Regs on the Current River so they can run up and down the river in their jet boats and trade money having smallmouth tournaments. They could change the format of their tournaments with catch, measure, and immediate release which would benefit the fish and they would still get their ego stroked.

IF MDC wanted to grow the biggest smallies possible in flowing water, they should focus on the heavily spring fed systems like the Current due to the year round feeding and growth cycle. Educate anglers and minimize harvest. Maximize the benefit for the fish my having special non weigh in regs on tournaments.
 

Hang on folks. Grab your medicine. 

I agree with this post. 

[snagged in outlet 3]

I thought Kim Kardashian broke the internet??

[Ham]

24 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

I thought Kim Kardashian broke the internet??

What?

[snagged in outlet 3]

Chief said he agrees.  It'll probably break the internet.

[Chief Grey Bear]

2 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

Chief said he agrees.  It'll probably break the internet.

He has me blocked. He has no idea that what he said is what I have said for years and in this thread. 

[snagged in outlet 3]

I did not know that