Tim Smith

Philosophy 1: We affirm the value of smallmouth bass fishing and the right to continue to enjoy and participate in that heritage.

This is about simple practicality. Whatever romanticized notions you have about the free-market, please, please please put them on the shelf when it comes to natural resource management. There is not a free-market option to your local DNR. Period. Privatized fisheries on private land are fine and desirable as a sector of the recreational fisheries market (as long as they don't negatively impact the fisheries around them), but that's not where most of us live. Public fisheries managed for the common good are the only way most people can have a quality fisheries experience. If we fail there, we fail altogether. Your local DNR struggles with all the complexities of ecosystems plus low levels of funding, critical patrons with unrealistic expectations, unmitigated political pressure, schizophrenic job goals and (in recent years) marginal job security. Cut these people a break. In fact, roll up your sleeves and HELP them. Get to know your local district biologist. Offer to help sample. Help them get equpiment. You'll find out things you never knew about your local fisheries and you'll be supporting an organization that's doing the best it can for your local stream.

19. We support governmental agencies and their enforcement of creel, seasonal, and site-specific regulations and profess a desire to work with those agencies to meet future regulatory challenges.

If there is now a general consensus that the philosophies can be on the conservation web page and in the public eye, that’s great. If, as I expect, the ISA follows through with specific programs in line with those philosophies that document will have accomplished its’ goals. I hope the ISA is willing to sponsor that discussion and whatever educational value is contained therein. Given the direction this thread taken, that obviously isn’t going to happen here. I’ll try again by posting specific points from the philosophies on other threads and hopefully those can stay on point. As for closure in the circus that has become this thread… Mike, you are indeed the best Conservation Director the ISA has ever had. I don’t know how many times I have to say that before you don’t think I’m “tearing apart” the work done here. I’m reading your post above and having a very difficult time understanding how a great deal of it relates to the original topic in this thread. I don’t know who you’re arguing with but it isn’t me. Mr. Kast. You are indeed an admirable man. I hope you are enjoying your time as an ISA officer. I was one of the people who advocated strongly on your behalf and I still think that was the right call. However, let’s also be clear that you are barely coherent on this thread. I have already resigned. No one else needs to do that. If you feel I haven’t done enough for conservation, perhaps we should sit down and compare our accomplishments and relative investments of time, effort, personal safety, and finances. I have to make choices about where I invest my energy. Your post provides a more than adequate demonstration of why I've chosen other paths. Scott. I’m glad you want the philosophies posted.

Refreshingly well reasoned, Sir.

Yes...about 10 minutes worth at the mouth of a slough in the middle Kaskaskia. That was also the first fish I ever caught out of a kayak and it was in early March (thus the wet suit).

All good points, Brian and congratulations on the new slot limit. You are absolutely right that one size does not fit all. I think that philosophy was worded so strongly in favor of catch and release because A LOT of good has come with the catch and release ethic. I think there is a legitimate fear in some quarters that if we all tried to decide on our own which streams "needed" harvest, we'd soon have so many opinons (good and bad) that no one would be sure of anything. We're all geniuses on paper but in reality it's pretty hard to craft good fisheries regulation. There's a strong culture of catch and release in most bass fishing circles that is still doing a lot of good for fisheries. It would be important not to undermine that approach to the point that it didn't work. How would you change the wording if it were to be changed?

That was the intention of the original post, Steve. I'd like to see these ideas thought about and hopefully used to anchor the conservation philosophies rather than getting lost in the shuffle over time. This wasn't a contentious issue before and it shouldn't be now. Maybe things will be calmer today.

A discussion/debate is not something to quit over. No one should be contemplating that.

Jim, I'm genuinely sorry you feel this strongly. I can assure you there is no fire here to feed on this side and your negative feelings toward me are not returned on this side. I have fished with you and I know you are an admirable man. I regret you do not feel the same. My agenda here has been straightforward since the first post. It's in the first post. I do want the ISA to genuinely adopt those philosophies and I would like us...if this is still an us...to make it clear that these philosophies articulate our views...or don't. I would genuinely like to have the Philosophies posted on the site, and I was quite sincere when I asked Scott if that was his desire as well. He hasn't answered and I still don't know. Yes, the ISA approved the philosphies. As long as they were appearing in places like the Bulletin and with the information sent out in conservation program, I was ok with that. They were in place. We were headed in a good direction. I do see recent trends that make me question if they are still accepted here. If they are valuable, I'd like to see evidence of that. If Scott agrees they should be on the web page, I'd be genuinely glad to know that. The point is not to upset the balance. The point is to encourage more forceful leadership from the ISA in some of these areas and a wide understanding of those points in the philosophies in the membership and the general public. I don't think you can point out a spot where I have twisted anything here. There has been a bit of debate and it has been respectutful for the most part. The side conservations about "coached" posts and nefarious motivations, yes, those have been discouraging...and somewhat offensive. I can assure you, Jim that conservation is no game to me. I've pressed this issue because I think this is an important exchange. The point is not to upset you. I'm genuinely sorry if you are.

Scott, I hope you'll forgive me for passing over your question and focusing instead.. ..on the fact that it appears you also want the philosophies posted on the web page. Is that the case? If so, that would be some excellent support.

Absolutely, Don. The ISA has a long record of accomplishment that the granting program merely serves to enhance and refine. ...and yes the blog is clear that the rationales were not part of the ISA approval process. It was there before and I've emphasized it recently since it was pointed out that some of my writing isn't entirely PC . Maybe if the list of 19 were welcome on the ISA web site no one would have to go to my blog and have their sensibilities offended.

The ISA does considerably more than that.... 1. The Conservation Granting Program: We've helped a program to establish instream habitat and we've provided resources for biologists to monitor the progress of that restoration. You've supported Trent Thomas' restoration program on the Kaskaskia, scientific inquiries into smallmouth bass physiology and ecology... ...simply by paying for raffle tickets at the Blowout and donating to the fund drive. The granting program allows the officers to prioritize and focus our financial influence instead of being a bobble-headed me-too tag-along. Of course, that kind of initiative requires a vision of what you want to accomplish, which is why the ISA is also focuses on... 2. Member education: The ISA creates a culture of information exchange here on the forum at local meetings and in the Bulletin... 3. Individual member activities: ..and that's especially important because everything that happens in the ISA evolves from individual member initiative. The attitudes and information we take into fishing and conservation directly affect the way we fish, volunteer, and our influence on the environment. I had no intention of prodding Mike specifically to do something on the Apple River when that issue appeared. I just said the ISA should be involved there...and BOOM..there he went. Many others also wrote letters and went to meetings and met with landowners. It would be nice to find the tactics that actually allow us to win a few more of these issues, but the effort was worthwhile. 4. Schmoozing: People respect the efforts we've made. We've been approached by the DNR for input on various issues. We've been approached by Smallmouth Alliances from other states for help lobbying for regulatory issues. We attend and participate in stake-holder meetings. We have conversations at the sporting goods stores and bait shops and informal meetings everywhere. We influence the natural resources constituency every day, and not always with guns blazing. More often it's quiet conversations and respectful informed persuassion during normal every day events. The importance of the values and information that guide all these activities can hardly be overestimated.

His hair jigs don't discriminate either.

Mike, thanks for the leeway. Jeff and John, you're far too kind but thank you. Also check out Brian Waldman's blog (it's linked in the site)...he's miles ahead of me. Mark K...terrific questions. Using this model, yes, there will always be huge grey areas (as well as some fairly significant black and white ones). One thing you might do is to broaden the time scale even more. Think how many glaciations and retreats have we had over the 3 million years Micropterus species have been around. Over that amount of time, climate, habitats and fish ranges can change radically. The species distributions we see now are just one cross-section in a very long pipe. Smallmouth bass have historically occurred in Lake Superior. It seems likely that in warmer climactic periods those fish would have had easy access to the parts of those parks that are in the Lake Superior Drainage. As far as I know, there's no data available to show with certainty how that range has changed over time. However, most of the ranges of the species there overlap extensively with smallmouth bass in other places. They've had time to adapt to each other somewhere in that range. As long as genes for those species are mixing between those sites (and over long long time scales they probably are) the potential for serious problems is reduced. That's vastly different from a stocking in Belize or California where smallmouth bass have had NO evolutionary history with the biota there. The potential for problems from species introductions in places like that is much greater. There was actually an Illinois example where this principle came into play recently. Here's how it played out. The southern part of Illinois has a large gap of several drainages where no smallmouth bass occur. These includ(ed) the Big Muddy. A reservoir on the Big Muddy was recently stocked with smallmouth bass. A local outdoor writer actually quoted me as saying the ISA supported that stocking program. That was a misquoted and the reporter has apologized since. The ISA as a group did not oppose, but also did not support that program. Peer-reviewed data from that drainage show that the native species in the river below that dam are declining, probably because of competition and predation from reservoir fish species. The relative impact from smallmouth in the Big Muddy will probably be minor. A breeding population of smallmouth in silty low gradient stream like the Big Muddy seems unlikely. Smallmouth are already common downstream in the Ohio and fish with Southern Illinois genetics were used for the stocking. As an angler, should you fish that reservoir? Why not. Bon appetite! Hopefully though, our conservation support continues to go elsewhere. A project the ISA has supported for many years is the one run by Trent Thomas on the Kaskaskia River. That project works to conserve a native and struggling population of smallmouth. Trent collects and breeds out native Kaskaskia smallmouth in rearing ponds and then restocks them into the compromised habitats below the Shelbyville dam where reproduction and summer flows can be marginal and Esocid densities from the reservoir are high. Trent is also stocking smallmouth bass above the dam in hopes they will re-establish in the upper Kaskaskia. That project meshes nicely with the philosophies. ------------------------------------------ ...back to the Boundary Waters. The smallmouth don't belong there. Therefore everything should be done to reduce their numbers. Every legal fish caught killed in an effort to reduce numbers? Again, that's a grey area. I don't have data from Boundary Waters to make that call. I'd listen carefully to what area biologists had to say. Not having done that and sitting here with the scant information I have, I'd lean strongly toward catch and release. Or just don't be afraid to have your fill of smallie shore lunches so as to reduce numbers to a level where competition with other specioes wouldn't be an issue? Personally, I don't think I'd creel fish in the Boundary Waters. Until I had good solid information based on data, I don't think I'd start creeling fish anywhere for conservation purposes. If it were possible- do you think it would benefit to set the "way, way back machine" to 1800 ish"? There's no reason to pick a specific time as the "best" time. In the philosophies, "pre-European settlement" is used as a cut off point for native because in general most of the big disruptions in streams have happened since then. That's still a bit arbitrary. That still leaves big grey areas because there was very little data collected until the 20th century. The main goal is to keep species apart that don't coexist well together, leading to extinctions of populations, species or impaired fisheries.

Try here for the bug ID card, Mike. http://www.inhs.uiuc.edu/outreach/bioindcators.html The stream bioindicators give you all you need.

Then I hope that you would also realize that the actual chances that I would game the discussion weren't 50/50... ... .. ...but "0". I don't need Eric or anyone else to act on my behalf here. Yes, people are set in their ways. In this case that's doubly frustrating because there is no debate to be had over micro-evolution. Find the most conservative religious university in the nation and consult the biology and theological faculty there and they will affirm the fact of local adaptation through natural selection (micro-evolution). There's no one to disagree with on this topic. No one is on the other side of this debate. Yet, when people hear "that word", the knee-jerk reactions begin. As a result, topics like local adaptation and genetic conservation aren't generally understood, they're kept off the table and all kinds of mischief and damage are done as a result. The scientific basis for a great deal of conservation biology goes down the tubes when "that word" gets hidden for the sake of political expediency. This is not a minor point. This is the scientific basis for several of the ISA philosophies and a great deal of conservation biology.

I hear you Mike. I know how hard you work for the resource and I respect your views and you as a person. I doubt, in that particular case, that we actually disagree. Almost no one from any religious or biological tradition refutes the role of natural selection in nature (although "macro"-evolution has its' critics and we probably do disagree there). The point is, I would respect you LESS not to argue the point if we did disagree and the point were actually important (and in conservation, its' very important). ...and I can assure you that very few of those points are mine and mine alone. It is true they are uniquely packaged here. Hopefully it is abundantly clear that no one is going to hurt my feelings by debating these points. Please do weigh in.

That's true Rich. It's just a principle. We do, however, interact with people who do have this problem.

Mike, I think you're doing a fine job with the conservation program. Everything there is in capable hands and I'm sure great things are on the horizon. I assumed you would answer those particular questions rather easily and hopefully you didn't perceive them to be a challenge. I don't think Eric intended them to be that way... ...because in fact Eric and I didn't speak about this. I'm slightly disappointed that you might think we had some kind of conspiracy in the works. If Eric reconsidered posting his question that's his decision and I have no problem with it. However the ISA's disposition toward the philosophies and the understandings and applications of those ideas are of great concern to me. The removal of the post heightens my concerns. As the beginning of this thread shows, the philosophies are a document that take some strongly principled stances and have the potential to generate controversy. Rather than avoiding controversy, people need a chance to sort through the ideas in them and think about them and debate them and to know what the principles are behind the conservation decisions that are being made... ...if those are in fact the principles in play.

A post with an important question has been removed from this thread. If the poster took it down, that's fine with me. If an ISA administrator removed it, I'm requesting that it be replaced (and addressed).

Following up on the discussion of last week. Biologists in Lake Powell have been using catch and kill strategy to restructure their population of smallmouth bass. The creel limit for smallmouth bass there is 20 fish (there is no limit for striped bass). Since implementing this management strategy, a dense population of 12 inch fish has given way to a less dense population of larger smallmouth. The size increase of smallmouth bass was correlated with an increase in forage density. http://www.wayneswords.com/gillnet.htm This is not intended to advocate catch and kill smallmouth fisheries in Illinois. Lake Powell is somewhat of a special case. There are probably very few smallmouth bass populations in Illinois so dense as to warrant harvesting. However, these results do show that recreational fisheries can restructure predator fish populations (duh) and reduce pressure on forage populations (in this case Dorosoma species but elsewhere in the west perhaps endangered salmon). In the case of western rivers where smallmouth fisheries co-exist with native salmonid fisheries, the better choice would be to encourage anglers to harvest smallmouth and other non-native predator species. This provides the benefits of a harvest fishery for non-native species, and (hopefully) reduces predation pressure on the native (and declining) salmon and steelhead. Catch and release is but one tool in the conservation arsenal. Context is everything.

Thank you Mark. I should be careful to note, the philosophies were discussed by the officers. The rationales on the other hand were only part of a general discussion and didn't pass any kind of review. The wordings and the ideas put forth in the rationales on the blog are mine alone...and they're worded strongly just to be sure no one misses the point. Anyone's welcome to jump in and debate.

You're probably right that pollution wiped them out of the Dupage. That was a statewide (nationwide) trend during the middle of the 20th century. The more recent stocking in the DuPage merely restored what was there before. ...and I hope you don't think I'm being a hard*ss, Ken, but there's not really any room for "perhaps" in the presence of smallmouth bass in the Dupage around the turn of the century. The Illinois Natural History Survey collections are one of the most important repositories of scientific information about streams and rivers in the Midwest. Stephen Forbes was among the best and most important biologists working in Illinois at that time. That information is solid, specific and scientific. I've seen other people assert (loudly and with conviction) that smallmouth are not native to the Chicago area. Apparently that's a well entrenched local myth, but it's wrong. Smallmouth were in the DuPage around the turn of the 20th century. They probably have a long, long history there and there is every reason to believe that the local biota is adapted to them. That's why the philosophies focus on native fish...because by preserving local assemblages of species the chances a fishery will do harm to other species is greatly reduced.

Hi Ken. People like to say that, but on the scale where it matters it's not really true. If you look at the native range maps for smallmouth bass they cover most of Illinois, including the DuPage. Over the tens of thousands of years that species has been around you can bet they were periodically in the DuPage. Steven Forbes collected them there in 1901. Go here .... http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu:591/INHSColle...fishsearch.html and plug in Microterus dolomieu for the species name, DuPage River for the stream name and Dupage County for the County. When I did it I got 2 records of smallmouth bass, including the one in 1901. http://ellipse.inhs.uiuc.edu:591/INHSCollections/FMPro Populations wink in and out. Our recent experience doesn't mean much because it's a tiny fraction of what has happened in an area.