big Ozark river smallmouths

[Crippled Caddis]

< It's sad to see a guy walking up a bank with legal size smallies.>

Ain't dat de' truf!;o(

[Al Agnew]

Since I was figuring up all this, I decided to figure up numbers as well as big ones. I don't always keep track of exact numbers of fish I catch, but since I do it quite often, I think I'm a pretty good guesser when I don't keep exact track...maybe within 10% or so of the actual number caught. These numbers include bass only, but include largemouth and spotted bass as well as smallmouths. Also, I consider a trip of less than about 5 hours to be a half-day trip, and I also consider a trip that was more of a social float with non-anglers involved to be a half day trip for statistical purposes. When I fish with others in the same canoe or boat, I count all fish brought to the canoe, no matter who catches them. With all that in mind...

In the last 10 years, I've fished a total of 210 days for Ozark river smallmouths. I've caught somewhere around 9790 fish. That averages out to 47 fish per day. That also includes winter trips, which usually skew the average downwards since you seldom catch the numbers in the winter that you do in warm weather.

During that time, I had one trip where I was actually skunked, and another trip where I only caught one fish. The most fish caught in a single day during that time was 210 (and yes, I did keep track that day). There were seven more days when I caught over 100 fish, including a 170 fish day and a 160 fish day on the same stream where I caught 210. There were 18 more days when I caught over 75.

Like I said before, I fish Big River more than any other stream. I've divided this river into what I consider "upper", which is marginally canoeable, "middle", which is usually canoeable, and "lower", which is big enough for some jetboating.

In the "upper" sections, I spent 49 days during the warm seasons (spring through fall), caught 2260 fish more or less, which averages out to 46 fish per day.

In "middle" sections, I spent 22 warm weather days, caught 1350 fish--62 fish per trip.

In "lower" sections, I only spent 6.5 warm weather days, and caught 188 fish--29 fish per day.

This illustrates a number of things. The lower sections get a lot of fishing pressure and also quite a bit of gigging pressure. Part of the the difference could be that I don't spend enough time down there to really know the river as well, but I spent a LOT of time in those sections in earlier years. I think it's a lot more due to fishing pressure and illegal gigging.

The "middle" sections have the poorest access and are too small for jet boats. I think that explains the much better fishing. However, in the last few years the smallmouth fishing has really declined on those sections, due mainly to the encroachment of spotted bass.

The upper sections are civilized water in the old Lead Belt area, and although that's where I grew up fishing and still like to fish, it gets a lot of pressure and the habitat is really pretty sorry due to the effects of the former lead mining.

The Meramec River is also illustrative of the difference in different sections due to fishing and gigging pressure. The "lower" Meramec is jetboatable year-round and gets a LOT of boat traffic. I've averaged 20 fish per day on it. The "middle" Meramec is big enough for jetboats but often gets too low for safe boating in the summer. It sees a tremendous amount of summertime canoe, raft, kayak, and tube traffic, however. Still, there are a couple of pieces of it that seem to hold a lot of fish, and I've had a couple of 100+ fish days on those sections. Overall, my average is 35 fish per day, but my warm weather average is 66 fish per day.

The upper river gets less traffic, but also seems to be suffering from some otter depredation. I've averaged 30 fish per day on it.

That stream where I've had the 170-210 fish days? Average on it in 6.5 days of fishing is 124 fish per day.

My favorite close to home wading creek--72 fish per day.

Another favorite wading creek, a little farther away however--88 fish per day average.

Another favorite wading creek--94 fish per day.

I'm well aware of the fragile nature of these creeks. I will not tell anybody else where they are. I will not take anybody else on them unless I'm absolutely certain I can trust them to keep the location secret. And I don't fish them myself more than a couple of times a year, since even catch and release, when you're talking those kind of numbers, kills some fish.

Of the streams I've fished more than one day in that 10 year period, in 13 of them I averaged less than 50 fish per day, and in 11 of them I averaged more than 50.

In the 10 year period I fished a total of 31 different Ozark streams.

[Al Agnew]

So...in the other thread I said offhand that 50 fish per day is about average for a good angler. My records show that I've averaged 47 per day, so I guess I was pretty close. Funny how you tend to remember the good days, 75 or more fish, and not so much the bad ones.

Has fishing gotten better in the last 10 years? Yes and no. There have been improvements on some streams and some stream sections. I think the whole jet boat issue is interesting...back in the 1980s when jetboats first came onto the scene, the fishing declined abruptly, and I'm convinced it was mainly because of jet boat wakes disturbing spawning and silting up nests, since the numbers of little fish dropped while numbers of adults didn't for several years, and this happened only on the larger streams I fished. Something was screwing up spawning ONLY on larger streams. However, I think the fish eventually adapted, and I don't think spawning is suffering so much now as it was, while fishing and gigging pressure is keeping the numbers of LARGE fish depressed on the bigger rivers.

Otters? I've seen some evidence of otter damage, especially on the upper Big Piney and Roubidoux, but I don't think it's the sole reason for declining fishing on these streams. And I know of some streams that have thriving populations of otters and plenty of smallmouths.

Habitat destruction? Yep, on some streams it's getting worse all the time, and on others it's improving. I fish some streams that have really poor habitat BUT have very good fishing. Smallies can get by in marginal habitat if they aren't pressured. And even in great habitat, fishing and gigging pressure can depress the fishing.

Spotted bass. Big River has REALLY suffered from spotted bass invasion. The spots are now up to the Desloge area and still moving upstream. Much of the river below Desloge is spotted bass water, with smallmouths much in the minority of the bass population. The Bourbeuse is the same. The Meramec below Meramec State Park is also suffering. However, I've seen some evidence in the last couple of years that the spots are reaching an equilibrium with smallmouths in the Meramec river system, and the smallies are actually increasing a bit in the spotted bass sections. I'm not sure for the reason for this. It could be the regulations removing most protection from spotted bass. It could be that something, disease or parasites maybe, have impacted the spots--they tend to be VERY heavily infested with the yellow worms, for instance. Who knows?

Back to big fish.

In my opinion, we need two main things to happen in order to increase the numbers of big Ozark smallies. One--MUCH better enforcement of gigging laws. It's a real shame that just a few illegal giggers can so severely impact the numbers of big smallmouths. All it takes is one renegade going down the river on a night when the big smallies are out, and not many of them will escape. Opening the gigging season in September is a mistake, in my opinion, because smallmouths at that time (up until mid-October) are active at night, out in relatively shallow water where they can be easy targets. Later in the winter, they tend to be less active at night and in deeper water close to cover.

Second--we need regulations that really work toward increasing the numbers of big fish. The one fish/15 inch length limit in effect on most of the special management areas isn't going to do it. It increases the numbers of fish up to 15 inches, without really protecting the 18 inch plus fish that much. Even the one fish/18 inch limit doesn't quite do it, in my opinion, because what you're doing there is increasing the numbers of fish up to 18 inches, and maybe there are really TOO many smaller fish in some of those streams. Maybe they are giving the big ones too much competition for food and slowing their growth rates. I think that, if you want to have lots of BIG smallies, maybe a slot limit, something like 3 fish under 15 inches and one over 20, would work better. Or maybe a reverse limit...you can't keep anything over 16 or 17 inches. For those who really want to keep a true trophy now and then, do something like Alaska does with some of their salmon fisheries...you have a punch card thing on your license. You could keep ONE big smallmouth per year. The minute you caught one you decided was worth keeping, you would punch and date your license. If you were caught with a smallmouth over the maximum length with an unpunched license or a punched license with a date different from that day, you would be in violation.

There are still areas of the Ozarks where the catch and keep mentality just doesn't fit the present day fishery. Too many people are still killing too many smallmouths. On the other hand, there are other areas where, probably, too few of the smaller fish are being kept. You can't have one size fits all regs when it comes to Ozark streams.

I've often pondered the difference between smallmouth streams and trout streams. I've fished some of the most famous and most heavily fished wild trout streams out West, like the San Juan and Bighorn. They get more pressure than any Ozark smallie stream, yet if you know what you're doing, you can catch PLENTY of big trout in them. It seems like, even on smallie streams where most anglers catch and release, too much fishing pressure really makes the fishing tough. Are more smallies than we think suffering delayed mortality from catch and release? Are smallies better able to learn to avoid being caught after they've been caught several times? Or are there more catch and keep anglers than we think? Or is it mostly illegal gigging? Whatever it is, the larger Ozark streams that get a lot of pressure are a shadow of what they were 20 years ago, in my opinion.

[Kicknbass]

Wow......

A couple of great post Al.

I agree with most all of what you have stated. The 12" min 6 fish limit on the majority of streams is a joke. We have some of the best stream SMB fishing in the the country and should promote and protect the resource better as a state. I would like to the streams managed much more like the trout streams to allow the SMB to grow to the sizes that they are capable.

I think the MDC's regs on the trophey SMB waters have been fairly successful and should be used on most if not all SMB streams. I do agree that a slot limit may be a better tool than a minimum limit.

The one stream that is near and dear to my heart is the Current river. I spend most of my SMB fishing on this stream. It has great fishing, but the size of the fish are not what the could be. I have sent several emails to the MDC and visited a couple of the meeting for the ONSR promoting the idea of a trophey section on the Current. This is Missouri's jewel but when it comes to fishing regs. It is just another stream nothing special.

I enjoy gigging, and would not like to see the sport illimated, but I agree that in some streams, the Sept 15 - Jan 15 time frame puts a strain on the resource. The old time frame of Oct 1 - Dec 15 was plenty of time to gig.

Thanks for your post.

[hank franklin]

Wow, thanks for the great information. Wish I had something to add. I kind of agree with you on the spotted bass and smallmouth numbers starting to even out, at least on the Meramec watershed. We saw a period a few years back where spotteds seemed much more common. On more recent trips we haven't seen as many. Though we don't keep close records (maybe we should start) I would estimate spotteds were about 75 percent of the catch on the Meramec, Bourbeuse and Big from say 2001-05. In the last couple years it's closer to 50-50 and on a few trips smallies were much more prevalent. Could be a lot of reasons for that however, as our "sample size" (number of serious fishing trips) is only about 10 or so a year.

We've also seen evidence that spotteds are getting bigger. We used to catch mostly dinky ones but their average size definitely seems to be increasing. I really feel the catch and kill encouragement on spotteds comes into play here. We've both kept several limits of spotteds, no matter how small.

We've seen spotteds above Tea Access on the Bourbeuse and above Maramec Spring on the Meramec.

Regarding the Big Fish question, I've fished Ozark streams consistently for close to 15 years and my biggest smallie is still just 18 inches.

Thanks again for all the great info....

[Flysmallie]

The 12" min 6 fish limit on the majority of streams is a joke. We have some of the best stream SMB fishing in the the country and should promote and protect the resource better as a state. I would like to the streams managed much more like the trout streams to allow the SMB to grow to the sizes that they are capable.

I think the MDC's regs on the trophey SMB waters have been fairly successful and should be used on most if not all SMB streams. I do agree that a slot limit may be a better tool than a minimum limit.

I agree that the minimum's need to be changed but I do not have an educated opinion about what it should be. I have only seen one smallmouth over 20 inches caught out of our streams. A guy had it in a five gallon bucket trying to give it away. When I asked why he didn't release it, he said that he had never caught a smallie that size and he wasn't letting it go. I still kick myself for not taking the fish and releasing it after he left. I measured the fish and it was just short of 21". However, I have seen at least one more that was as long, if not larger, on that same stretch of stream.

I have also seen the stringers with short fish on them as well as the remains of fish that were cleaned and obviously too short. It seems that no matter what we do to make things better, we are fighting a losing battle amongst those who think they are above the regulations. Plus the fact that I see more and more fat and happy otters each year.

Besides all these problems, there are still some quality fish left in our streams. They do seem to be getting smarter and harder to catch though. One thing that you need to do to catch better quality fish is be able to change your style of fishing. I have friends that will only throw a white rooster tail or little crawdad crankbait. They do catch a lot of fish and the occasional 15" to 16" fish. But how many people do you see on our streams fishing the same way. Al's information has showed us that he has caught a lot of fish on a spinnerbait that he created, it's his confidence bait, but it's also unique. You have to find a bait that these fish haven't seen a million times. I've only been fishing our streams for smallmouth for about 6 years, but I spent a lot of time chasing them on our lakes long before that. One thing that I figured out on the lakes is that a lot of people were doing the same things and getting the same results. Once I changed my tactics and style of smallmouth fishing I was able to consistently catch better quality smallmouth on the lake. Once I developed the same mindset for the streams the quality of those fish went up as well.

A smallmouth is a very aggressive fish. Most people think that is a no brainer but I don't think most understand how agressive they really are. Once while fishing my favorite smallie waters on Stockton my Dad and I saw several smallies chasing shad close to shore. We saw a smallmouth chasing a shad so hard that he actually ran himself about five foot up on the bank and landed on the backside of a huge rock, no chance of getting back to the water. I beached the boat and put him back. My dad thought I was nuts, but a fish like that deserves to live. But that is what I mean by really agressive, they will eat most anything and I don't think they worry too much about the size of it either. If you want to catch quality fish you have to throw something bigger than a 1/8 oz. rooster tail.

I guess my point is to change it up a bit if you are not catching the quality fish that you think you should. Yes it is a lot of fun to catch a lot of fish, but you can increase the quality and still keep the numbers if you find the right thing. I mostly flyfish for smallmouth these days, but I can gaurantee you that the flies that you find in my fly box are not ones that you would think you would find. Last year I fished a lot of carolina rigged worm flies and a shakey head style fly. I'm not just using plastics for these on a fly rod, these flies work much better than plastics. I also love using poppers, but you won't find me using deer hair poppers very often either.

I would have to agree that the quality of the fish in our streams is not what it used to be, but remember there are still some quality fish out there. Just because you aren't catching as many does not necessarily mean they are not there, it may just mean that you need to change your offering or style.

And if you are so lucky to catch a monster smallie in our streams, take a couple of pictures and let it go to fight another day.

[jdmidwest]

I was under the impression that the MDC was going to put more restrictions on the smallmouth waters. They started the surveys and imposed them on rivers like 11PT and 10 Mile then it seems like they just dropped the ball. There could be a statewide limit of 1 fish 15" or higher to help. I have notice fishing improving on these streams somewhat.

[Al Agnew]

You're right that the fishing has improved on at least some of the streams under special management. However, even MDC will admit that the results have been somewhat mixed. Some have improved in overall numbers, some have improved on numbers of fish under the minimum length. On some, growth rates have slowed. Like I said before, if you want to improve numbers of decent fish, the one fish 15 inch limit is fine. Also, I you're wanting to protect smallies in streams with spotted bass invasion, that'll do it combined with liberal limits on spots. But I don't think you'll get significantly more really big fish under those regs.

MDC seems to work by putting on a few regs, watching them to see what the results and the reaction by the public are, then putting on a few more. They have always had an aversion, based on the wants of the enforcement division, to getting too complicated with the regs, and also have had an aversion to regs more restrictive than absolutely necessary. If it was left up to the biologists in charge, there would be more restrictive regs on more streams, but they have to work with the enforcement people and have to answer to the commissioners, who tend to get complaints from the public whenever a reg is the least bit unpopular.

I think we just need more creative regs, like the slot limit or punch card/trophy ideas. And, instead of having a one size fits all 6 fish 12 inch limit, we should have a MUCH more restrictive basic reg to protect the smaller, more fragile creeks. Maybe then have more liberal regs on some of the larger streams to satisfy the meat fishermen. But it seems to me that we should be managing a lot more stream sections for big fish, and the slot limits could satisfy the meat fishermen while still putting more protection on the big ones.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Al its obvious that your percentage of MAA fish caught per trip in the winter is extremely high in comparison to other months, what do you attribute this too?

[Crippled Caddis]

First:

Thanks to Al for taking the time and making the not inconsiderable effort to share his records, expertise, wisdom and 'ponderings' on a subject as obviously dear to his heart as my own.

Second:

FWIW, my own feeling is that habitat alteration is by far the leading cause in the deteriating Smallmouth fisheries of the Ozarks. The alterations wrought by the ever-growing population of the region can only grow worse with time without a fundamental sea change in the way the public views and treats the world around us. I simply don't foresee that being likely for a couple of reasons. The most basic being the resource exploitive nature of the economy of the Ozarks since the advent of European influence in the region. The first European settlers to the region at first took up the aboriginal hunter/gatherer lifestyle in order to assure basic survival. That survival mode mindset is now so thoroughly ingrained in the Ozark psyche that the taking of fish and game is done without regard to the health of the resource. It is very much a "take it while you can" attitude that hearkens to times that literally starved many to death or out of the region starting with the very first settlers, becoming a crucial, and cruel, fact in post Civil War reconstruction and hitting another generation within less than a century with the advent of the Depression era that lingered on the Ozard Plateau well into the 50s of the past century. It will require the re-education of several generations to reprogram that way of thought even if the reality that caused it doesn't reoccur as is all-too-likely as man outbreeds his food base.

Once survival was relatively assured the profit principle turned to exploiting such natural resources as were available in order to acquire the cash neccessary to rise above the most basic survival level. In the Ozarks that meant one of two things----timber or minerals since farming the poor soils was mostly limited to subsistance level agriculture except in the few and limited fertile river floodplains. As Al notes the exploitation of the leadbelt (the only signifigant exploitable mineral except for the rocks themselves) has been the cause of mass habitat alteration inimitable to fish and wildlife in every area it has touched. But it can't hold a candle to the changes wrought by timbering if for no other reason than the extent of the geographical area it affected in comparison to mining. And while herculean labors (and environmental damage) were performed by men, mules and crosscut saws in pursuit of profit by both individuals and a rapacious lumber industry it was as nothing compared to what has happened since WW2. The almost total rape of the eco-systems of the Ozark Plateau subsequent to the arrival of the chainsaw and the Caterpillar removed the canopy from the streams that held back the brutality of the sun. The denuding of the hillsides allowed the deep forest duff build-up that acted as a sponge to hold the rains back and slowly release them to the aquifers to be themselves washed down the steep slopes into the streams, followed soon by the tiny amount of soil that had been slowly building between the ancient rocks for uncounted eons. Both duff and soil soon choked the gravels, sufficating the spawning beds of both fish and the insects at the base of the food chain. But even those intrusive gravels were soon scoured by the floods resulting from the missing duff that no longer slowed the effect of rains on the hillsides. More gravel and rock soon followed duff and soil into the streambeds, shallowing and choking the deep pools, allowing the effects of sun and flood to further degrade the habitat. Streams of clear, cold sparkling waters running through riffle and pool within the memory of living man now are faint, sad ghosts of the systems that once nurtured flourishing aquatic communities. Without the duff to sponge up, hold back and slowly release the rainfall to recharge the aquifers the groundwater levels were so reduced that the springs that once maintained both flows and temperatures to levels conducive to the health of the historic eco-systems of the streams simple ceased to flow. How many old-timers have you heard tell of springs that once gushed forth in what are now arid gulleys?

But the streams had hardly had time to adjust to the new reality before man once more assaulted them. Demand for paved roads to replace the ofttimes impassable and always dusty gravel lanes and roads was fueled by the new prosperity that brought tourist dollars to the region and sufficient income to area residents to allow them to buy shiny new modes of transport that they wanted to KEEP shiny. So gravel washing operations sprang up on the streams to feed the insatiable hunger for gravel to feed the pavers. No efforts were made, or even contemplated, to do other than return the silt washed from the gravel to the stream. Those aquatic lifeforms not already wiped out or brought to the point of extinction were smothered and suffocated under a burden of silt that literally killed even the aquatic vegetation that had once provided harbor, safety, grazing and reproductive habitat for the benthic organisms from which sprang all higher lifeforms in the aquatic chain. While gravel washing didn't happen in all of the streams it did in far too many of the very best and Ozark sportsmen still fight a losing battle on Crooked Creek in North Arkansas, once the most productive and renowned Smallmouth fishery of the entire region.

It's a bleak and sad picture I paint, made even worse by the influx of ever more people to the region. Each one, perhaps unintentionally and inadvertantly, adds to the burden of environmental alteration and degradation by their very presence. It is unavoidable. I number myself among that horde. We all leave footprints of one sort or another, virtually all of which sully the breast of 'Mother Nature' in greater or lesser degree. In some measure we are all guilty of loving the resource to death no matter how pure or laudable our intent. Until man heeds the injunction to husband the earth by He who gave it to us it will only get worse. The increasing secularization of our society makes that prospect grow dimmer each day.

That it is possible to reverse the damage wrought by the hand of man is undeniable. One has only to look at the evidence. The areas that are now protected such as the Current & Jacks Fork, 11 Point, Buffalo and the Irish Wilderness were the first areas decimated by man. The supreme irony is that it was that ruin that has saved them. Having extracted the last $ of profit from the timber and minerals business interests abandoned them and they reverted to state or federal entities simply because they had became so 'worthless' that the owners no longer paid the taxes. They were abandoned and forgotten. By both man and government. And with man out of the equation nature reclaimed them, time healed them and man finally awoke to the splendor to which they had returned and set them aside as worth saving. How sad that the splendor wasn't recognized and set aside before the rape. Perhaps more penetratingly---how long before it is allowed to resume? CC