Thanks for nothing MDC

[Smalliebigs]

6 hours ago, fishinwrench said:

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.  

Ditto

The extension of the MDC management area for Smallies  were extended or put where they were because if they were moved to the areas that have much more potential to grow a bigger smallies it would  mess with the tournaments if you think otherwise  you weren't  at these meetings and talking to the people I was talking  to at them.

It's  all good Britt....we all deserve and need to be able to keep these fish.

Seriously though who is the Stl7?? I can assure you I only speak  for me....any of my friends like Mitch F, Hog Wally, MO Smallies,....that's 4....Al????...then Gavin???? Hahahaha that's only 6

None of these guys want anything  to do with what comes out of my mouth Britt...it's  all me, my words that is.

 It's  all good.....I just want to improve and preserve  some of the coolest and slow growing  indigenous predators in our rivers that are also not only entertaining  to catch but, easy to catch because of their aggressive  nature.

When I get an email  like that from the MDC because I am in contact with fisheries  biologist and Agents in St.Louis,Franklin and Crawford Counties fairly often I have to laugh because I don't like smoke being blown up my arrse....no need to argue it's  just my opinion and I will continue  to be out on our rivers  and streams doing my thing....just want to know who the 7 are hahaha

[ozark trout fisher]

10 hours ago, Chief Grey Bear said:

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. 

 

This pretty much encapsulates how I feel.

 

I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the scope of the changes the MDC made (I'd have to study the data more to come to a conclusion) but on this site it always comes down to some combination of MDC bashing or silly statements along the lines of "well, we might as well start keeping all the smallies we catch, because apparently no one cares." That's all silly and pointless. In many ways the MDC is far better than the vast majority of state conservation agencies. You didn't get your way this time. That's bound to happen. Keep trying, keep advocating for what you want. But act like an adult.

[Al Agnew]

You won't see me bashing MDC very much, but once in a while they deserve it.  Is this one of those times?  I'm not sure.  The one place where they REALLY ended up going against their own data was with the lack of putting a special management area on Current River.  In that case, it does look like they bowed to a small number of local tournament anglers who didn't want to see their own sport forced to change, even though according to their data it would have resulted in better fishing.  In the other things they did or didn't do, their data simply didn't unequivocably support doing so.

I also believe they have resisted putting special management areas on many of the stream stretches most capable of growing more big smallmouth because of the tournament people.  By their very nature, the tournament guys are organized, and though their numbers are small they can be very vocal.  

There can be little doubt that MDC's attitude is still rooted in maximum sustained yield, rather than higher quality fishing, when it comes to stream bass in general, even with the special management areas.  As I said before, George Fleener back in the old days, and Spence Turner at present, are/were both highly-respected biologists who knew/know that the quality of these fisheries would improve significantly with different regulations.  I value their opinions more than those of many on this site, but...there are certainly a lot of years of practical fishing experience on Ozark streams represented here, and while we aren't scientists, we are pretty observant and we're on the water a lot.

Ask any of the biologists, and they will tell you that population numbers are NOT a problem on these rivers.  Even on a poor spawning year, there are more than enough smallmouth fry produced to sustain the numbers.  That would be true even with LESS restrictive regulations.  It is not a matter of sustaining the numbers, it's purely a matter of managing the size structure.  Back when the 12 inch 6 fish limit was first introduced, there were relatively few good anglers on the streams, most if not all of them kept fish, and they were more interested in fish in the freezer than big fish.  Since smallies start spawning at about 10-11 inches in length, the 12 inch limit protected the first time spawners, and that's about all it did, since previous to that, anglers often kept 8-10 inch fish and the numbers of fish bigger than that were not all that great.

Now...well, their own surveys show that most anglers release their fish, and most want bigger fish (or more good sized fish, at least).  So why the continuing bias against quality regulations statewide?  Biggest reason is simply resistance to change, to be honest.  The enforcement people don't like regulation changes, because that means that a lot of people have to be made aware of the regs or they'll be a lot busier writing tickets.  But, there is also that pesky data, which shows that on many streams natural mortality between 12 and 15 inches is great enough that perhaps regulations protecting fish up to 15 inches won't be very effective.  And there is also the very fact that, according to their surveys, relatively few anglers do keep smallmouth as it is, thus, more restrictive regs only protect the relatively few fish that are being kept by the low numbers of meat fishermen.  At least, that's a justification that they can use to resist more restrictive regs.

Maybe they are right.  Though the biologists I mentioned believe that restrictive regs will work as planned, the question is whether the gain in quality is great enough to justify the problems with reg changes.

Actually, the biggest problem I see with the present regs is all in angler perception.  The casual angler and the dedicated meat fisherman sees a 6 fish, 12 inch limit, and it shouts "these fish are for harvest, their value is in protein."  Put on more restrictive regs designed to produce much better quality fish, and it says, "these fish are worth protecting until they grow to larger sizes, they are more valuable in the stream than in the skillet."

[Gavin]

Did get an email from the Head of Fisheries today. He is sticking with the proposal. Not willing to move forward on the Current River at this time. At least we will get allot more 1/15 water this round. Not budging on other issues citing , realistic expectations, lack of data. Don't have any choice but to take all the new 1/15 water offered. Move your wish list to a five or ten year goal and go fish. Convert a few meat heads into anglers while you are at it.

 

[jtram]

4 hours ago, SpoonDog said:

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.

You'd argue? I believe it, but I'll keep catching quality little ol' neosho sm, where I almost never see another soul. Ill also be smiling while I kill quality deer in a no-reg area. Ill also fish with chief, with a smile on, Im that crazy. Can you say that you'd do any of that? 

[Chief Grey Bear]

2 hours ago, Al Agnew said:

 

Now...well, their own surveys show that most anglers release their fish, and most want bigger fish (or more good sized fish, at least).  So why the continuing bias against quality regulations statewide?  

Your first sentence answers your question. The fishing community has changed. More fish are caught and released now than at any other time in history. Data also shows that the bigger fish are there and are there in good numbers. There is no bias. Who would they be biased against? Now you're going to have how many hundreds and hundreds of miles a special regulation? Is it because you didn't get a few miles on the Current that they are biased?

 

 

  

Maybe they are right.  Though the biologists I mentioned believe that restrictive regs will work as planned, the question is whether the gain in quality is great enough to justify the problems with reg changes.

Actually, the biggest problem I see with the present regs is all in angler perception.  The casual angler and the dedicated meat fisherman sees a 6 fish, 12 inch limit, and it shouts "these fish are for harvest, their value is in protein."  Put on more restrictive regs designed to produce much better quality fish, and it says, "these fish are worth protecting until they grow to larger sizes, they are more valuable in the stream than in the skillet."

And here is where the MSA should be stepping up. As I have stated before, the MSA needs to do more than placing a few signs at MDC accesses. It's say right on the web page they do conservation, education, and recreation. They've got the last one down pat. The first two not so much. 

I made the suggestion that they should conduct info sessions at local bait shops. At least one Saturday a month. A different shop every  month. Set it up with the shop and hang a banner with the time and date. That's how you educate. Getting out among the public. 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

45 minutes ago, jtram said:

You'd argue? I believe it, but I'll keep catching quality little ol' neosho sm, where I almost never see another soul. Ill also be smiling while I kill quality deer in a no-reg area. Ill also fish with chief, with a smile on, Im that crazy. Can you say that you'd do any of that? 

Yeah. Those little ol junky Neosho's. The worthless stepchild of the superior Northern. You'd think members of a Smallmouth Alliance would embrace a relatively rare smallmouth that is only found in a small area of the world.

The MDC thinks it's important enough that they are conducting a two year study of them. They are starting the sampling now. 

But I wouldn't know that because I don't "talk with trained biologists intimately familiar with both how the MDC operates and its management program for stream fisheries".

[Flysmallie]

I think the Neosho2 just challenged the STL7 to a dance off. 

[joeD]

(Yawn)

Good Morning!

Did I miss anything?

Right. 

Remember, Missourah is governed by a rural mindset. 

[MOPanfisher]

STL7, Neosho 2, I am feeling left out, I want to be in a group too, how about the slothful 6, or maybe flatulent 5.  I think I could qualify for those.