New smallmouth and rock bass regs approved

[moguy1973]

https://mdc.mo.gov/newsroom/conservation-commission-approves-changes-smallmouth-and-rock-bass-regulations

[mreed81]

Pardon my ignorance, but I need some help clarifying the Rock Bass regulations. It is stated that " The regulation changes also set a statewide length limit of seven inches for rock bass (also called goggle-eye, warmouth, Ozark bass, and shadow bass) and remove the Osage Fork of the Gasconade River from the Rock Bass Special Management areas."

If there is a statewide length limit then why would they remove the Osage Fork and Gasconade River from the special management area? If they are in Missouri would that not fall in the "statewide length limit"?

I don't keep Rock Bass anyway so I don't necessarily care about what the limit is, but the wording seems off to me.

[MOPanfisher]

I believe it was merely to clean up the regs, so that those areas didn't have overlapping regs, and to stick with a state wide restriction.

[Chief Grey Bear]

 

"The regulation changes are based on extensive scientific research related to bass populations and harvest with consideration of public input received, including from nine public meetings held by the Department."

 

Buckle up Cowboys, here it comes! 

[Chief Grey Bear]

1 hour ago, mreed81 said:

Pardon my ignorance, but I need some help clarifying the Rock Bass regulations. It is stated that " The regulation changes also set a statewide length limit of seven inches for rock bass (also called goggle-eye, warmouth, Ozark bass, and shadow bass) and remove the Osage Fork of the Gasconade River from the Rock Bass Special Management areas."

If there is a statewide length limit then why would they remove the Osage Fork and Gasconade River from the special management area? If they are in Missouri would that not fall in the "statewide length limit"?

I don't keep Rock Bass anyway so I don't necessarily care about what the limit is, but the wording seems off to me.

Wording is right on. The Special Managment Areas are now null and void. Previously there were no state wide length limit. Only in the managment areas were there length limits.

What they seem to have left out, by your quote, was the Northern Rock bass. 

[jdmidwest]

"Extensive Research" = Tags with bounties. 

Not really seeing how it will change any "smallmouth management".  Just a new size limit on Goggle Eyes.

[Al Agnew]

Maybe I've just run out of energy on this stuff, but I'm about to give up on ever getting any more really significant regulation changes when it comes to river smallmouth.  Don't get me wrong...I'm happy that the special management areas exist, and I think the Smallmouth Alliance is owed a lot of thanks in getting things to where they are now.  But I don't think it has gone far enough, and I don't think there will be any more real changes in the foreseeable future.  As for the current changes, I'm happy that the regs were extended the rest of the length of Big River, my home stream...that makes it the MOST protected smallmouth stream in the state, the longest one where the entire stream is under the 1 fish 15 inch limit--I just hope it's enforced.  And I'm happy with the extension on the Big Piney...it just makes sense.  The extension on the Meramec is window dressing--it extends it up into the already protected trout water, where smallmouth are seldom fished for except around the spring in the winter, and where they aren't all that plentiful much of the year.  I am NOT happy with changing the 18 inch limit to 15 inches on the Gasconade and Jacks Fork.  And I'm really unhappy about ignoring their own studies that show that regs on Current River would have really done a lot of good, simply because the Current River tournament guys screamed about it because it would change the way they did tournaments.

Smallmouth fishing in the Ozarks is what it is.  It's pretty darned good, but it could be better if we had the will to make it so.  But there are too many others that have different priorities.

The next big battle that I'm afraid we're going to have to fight is for access.  Way too many accesses being shut down, especially bridge crossings that have traditionally been used.  The Mineral Fork now has one public access over its whole length, since apparently you now cannot use either the F Highway crossing or the 47 Highway crossing.  Big River has no good public access now between the Bone Hole park in Desloge and St. Francois Park, a distance of more than 15 miles, and no free public access between the Park and Highway 21, a distance of 17 miles or so.  Those are just a couple of places that I float all the time (and I have my own little private or secret accesses on them).

[Smalliebigs]

1 hour ago, Al Agnew said:

Maybe I've just run out of energy on this stuff, but I'm about to give up on ever getting any more really significant regulation changes when it comes to river smallmouth.  Don't get me wrong...I'm happy that the special management areas exist, and I think the Smallmouth Alliance is owed a lot of thanks in getting things to where they are now.  But I don't think it has gone far enough, and I don't think there will be any more real changes in the foreseeable future.  As for the current changes, I'm happy that the regs were extended the rest of the length of Big River, my home stream...that makes it the MOST protected smallmouth stream in the state, the longest one where the entire stream is under the 1 fish 15 inch limit--I just hope it's enforced.  And I'm happy with the extension on the Big Piney...it just makes sense.  The extension on the Meramec is window dressing--it extends it up into the already protected trout water, where smallmouth are seldom fished for except around the spring in the winter, and where they aren't all that plentiful much of the year.  I am NOT happy with changing the 18 inch limit to 15 inches on the Gasconade and Jacks Fork.  And I'm really unhappy about ignoring their own studies that show that regs on Current River would have really done a lot of good, simply because the Current River tournament guys screamed about it because it would change the way they did tournaments.

Smallmouth fishing in the Ozarks is what it is.  It's pretty darned good, but it could be better if we had the will to make it so.  But there are too many others that have different priorities.

The next big battle that I'm afraid we're going to have to fight is for access.  Way too many accesses being shut down, especially bridge crossings that have traditionally been used.  The Mineral Fork now has one public access over its whole length, since apparently you now cannot use either the F Highway crossing or the 47 Highway crossing.  Big River has no good public access now between the Bone Hole park in Desloge and St. Francois Park, a distance of more than 15 miles, and no free public access between the Park and Highway 21, a distance of 17 miles or so.  Those are just a couple of places that I float all the time (and I have my own little private or secret accesses on them).

Agreed on all counts Al......lowering the length in a management area from 18 to 15 seems like they are catering to people who want to keep a bass to fillet.

 The Current river thing is disgraceful and shows that the MDC will bow down and cater to a special interest group.

IMO what they did to the Big River should have been done to every stream in the state other than leaving the length limit at 18 instead of lowering it to 15 but, that is just the opinion of a washed up river freak who has been paddling every stream, creek and ditch I can get my old but into.......the access thing is very scary Al......also I hope you and Mary have a wonderful Christmas and relish in the fact that she faced off against Cancer and won

Have a Merry Christmas Al

[mreed81]

Not to rub salt on any wounds but there is a creek South of Indianapolis close to where my wife and I visit a couple times a year and the regs really surprised me there. The regulation/limit for this creek is 1 Smallmouth, minimum 20" per angler.

[Smallieguy87]

On 12/21/2016 at 9:43 AM, Smalliebigs said:

Agreed on all counts Al......lowering the length in a management area from 18 to 15 seems like they are catering to people who want to keep a bass to fillet.

 The Current river thing is disgraceful and shows that the MDC will bow down and cater to a special interest group.

IMO what they did to the Big River should have been done to every stream in the state other than leaving the length limit at 18 instead of lowering it to 15 but, that is just the opinion of a washed up river freak who has been paddling every stream, creek and ditch I can get my old but into.......the access thing is very scary Al......also I hope you and Mary have a wonderful Christmas and relish in the fact that she faced off against Cancer and won

Have a Merry Christmas Al

Both Mineral fork and the Big river our mainly were do i most of my smallmouth fishing. I had been by F hwy bridge recently and they certainly are towing people when they see vehicles on the shoulder. I put in another call to our local law enforcement and they say it has to do with people partying and i don't doubt that but that's a small sample group and i don't understand why the section needs to be blocked off to everyone simply because a few groups party under the bridge. You have to know people to get decent access to either big river or mineral fork anymore. I'm also not a fan of the 15' requirement. If you want great smallmouth fishing then i personally feel the 18' length limit is the way to go. The main reason that i see this as a big deal is that larger smallmouth will typically have more successful spawns and will typically spawn a little earlier. They're also more likely to survive during and post spawn then smaller smallmouth. Some may disagree but honestly we all seem to have a common goal and that's a better fishing by providing safe guards and better conditions for smallouth to propagate.