New smallmouth and rock bass regs approved

[Chief Grey Bear]

5 minutes ago, Gavin said:

I don't really care what you think OTF.  Those folks know what a smallmouth is, but they don't know smallmouth, IMO. Why the heck were they sampling on marginal smallmouth water like the Black, Castor, Courtois Creek, and the North Fork of the White River? There are smallmouth there...but those streams will never produce size and numbers like the Meramec, Niangua, Gasconade, B. Piney, James, or Eleven Point. The only decent bit of water that they sampled was the Current. And they said they could make it great again, and implied that they had a plan to do so. But, they waffled due to a little pressure from a small group of tournament anglers. I was not impressed and I'll say so. I think they owe folks an apology for their sloppy assumptions, and their inherent biases...Doubt if their work would pass a peer review, but they don't have to worry about that.

 

 

Did you want them to sample the highest quality water??

How would that have worked in your favor?

Im not sure they owe anyone any apologies, but I know some people that probably owe them some.

[fishinwrench]

Employers criticize their employees all the time.  They seldom apologize for it.  ?

[MOPanfisher]

I would bet that their sampling method and system would easily pass a peer review.  Mostly they went into the study with no bias, relying simply on the scientific data.  Their purpose in the regs were to make the best use for everyone, not a specific group or groups.  Is there some inadequacy in some of their methods almost surely, the single best way to know what is in a 100 yard stretch of river is to kill everything and count it, but surprisingly they didn't want to do that.  Also they didn't want to spend the next 20 years try to be more thorough.   Some of us, myself included have an inborn bias about things, doesn't make it biologically sound but doesn't change my feelings.

[Al Agnew]

We've hashed and rehashed this before, but I just want to say that the biologists probably have a pretty good handle on the size structure of the species that they are sampling, in the waters they are sampling.  But as Gavin said, they have sampled some less than excellent smallmouth streams.  They have not done much on the middle Meramec.  They may have done good work on the special management section of the Gasconade, but I'm not sure that they did much on other sections that are as good or better.  But even more of a problem, I don't think they have any idea whatsoever of how good those streams COULD be, because they don't have the baseline data going back far enough to see what they were at their historic best.  Of course, this is only the anecdotal evidence of an angler who has been fishing some of the best streams in the Ozarks for nearly 50 years, but the middle Meramec and Gasconade were MUCH better fishing for big fish back in the 1970s, and far better for numbers as well.  But MDC wasn't paying much attention to those streams (or any others) in those years.  They had studied a few streams, most notably the Courtois, in the 1960s, deciding upon the regulations that we STILL have today, but the Courtois was NOTHING like the middle Meramec or Gasconade in its potential.  They didn't study the Gasconade until the 1990s, and to my knowledge, have never done much on the stretches of the Meramec with the most potential.

Does that make a difference?  I think so.  If you knew how good the best waters once were, you might be a lot more inclined to figure out why they aren't as good now...and by extension, maybe even that the streams they HAVE studied could be better than they are.

But...on the other hand, maybe there isn't much anyone can do to get them back to the level they once were.  The knowledge level and equipment efficiency of today's river anglers is off the charts compared to what it was back then, and there are too many people with their own interests that would scream bloody murder if their particular piece of the pie was curtailed, even if it would make a difference in the quality of angling.  I'm speaking particularly of the tournament anglers and the giggers.  The Current River episode points to the power of the tournament guys, who are understandably unwilling to change or curtail their sport for the possible benefit of the overall angling situation.  And I don't even want to talk about the giggers, most of whom are not the problem, and are just as understandably unwilling to change their sport because of the actions of the few.

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

Anecdotal:

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

"while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact"

 

 

[Gavin]

Chief your like a 4 yr year old asking "Why". Don't have time to waste on this, kids are going to bed, and I've got a couple tax returns to review tonight. Arguing isn't gonna change anyone's mind. Your opinion is what it is, OTF wants more MDC Kool-aid, pan fisher is the voice of reason, and I don't care about the MDC anymore. It is what it is. I'm done.

[Chief Grey Bear]

It's just a fact you have no scientific fact to back up your claim. They do. It's not what you want it to be so you take a page out of the Trump playbook. 

But im the child. Ok.

[ozark trout fisher]

13 minutes ago, Gavin said:

Your opinion is what it is, OTF wants more MDC Kool-aid, pan fisher is the voice of reason, and I don't care about the MDC anymore. It is what it is. I'm done.

In fairness, koolaid is pretty good.

[MOPanfisher]

Hey, how come I have to be the reasonable one.  Go Hillary.

[ozark trout fisher]

Also, sampling crews almost always need help. If you question theit effort/ability...it doesn't hurt to see them action before making sweeping judgements.