Missouri Register, Volume 39, No. 02, January 15, 2014, Pages 187-426

• Jurisdiction: Missouri
• Library: Missouri Register
• Published date: 15 January 2014
• Year: 2014

Title 2—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Division 80—State Milk Board

Chapter 2—Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Regulations

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the State Milk Board under section

196.939, RSMo 2000, the board amends a rule as follows:

2 CSR 80-2.050 Inspection Frequency and Procedure is amended.

A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed

amendment was published in the Missouri Register on September 3,

2013 (38 MoReg 1363). No changes have been made in the text of

the proposed amendment, so it is not reprinted here. This proposed

amendment becomes effective thirty (30) days after publication in the

Code of State Regulations.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: No comments were received.

Title 2—DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Division 80—State Milk Board

Chapter 5—Inspections

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the State Milk Board under section

196.939, RSMo 2000, the board amends a rule as follows:

2 CSR 80-5.010 Inspection Fees is amended.

A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed

amendment was published in the Missouri Register on September 3,

2013 (38 MoReg 1363). No changes have been made in the text of

the proposed amendment, so it is not reprinted here. This proposed

amendment becomes effective thirty (30) days after publication in the

Code of State Regulations.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: No comments were received.

Title 3—DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Division 10—Conservation Commission

Chapter 3—Wildlife Code: Monetary Values of Fish and

Wildlife

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the Conservation Commission under sec-

tions 40 and 45 of Art. IV, Mo. Const., the commission amends a

rule as follows:

3 CSR 10-3.010 Monetary Values Established for Fish and

Wildlife is amended.

A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed

amendment was published in the Missouri Register on November 1,

2013 (38 MoReg 1742). No changes have been made in the text of

the proposed amendment, so it is not reprinted here. This proposed

amendment becomes effective March 1, 2014.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: No comments were received.

Title 3—DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Division 10—Conservation Commission

Chapter 4—Wildlife Code: General Provisions

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the Conservation Commission under sec-

tions 40 and 45 of Art. IV, Mo. Const., the commission amends a

rule as follows:

3 CSR 10-4.130 Owner May Protect Property; Public Safety

is amended.

A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed

amendment was published in the Missouri Register on November 1,

2013 (38 MoReg 1742). No changes have been made in the text of

the proposed amendment, so it is not reprinted here. This proposed

amendment becomes effective March 1, 2014.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: No comments were received.

Title 3—DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Division 10—Conservation Commission

Chapter 5—Wildlife Code: Permits

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the Conservation Commission under sec-

tions 40 and 45 of Art. IV, Mo. Const., the commission amends a

rule as follows:

3 CSR 10-5.430 Trout Permit is amended.

A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed

amendment was published in the Missouri Register on November 1,

253

Orders of Rulemaking

This section will contain the final text of the rules proposed

by agencies. The order of rulemaking is required to con-

tain a citation to the legal authority upon which the order of

rulemaking is based; reference to the date and page or pages

where the notice of proposed rulemaking was published in

the Missouri Register; an explanation of any change between

the text of the rule as contained in the notice of proposed rule-

making and the text of the rule as finally adopted, together

with the reason for any such change; and the full text of any

section or subsection of the rule as adopted which has been

changed from that contained in the notice of proposed rule-

making. The effective date of the rule shall be not less than

thirty (30) days after the date of publication of the revision to

the Code of State Regulations.

The agency is also required to make a brief summary of

the general nature and extent of comments submitted in

support of or opposition to the proposed rule and a concise

summary of the testimony presented at the hearing, if any,

held in connection with the rulemaking, together with a con-

cise summary of the agency’s findings with respect to the

merits of any such testimony or comments which are

opposed in whole or in part to the proposed rule. The ninety-

(90-) day period during which an agency shall file its Order of

Rulemaking for publication in the Missouri Register begins

either: 1) after the hearing on the Proposed Rulemaking is

held; or 2) at the end of the time for submission of comments

to the agency. During this period, the agency shall file with the

secretary of state the order of rulemaking, either putting the

proposed rule into effect, with or without further changes, or

withdrawing the proposed rule.

January 15, 2014

Vol. 39, No. 2 MISSOURI

REGISTER

Previous Section

Previous Section

January 15, 2014

Vol. 39, No. 2

2013 (38 MoReg 1742). No changes have been made in the text of

the proposed amendment, so it is not reprinted here. This proposed

amendment becomes effective March 1, 2014.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: No comments were received.

Title 3—DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Division 10—Conservation Commission

Chapter 6—Wildlife Code: Sport Fishing: Seasons,

Methods, Limits

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the Conservation Commission under sec-

tions 40 and 45 of Art. IV, Mo. Const., the commission amends a

rule as follows:

3 CSR 10-6.510 Channel Catfish, Blue Catfish, Flathead Catfish

is amended.

A notice of proposed rulemaking containing the text of the proposed

amendment was published in the Missouri Register on November 1,

2013 (38 MoReg 1742–1743). No changes have been made in the

text of the proposed amendment, so it is not reprinted here. This pro-

posed amendment becomes effective March 1, 2014.

SUMMARY OF COMMENTS: The Conservation Commission

received

one hundred thirty (130) comments to the proposed amend-

ment.

Forty (40) individuals voicing support for the change shared their

concerns regarding the decline in the average si ze of blue catfish

taken from Lake of the Ozarks and Truman Lake.Many indicated

that they would like to see larger, trophy-sized catfish in Missouri

and voiced support for implementation of similar regulations

statewide.

Ninety (90) individuals voicing opposition to the amendment indi-

cated that fish within the restricted slot limit are the best to eat and

represent a major source of food for citizens.Many indicated that

there are plenty of fish in those lakes and several voiced concern that

the changes may hurt the local economy and tourism. Some indicat-

ed their belief that an increase in larger blue catfish will result in a

reduction in the crappie population.

RESPONSE: After carefully reviewing comments submitted by cit-

izens, the Conservation Commission will move forward to establish

a twenty-six inch to thirty-four inch (26"–34") protected slot with a

limit of ten (10) fish daily, to include two (2) fish over the slot, on

Lake of the Ozarks, Truman Lake, and their tributaries for the fol-

lowing reasons:

• Lake of the Ozarks and Truman Lake have a long history of pro-

viding high quality angling for blue catfish. However, excessive har-

vest of intermediate to large-sized blue catfish has resulted in a

decline in the quality of the blue catfish fishery. Beginning in the

early 1990s, input from anglers and department staff raised concern

about the declining number of large blue catfish in both reservoirs.

In a 2002 Statewide Catfish Angler Survey of Missouri catfish

anglers, the largest percentage of Truman catfish anglers indicated

the quality of catfishing had declined over the previous ten (10)

years, while the smallest percentage indicated quality had improved.

Similar concerns have been heard from Lake of the Ozarks and reg-

ulations were put in place in 1998 to protect the overharvest of cat-

fish on Lake of the Ozarks directly below Truman Dam.

° Between 2003 and 2005, department staff conducted a

Truman Volunteer Catfish Angler Creel survey. Three hundred-eight

(308) catfish anglers were asked to rate their fishing trips.The largest

percentage ranked their trips poor while the smallest percentage

ranked their trips excellent. When combined, the categories fair and

poor accounted for sixty-four percent (64%) of the response, lending

more evidence that future management efforts should be directed at

improving these fisheries.

° During a Reservoir Catfish Evaluation conducted by the

Department from 2004 through 2008, staff tagged three hundred

(300) blue catfish on Truman Reservoir using fifty dollar ($50)

reward tags. At the end of the five (5) year period, the cumulative

angler harvest rate on blue catfish twenty-four inches (24") and larg-

er or about five (5) pounds was ninety-two percent (92%). A ninety-

two percent (92%) angler harvest rate doesn’t allow blue catfish to

reach their growth potential, and is a major contributing factor to the

decline in blue catfish quality.

° Provisional data collected from both reservoirs by conserva-

tion agents between 2010 and 2012 determined that the majority of

the fish sampled were below the proposed slot. When combined, the

department’s provisional data, 2003–2005 Truman Volunteer Angler

Creel Data, and angler creel data collected between 2010–2012,

results indicate the average size of angler caught blue catfish on

Truman Reservoir was twenty inches (20") (about three (3) pounds)

and on Lake of the Ozarks, twenty-one inches (21") (about three (3)

pounds).

° Given the information learned during recent years, department

staff concluded that slot limits will protect the population at a length

range where growth is relatively fast and natural mortality is low.

• Proposed changes in daily creel and length limits have been

modeled by department staff and demonstrate the blue catfish popu-

lation structure will be improved.Population modeling conducted by

department staff using the Fishery Analysis and Modeling Simulator

(FAMS) software predicts these proposed regulations would result in

a four to five (4–5) fold increase in the numbers of blue catfish larg-

er than thirty-four inches (34") at both reservoirs.

• The regulation continues to allow adequate harvest of fish up to

nearly seven (7) pounds, a size frequently sought by anglers and

encourages additional harvest of fish under the slot in order to

improve growth rates. These regulations would satisfy a large num-

ber of catfish anglers asked in the 2002 Statewide Catfish Angler

Survey “what size catfish do you prefer to catch and keep?” Based

on responses, eighty-seven percent (87%) of the anglers surveyed

would be able to harvest fish in their preferred size range. 

• The regulation will allow harvest above the slot, while still pro-

viding larger fish protection to reach their growth potential.

• In response to the assertion that an increase in the number of

large catfish will result in a decline in the crappie population, blue

catfish can and do feed on a wide variety of aquatic organisms. As

a rule, like any top-level predatory game fish, blue catfish will feed

on the prey that are the most abundant and easily caught. In Truman

Reservoir and Lake of the Ozarks, department studies show that prey

is going to be gizzard shad. By thinning the numbers of smaller blue

catfish, more gizzard shad will be available to crappie whose diet

largely depends on those small fish.

• To address fears regarding negative impacts to tourism and local

economies, there is no evidence that the local economy would be

negatively impacted by this regulation change.In fact, the local econ-

omy may improve as a result of this regulation by drawing more

anglers to the area as the fishery improves.Historically, this type of

regulation change on reservoirs and streams has resulted in improved

fishing opportunities and increased tourism. Notable examples

include trout in Lake Tanecomo and crappie in various reservoirs that

responded positively when increased length limits were implement-

ed. Many of these changes have created “destination fisheries” for

the state and are a benefit to local economies.

Title 3—DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

Division 10—Conservation Commission

Chapter 6—Wildlife Code: Sport Fishing: Seasons,

Methods, Limits

ORDER OF RULEMAKING

By the authority vested in the Conservation Commission under sec-

tions 40 and 45 of Art. IV, Mo. Const., the commission amends a

Page 254 Orders of Rulemaking