Thanks for nothing MDC

[Dan Kreher]

To clarify, it was the MDC itself who was proposing these new/extended special management areas based upon results of past studies that showed more and larger average sized fish in existing special regs areas as well as their more recent reward tagging/exploitation study that strongly indicated that the selected section of Current River's angling quality for SMB would improve markedly under a 15/1 regs regime. And in all cases studied by the MDC in the tagging study their own modeling indicated that both numbers of adult smallmouth bass and average sizes would improve in any of the areas surveyed if implemented. However, since only one of the six areas studied (Current River from Two Rivers to Van Buren) had the right combination of mortality rates (high angler and low natural) would such a change in the regs also increase "yield" or the poundage of smallmouth bass fillets that anglers would be legally able to harvest. That factor -- ensuring equal or greater yield -- seems to have at least equal weighting with the other objective of improving overall angling quality in terms of larger average sized fish, higher angler catch rates, etc.  This is the main problem many folks have with the MDC's overall management philosophy with respect to smallmouth bass. 

Changing the statewide limit to 15"/3 fish would NOT have a negative biological impact on our fisheries. The MDC's vast amount of data  collected over the years strongly indicate that reduced harvest and higher minimum length limits result in higher fish populations, higher average sizes and higher angler catch rates. However, if the MDC is committed to a maximum sustained yield approach afforded by the current 12/6 regs regime across most of the state, they lack the will power to make any such changes. That is why they did not even consider doing such a thing in this round of proposals and public comment periods. They want to take the incremental special regs waters approach but seemingly aren't fully committed to making widespread change across the Ozarks.  Even with the regs changes that will likely be implemented later this month at Commissioners meeting, the vast majority of our smallmouth streams will continue to be managed under the same structure as they have been since the late 1960s/early 1970s. This is hardly a progressive approach.

Rather than rely on the STL 7 -- whoever they are -- why don't you talk with trained biologists intimately familiar with both how the MDC operates and its management program for stream fisheries -- say, someone like retired MDC biologist Spence Turner. He'll set you straight.  The MDC knows what regs will work to improve our fisheries but lack the will power to lead on this issue to make meaningful changes. Angler attitudes and practices have changed markedly since 1970s. The public comments published by the MDC bear that out. 

 

 

 

 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

 I don't think anybody relies on the info coming from the STL7. At least they shouldn't. Not when it comes to conversations such as this.

[top_dollar]

3 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

 I don't think anybody relies on the info coming from the STL7. At least they shouldn't. Not when it comes to conversations such as this.

Correct.....this thread was started to garner attention and start a fight.  It worked well.  

I like to troll also,  but mainly for crappie and walleye.  

 

 

 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

I don't want you all to think that I am against more restrictive regulations. I am not opposed to that at all. But I am also not going to conduct myself like a two-year-old with an attitude because I don't get my way.

 I, in fact wrote in the comment section and  turned in a set of regulations that I thought would benefit the resource, the catch and keep fisherman and the catch and release fisherman. And it would have reduced the creel limit. And it got a little discussion. But they ultimately went in a different direction. I am not upset about it and I'm not going to call them names and belittle them.  That gets nothing done. 

It takes much more then a set of restrictive regulations to produce the world-class fishing so eagerly sought. But that is the path of least resistance and that is the one championed by the most vocal here. 

 

[jtram]

I'll chime in. Compare your smaalmouth visions to that of a deer hunters, where as educating the public does more than regulations ever will. Look at all of the deer pics you see anymore. When I started hunting, you saw very gew good bucks killed, and a pile of basket bucks every year. Fast forward 15 years..... most deer pics you see (including youth) are of solid to huge deer, many more mature (3.5+) than younger. It wasnt the regs that did it. (None where I live). It was education and the explosion of hunting popularity.

[fishinwrench]

Some people think that everything you post on a fishing (BS) forum has to be rooted in hard data and 100% fair, unbiased, and reasonable.   Others feel it's a great place to blow off steam and to dump random erratic thoughts that rattle around in their head.... mostly for entertainment.

I am among the latter.

If sitting in on a conversation here had to be like attending a court hearing you wouldn't hear much outa me, that's for sure.  

[snagged in outlet 3]

C span of fishing sites?

[fishinwrench]

18 minutes ago, snagged in outlet 3 said:

C span of fishing sites?

Ya!  Nothing could be less fair, unbiased, and reasonable than FISHING !   

[MOPanfisher]

DanG I had to agree with that FW.  The vast majority of what is posted on our forum is opinions, beliefs, feelings, preferences and personal biases.  Many many things the MDC does or implements don't agree with my personal biases, but heck many thing I do myself at times don't line up with what my personal feelings are.  Such is life.  Besides if we can't occasionally argue about something it ain't much fun, nobody's mind gets changed and as long as everyone stays if not polite at least not outright hostile then it's all good.

[SpoonDog]

5 hours ago, jtram said:

I'll chime in. Compare your smaalmouth visions to that of a deer hunters, where as educating the public does more than regulations ever will. Look at all of the deer pics you see anymore. When I started hunting, you saw very gew good bucks killed, and a pile of basket bucks every year. Fast forward 15 years..... most deer pics you see (including youth) are of solid to huge deer, many more mature (3.5+) than younger. It wasnt the regs that did it. (None where I live). It was education and the explosion of hunting popularity.

While deer quality regs may not have been established in your area, MDC has did put antler restrictions in about 30 counties. Even though those regs haven't met all the biological goals they were meant to address they were expanded to 60+ counties, due largely to increasing numbers of hunters preferring large bucks over meat for the freezer. Those regulations are reviewed annually to determine whether counties should be added or dropped.

I'd argue there's considerable difference between revisiting antler restrictions annually and revisiting smallmouth length limits...never.  And I'd argue your analogy further highlights the lackadaisical approach to stream smallmouth management in the state.