"Promote the preservation and wise utilization of the natural and recreational resources of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) and to formulate policies, plans and programs for conducting cooperative studies".

Initially, the UMRCC was known as the "Upper Mississippi River Conservation Survey Committee" whose goal was to "...provide for the carrying on of cooperative surveys and studies of conditions of national and interstate concern affecting conservation, wildlife, and recreational interests of the Upper Mississippi River..." They had three major objectives:

• To determine the nature and importance of the sport and commercial fisheries of the Upper Mississippi River and the factors influencing the abundance of fish,
• To determine the importance of wildlife resources other than fish in the Upper Mississippi River and the factors governing the abundance of various species, and
• To collect data upon which to base recommendations for uniform fishing regulations, adjusting present discrepancies, and recommendations for physical control of the river insofar as such control affects wildlife resources.

This initial cooperative effort did not arise from a few river rats who sought to save the river. Rather the original group of 22 biologists were natural resource managers who had a significant national economic interest in conserving the fish and wildlife resources of the Mississippi River. Records indicate that Aldo Leopold attended some of the early UMRCC meetings and advocated the inclusion of freshwater mussels in the Committee's fishery survey work.

Fish and wildlife resources of the Mississippi River were a very important food commodity at the time and wartime food production was a national priority.

UMRCC annual meeting proceedings reported that in the mid-1940s there were 5,000-6,000 full- and part-time fishermen along the UMR who were involved in activities related to commercial fishing. Of these there were 2,338 licensed commercial fishermen in the stretch of river from St. Paul, Minnesota to Caruthersville, Missouri. The combined catch of all species for the UMR was figured to be 14,460,169 pounds in 1944. Because of its economic importance, commercial fishing was the primary impetus for the organization of the UMRCC in 1943.

Several specific issues spurred the biologists to act cooperatively for the benefit of the UMR fishery resource. These were:

• a lack of knowledge concerning the status of fishery resources,
• differences in commercial fishing regulations between the five UMR states
• adverse effects of dumping municipal and industrial raw sewage in the river and
• fish and wildlife impacts of annual wintertime navigation pool drawdowns.

Originally the committee planned to conduct a three-year survey of the river to determine the status of the fishery resource, hence the name "UMR Conservation Survey Committee." The survey was to be conducted in two efforts. One team of biologists would cover the river from Dubuque, Iowa, south to Caruthersville, Missouri and the other team would conduct investigations from Dubuque north to St. Paul, Minnesota. Each team presented an annual progress report on their findings to the Committee. This set the precedent for the UMRCC's annual meetings which continue today.

At its inception, the "Survey Committee" was envisioned to be only a temporary organization. After the completion of its three-year fish investigation it would be terminated. However, after the fishery investigations got underway, the biologists recognized the value (and the need) of a permanent organization. There was an abundance of conservation issues that could be more effectively tackled if the five states spoke with a unified voice. At the 1948 annual meeting the biologists raised the possibility that some form of an "Executive Council" should be established (beyond the current officers) to permanently carry on existing UMRCC functions in addition to new ones.

One of the primary catalysts for the UMRCC's organization was the lack of management of the commercial fishery. No one knew whether the commercial fishing pressure was reasonable or excessive, or if it would jeopardize long-term productivity of the fishery resource. The first report of the "Upper River Survey" indicated that some commercial fishermen were harvesting up to 100,000 pounds of fish in a single netting during winter months.

Management wise, fishing regulations on the river were confusing to fishermen and often resulted in confrontations between law enforcement agents and fishermen. Much of the problem stemmed from a lack of uniform regulations between the five UMR states. Fishermen freely crossed state boundaries to set nets wherever the fishing was best, but each state's regulations on allowable species, gear types, and seasons varied considerably. Compliance with regulations was confusing because there was no uniformity in defining common fishing gear among the states.

In the 1940's it was the Army Corps of Engineers practice to draw down the navigation pools during the winter months to provide more water for commercial navigation in downstream reaches. This controversial practice had devastating effects on fish and furbearer populations. Three years of cooperative monitoring efforts among the UMR states documented the fisheries impacts from drawdowns. Fish and wildlife studies conducted by the Committee were instrumental in eventually eliminating winter drawdowns.