Chief Grey Bear Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 It's ok. I have come to accept it and have learned to live with it. Serenity now! jfrith 1 Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors
snagged in outlet 3 Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 2 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said: Serenity now! You know that doesn't work. Just ask Lloyd Braun Chief Grey Bear 1
Smalliebigs Posted August 9, 2016 Author Posted August 9, 2016 " 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. " bingo!!!!!!!!! I'm not here to argue but, anyone of my friends who hit the rivers more than 4 times a year know what I know.......The MDC is not in the business of creating quality fishing....they are more into creating reasons for their existence as a state agency and keeping those jobs. I understand, I can move on......it just took me awhile to get it into my 47 year old head. Get them while you can as far as I'm concerned......it's kinda like North County in St.Louis now after the Ferguson effect......do whatever you want now because there are really no consequences.....It's not a big deal to me anymore because after talking with MDC people at their meetings and I have full confidence they don't know ~~ about the rivers or the fish that swim in them, so their ignorance will be my bliss. Extending the trophy area on the Meramec upstream thru the trout area is a perfect example of how ignorant they are or how they portray themselves to be. Brian Jones and jfrith 2
MOPanfisher Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 I dont agree, I don't think MDC is more concerned with creating reasons for their existence, they already have plenty of reasons for existence. just because the decision they have reached does not jive with what we/you/I may want doesn't make them a bad agency. The agency has moved more and more over the years from, "that sounds like a good idea" to "OK show us some data", the data and studies they have doesn't show the justification for some of the wide ranging solutions some of us may want. I know too many of the MDC biologist types, and to a person they are way more concerned with the resource than with their agency, however as you move up the chain the supervisors etc. know that in order to go to the Commission to request a change you have got to have some data, biological data to show to support why. Simply because a lot of people want to do something and are loud about it, simply doesn't cut it anymore. What if a larger, more vocal group of citizens were to petition the MDC and say we want the MLL dropped to 10" everywhere and the number increased to 10 fish, heck might a huge number of people in favor of it, with no biological backing its not going to happen, regardless of the political pressure. MDC's primary goal is NOT growing the largest smallmouth bass, or even the largest population of smallmouth bass possible. It is to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to enjoy those resources. Chief Grey Bear, Terrierman and Ham 3
Jerry Rapp Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 look at it this way. If the smallmouth populations get to low, MDC can get more money from our taxes to build more hatcheries and raise smallies, just like they do walleye, hybrids and trout. That means more jobs for MDC and more new John Deere tractors.
Chief Grey Bear Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 1 hour ago, MOPanfisher said: I dont agree, I don't think MDC is more concerned with creating reasons for their existence, they already have plenty of reasons for existence. just because the decision they have reached does not jive with what we/you/I may want doesn't make them a bad agency. The agency has moved more and more over the years from, "that sounds like a good idea" to "OK show us some data", the data and studies they have doesn't show the justification for some of the wide ranging solutions some of us may want. I know too many of the MDC biologist types, and to a person they are way more concerned with the resource than with their agency, however as you move up the chain the supervisors etc. know that in order to go to the Commission to request a change you have got to have some data, biological data to show to support why. Simply because a lot of people want to do something and are loud about it, simply doesn't cut it anymore. What if a larger, more vocal group of citizens were to petition the MDC and say we want the MLL dropped to 10" everywhere and the number increased to 10 fish, heck might a huge number of people in favor of it, with no biological backing its not going to happen, regardless of the political pressure. MDC's primary goal is NOT growing the largest smallmouth bass, or even the largest population of smallmouth bass possible. It is to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to enjoy those resources. This is the Bingo. Nobody but the STL7 has ever said the MDC's goal is "Maximum Sutsatined Harvest". In fact, MDC data shows that relatively few catch and keep fisherman take a full limit every trip. And those fisherman make fewer trips per year than most people here. Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors
SpoonDog Posted August 9, 2016 Posted August 9, 2016 2 hours ago, MOPanfisher said: I dont agree, I don't think MDC is more concerned with creating reasons for their existence, they already have plenty of reasons for existence. just because the decision they have reached does not jive with what we/you/I may want doesn't make them a bad agency. The agency has moved more and more over the years from, "that sounds like a good idea" to "OK show us some data", the data and studies they have doesn't show the justification for some of the wide ranging solutions some of us may want. I know too many of the MDC biologist types, and to a person they are way more concerned with the resource than with their agency, however as you move up the chain the supervisors etc. know that in order to go to the Commission to request a change you have got to have some data, biological data to show to support why. Simply because a lot of people want to do something and are loud about it, simply doesn't cut it anymore. What if a larger, more vocal group of citizens were to petition the MDC and say we want the MLL dropped to 10" everywhere and the number increased to 10 fish, heck might a huge number of people in favor of it, with no biological backing its not going to happen, regardless of the political pressure. MDC's primary goal is NOT growing the largest smallmouth bass, or even the largest population of smallmouth bass possible. It is to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to enjoy those resources. You're comparing a situation which would have a negative affect on smallmouth (10" MLL) with a situation that woudln't have a negative affect on smallmouth (>12" MLL)- it's apples and oranges. But if most anglers wanted a 10" MLL and it wouldn't harm the state's fisheries, I'd suck it up. I'm not upset MDC isn't doing what I want- I'm irritated MDC's proposals aren't informed by their own investigations. The catfish/noodling debacle is a great example: there's a science-based reason for the noodling ban. There's a science-based reason for gravel mining restrictions. I haven't seen MDC produce a science-based justification for a 12" MLL instead of a 15" MLL. I figure if a 15" MLL would decimate smallmouth populations they wouldn't adopt it on the special management sections. I get that 12" allows some anglers to kill more and smaller bass- but at that point it's not science-based management for the health of the fishery, it's managing angler's attitudes and expectations. And like it or not, increasing minimum length limits was the most frequently cited regulation which would improve smallmouth fisheries. That's MDC's own data. If MDC biologists are going to choose to ignore that fact, they need to explain why. They don't appear inclined to do so, undermining MDC's stated values regarding transparency. I want MDC to make science based decisions, but talk is cheap. Objectivity is one of the most critical elements of scientific investigations. MDC biologists should be using the best available science and angler input to craft regulations- what they shouldn't do is take sides or advocate one management regime simply because it's the path of least resistance. Increasing minimum length limits doesn't deny any Missouri angler the opportunity to catch a smallmouth bass. It doesn't deny any angler the opportunity to harvest smallmouth bass. It is a compromise- between the liberal 12"/6 limit which got us to where we are today and more restrictive slot/18"/strict C&R regs advocated by many anglers. The idea a small number of trophy anglers would be imposing these measures on everyone else is a strawman, and it isn't trophy anglers being intransigent in this scenario. It's seems pretty unlikely that in the 1960s we lucked into a smallmouth management prescription which suits all waters at all times for all time. If that's MDC's position, it raises the question of what purpose smallmouth biologists serve when management prescriptions are set in stone. If that's what smallmouth management in this state means, then at this point I'd rather have four less biologists and four more agents. Gavin and jfrith 2
fishinwrench Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 48 minutes ago, SpoonDog said: It seems pretty unlikely that in the 1960s we lucked into a smallmouth management prescription which suits all waters at all times for all time. If that's MDC's position, it raises the question of what purpose smallmouth biologists serve when management prescriptions are set in stone. If that's what smallmouth management in this state means, then at this point I'd rather have four less biologists and four more agents. 100% agree.
Gavin Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 The STL7? Who are they? Didn't know there was a club. Spoondog hit the nail on the head again. The process appears to be poorly documented, and was not transparent. They why, and the who questions have not been answered. They were very talkative about the Current SMBMA. Then it dissapears? They built up expectations, delivered less, and ran away IMO. Huge Customer Service & PR fail! Brian Jones 1
fishinwrench Posted August 10, 2016 Posted August 10, 2016 1 hour ago, Chief Grey Bear said: This is the Bingo. Nobody but the STL7 has ever said the MDC's goal is "Maximum Sutsatined Harvest". In fact, MDC data shows that relatively few catch and keep fisherman take a full limit every trip. And those fisherman make fewer trips per year than most people here. The thing that MDC data doesn't show, but is a reality, is that probably 80% of catch/keep group doesn't even go fishing prepared to actually harvest fish. They don't have a cooler of ice ready to put the fish in. They throw the fish in the trunk of their car, drive 40+ miles back home, stopping on the way to eat McDonald's, and end up feeding the hot, dry, rigor mortis carcasses to their neighbors cats. They are flippin' idiots wasting something that a whole bunch of us actually care about. jfrith 1
Recommended Posts