Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
biff

Chinook money?

41 posts in this topic

Well, since they discontinued the chinook program, have been phasing out the lake trout stocking...anybody know what they are going to do with the money that used to go to the programs? More steelhead, looper stockings?...coasters?...anything? Just curious if anybody knows where our money is going confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the govt, they don't know where our money is going. And if they did they sure wouldn't tell us tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they just got a glimpse of a mountain lion north of floodwood awhile back on a trail camera. gotta set up a mangagement program for them now. that takes $'s and it is well worth it. seriously, we need to protect the 10 or 12 cougars that probably are in the state for.... well, i'm not quite sure what for. tongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It SHOULD go to lamprey control...but what are the chances that'll happen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should go to take care of all exotics and improve our boat landings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they will pump the lake full of coasters and a couple steelhead. The money will probably go to another public access on a lake thats already got two, or studies on invasive species (VHS,carp or maybe a mussel) Anyways they won't use it like we want them to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Studies crazy.gifwink.giftongue.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont take any studies to know we have a Exotic problem and our landings are in need of repair.

Your right though studies seem to always be high on the list. Maybe they would pay me to do some intense walleye studies on Lake Superior? grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I think the exotics should be paid for with Federal and shipping dollars, and maybe they are, I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes to the 5 incompetent more-ons down in St. Paul that have screwed up fishing and hunting in Minnesota for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank it would sure be nice if the feds finally stepped up to the plate and did something financialy. Im sure whatever they do, if anything, will be a band aid and our Lake Superior and St. Louis River will get worse before better.

I think the exotic problem is the #1 threat to the big lake right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About a month ago I e-mailed numerous DNR offices asking for an answer to the same issue. I have yet to recieve a reply. I am not suprised. The creel survey guys never seem to know what's going on. Overall I am very unhappy (...trying to be nice) about the DNR's efforts to sustain or (heaven forbid) attempt to improve fishing on the greatest lake of all, Lake Superior. Good thing Lake Michigan is only 7 hours away!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reports that the DNR provides to the public on fish stocking, particularly numbers of kamloops stocked are made up. The actual numbers of fish they stock are WAY fewer than what they are telling you. So where is all that extra money going then? I'll give ya one guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way Lake Superior anglers will get a better fisheries is if we forget our little differences.By that I mean trollers and stream fisherman sitting down without the local fisheries people.Friends and I attended 1 year of meetings with local groups and commercial fishermen and just plain interested people at the old UMD building.The end result was absolutely nothing. All they did was play one against the other.Frustrating YOU BET.The head of the hatchery has his own agenda and trust me were not part of it.If it wasn't for wi. ont. and mi. we wouldn't have had a nice catch of kings, cohos and even a few steelheads that ont. planted which had clipped adipose fin like our loopers.If we don't some how get together were going to lose even more if thats possible. The only raising the hatchery has done is their wages.Also when the people at the hatchery don't fish l.sup. how much interest do you think they take in their job.Enough said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 100%. Welcome to the site 8942jc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great first post 894. Gotta settle some differences among fisherman, no matter the type.

Truthfully not much for anglers among your management and staff up your way, which may or may not help your cause, although working with fish every day may dull your interest in dealing with them on your time off.

Couple points

* Creel numbers are made up. grin.gif

* Salmon stocking is ceased. There just isn't the spawning habitat for a viable population or the cost to benefit ratio is too outrageous to support minimal stocking success.

* All budgeting information is public record. You can request this information via email or stopping in with your local state or federal fisheries management office. Or don't bother looking up those numbers and email info@dnr.state.mn.us and request a complete budget for the trout and salmon program (your trout stamp dollars) or for lake superior or duluth fisheries. Then you can actually see (and not make assumption) if your money is going to flimsy research projects or to lakes with 2 public accesses.

* lamprey control is done by the feds. Lampreys don't find good juvenile habitat in MN north shore streams, so a lot of lamprey control isn't done here. It's much more cost efficient in other Great Lakes tribs or along the St. Lawrence Seaway.

* St. Paul is often thought of as a beaurocratic bloat, but only 5% of DNR Fisheries staff is made up of St. Paul employees.

* The creel guys probably won't be able to answer your questions. They will do their best or refer you to someone else who can answer your question. They collect information and don't dispense it generally speaking.

The post isn't to rag on anyone in particular, but I think if one wants straight answers they should go directly to the source, even if that path has a couple stops along the way. Superior has some of the best Lake Trout and Steelhead fishing, not to mention underlooked walleyes, in the Great lakes, but no matter someone will be unhappy and want Michigan's salmon or Erie's walleyes, or you name it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

da_chise31, thanks for that perspective.

Being a native to the area there is a perception that or fisheries aren't in touch with what anglers want.

We see Canada and neighboring states doing what our DNR refuses to do. That alone leaves the average guy wondering.

We get scientific reasons why the lake can't do this and can't do that. Then theres that other answer our fisheries throws out there. It costs too much. Still we see neighboring states and Canada are successfully stocking fish in Superior.

Our fisheries has a hard stance that the lake be reverted back to self sustaining lake trout and herring. That any exotic fish will interfere with the lakes natural order. Still we see our neighbors stocking fish.

We have the smelt that will never go away, my prediction was they will be increasing in numbers. How will that play into those plans?

Like a child that wants that toy in the store, we'll make up ten reasons why they can't have it but fail to say the real reason why. Its costs too much, we don't think theres a good return, they compete with native fish, our rivers aren't good enough, yada, yada, yada. Why can our neighbors have a successful stocking program and we can't we ask.

It comes down to our fisheries want lake trout and herring and will give you data and excuses to back up why it won't work. Its a can't do attitude while Canada WI and MI have a can do attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll further this.

Back when you DNR was created, it was in the notion that is was to be a representative and work for and answer to sportsmen. I believe first objectives were to stock fish and create management of fish and game. Fast forward to today.

Some feel the DNR to has lost touch with those first intension's, that they, the DNR work for the Sportsman. Its fair to say that some Sportsmen feel the DNR to be top heavy and that top heaviness wastes money that was intended to be used to directly to fund fish & game. We see your license fees thrown into a general fund that is used for purposes it originally wasn't intended.

When we see stocking programs getting scraped because there isn't money, we wonder if maybe the DNR needs to reduce that top heaviness instead of what its initial purpose was.

So no Chinook Stocking program, one would conclude that besides the money saved from the direct cost of not stocking there be 10 times that saved in indirect costs.

So the question whats being done with that money is a valid one. We'd hope that it go back directly into Superior instead of being absorbed by the big DNR machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why not work with wisconsin on this matter. they have started to reduce the chinook stocking numbers some in lake michigan over the last few years and probably have unused capacity in their hatchery system. i know there are lots of fish that never get used that come up the creek to the harvesting pond in Sturgeon Bay. you would think that they could get together with wisconsin and come up with a decent price and amount of fish to stock in Superior and go with it. minnesota doesnt need to start their own hatcheries when there are some out there operating at less than 100% right next door. i think they refer to that as outsourcing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lake Michigan fish can't be used for Superior due to VHS. At least that's what I was told by a member of the local fishing club that has stocked Chinooks that last few years. I was told that the club Chinook stocking will end because their fish came from Lake MI. Wisconsin has a hatchery in Bayfield and Iron River, plus a tribal hatchery in Red Cliff. I would think that salmon rearing would be possible, if they could get eggs not from Lake MI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to watch what you introduce from outside sources. Bacterial kidney disease was/is a big threat in hatchery raised salmon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNR can say what the want to about $$ but the Chinook is planted as fry, which means hardly any time or expense in the hatchery. It is probably one of the cheapest fish there is to plant. I personally think the DNR caved to the Steelhead assoc in there drive to bring back the native steelhead and sunsetted the rest of the plantings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote:

The DNR can say what the want to about $$ but the Chinook is planted as fry, which means hardly any time or expense in the hatchery. It is probably one of the cheapest fish there is to plant. I personally think the DNR caved to the Steelhead assoc in there drive to bring back the native steelhead and sunsetted the rest of the plantings.


those steelhead arent native either...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True enough, but they have been around for a while and are talked about like they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please explain why chinook are less expensive to stock. Is it because they are released at a younger age than other fish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0