Trout survey?

[fish4life]

I recently recieved a survey on my trout fishing experiences in southeast minnesota and i was wondering if anyone else out there got one of these. Are they for the DNR or what. Anything will help thanks.

[Sarge]

fish4life, I am looking at one that Leah got Saturday. Did you fill out a short survey about two months ago?

This one is 12 pages long and is from the UofM college of Natural Resources, for MNDNR Fisheries.

If you get any survey make sure that you fill it out to voice your opinion.

I'll get back after I look through it, and can give some of the questions on the survey to everyone if there is interest.

[Sarge]

All right, here is your chance to have some input to SEMN trout fishing, I would like to see some opinions on this, and I will try to incorperate all your views on this into the answer we put in the survey.

Question #26.
How can the DNR improve your trout fishing experience in SE MN?

Thanks

[Guest]

I may get some heat for this but you wanted an opinion, so here goes:

To improve my experience in southeast MN, I would like to see more protective regulations in place, other than the select number of streams that have a 12-16 inch protective slot. The Root River, at least portions of it, would turn into a phenominal fishery if we had a protective measure of let's say all brown trout less than 18 inches must be released (sure, I could live with the "trophy" rule - keep one fish over "18...for the year period).

Create a division in the fishery. For example, if you wnat to harvest trout, which is certainly fine in my book, then create stream specific areas where harvest (even stocking) is encouraged and designate other waters as catch-and-release, artificials with no barbs only. Why does Crow Spring on Co. Rd. #9 contain impressive numbers of large brown trout? Because they are protected. There is NO harvest on that section - create more areas like that where anglers can go and routinely catch quality fish (12 inchers and lower are not quality fish - they are par for the course) without worrying if those fish are going to be harvested or not.

I've got no problem with harvesters and I've got no beef with those who fish with bait. My beef is with the DNR not creating more diverse angling opportunities and continuing to maintain the resource like a put and take fishery. 5 fish with one over 16, to an angler with a bit of skill, is a damaging regulation to the resource.

Perhaps a good plan of action would be send the MN coldwater people to Wisconsin for a lesson on managing coldwater resources correctly.

[Jim W]

Hopper,

No heat from me! I agree whole heartedly!(sp?)

All too often trout fishing in SE MN takes a back seat to conservation. I think we need to continue pushing for deeper slots. We will still find people who won't abide by these rules. SO we need to continue preaching the "Good Word" on Selective harvesting and management. Hopefully it will all rub-off for the better. Let's make people feel uncomfortable(politely of course) when they don't practice conscience, selective harvesting, polluting, or whatever. Let's let them know they are NOT in the norm and not part of the crowd!!!

Our streams are glorious!!! They could become heavenly!!!

Jim W

[Jim W]

Good stuff Uffdapete! Thanks!

[uffdapete]

Thanks Jim.

Give me a holler on what I can help with on Trout Day.

[fish4life]

Sarge thats the one and hopper your ideas sound fine with me as well.

[Sarge]

Keep the ideas coming, don't be afraid to share your thoughts, we all have different ideas, none necessarily right or wrong!

How about limit of 5 with one over 12inches?

More easements, or a law stating that if you enter a stream from a legal spot, you may fish the entire stream as long as you stay within 10 feet of the water. Then you wouldn't have to worry about inadvertantly trespassing.

More DNR officers in our area, and fine the heck out of litter bugs, and give them community service hours to preform, cleaning streams and ditches.

And I am no tree hugger, BUT ATV's need to be watched and have stricter use laws! Go fish Nepstad sometime, and tell me they are not reeking havoc in that area.

And of course more 20inch plus fish in every stream through management.

[uffdapete]

The number one thing that would improve stream fishing long term in SE MN (including trout) in my opinion is the implementation of better soil conservation practices. That is not the responsibility of the DNR, but one would think something could be worked out with the Soil Conservation Service to provide incentives for farmers. I feel that stream quality improved with the CRP program and has decreased again with the loss of CRP acres. Imagine what could be done with a good CRP program AND soil conservation. It would also benefit wildlife (like the CRP program did). With the farm economy as it is, I don't expect farmers to foot the total cost.

My father-in-law was a pioneer of soil conservation in NW Iowa and he is alarmed every time he sees how little the effort is made in SE MN. He doesn't fish or hunt, but still the responsibility he felt to the environment and benefits to his land motivated him to invest a lot of time and money in his efforts.

A couple weeks ago there were a couple front page articles in the Star Tribume on ATV use, written from a very biased subjective viewpoint. They should have at least been in the editorial section instead of front page news articles. I am not an ATV owner or user, and am not fond of those who do abuse the land and water with their machines by running them where they shouldn't, just like I don't care for those who abuse fish and wildlife resources. But the author singled out ATV users as primary abusers of the environment and the thought of the importance of soil conservation practices didn't enter this guy's cranium. I dare say a lack of soil conservation is much worse for the the environment than ATV's ever will be. A rebuttal was written by representatives of Polaris and Artic Cat @
http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/1901612.html

The author referred to the MRR (Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation) and seemed to use his position as a writer and his paper for a platform to advance his agenda. Is anybody acquainted with this organization? Do they have any ties with PETA or tree huggers? My only exposure to MRR was through this article and the first impression wasn't positive.

[J.A.Say.Tree]

Here's my 2 cents Sarge...

I'd like to catch more rainbows & brookies... along with the germans. It wasn't long ago that you could catch all 3 in, for instance, Mill Creek. It just adds to the experience to have variety! Maybe there is a sound reason for the DNR to not stock certain streams with rainbows or brookies.. I don't know. What I do know is it sure is fun to be surprised with a beautiful brookie or colorful rainbow.

Another thing that I'd like to see is more pro-active education on handling of trout. I have no doubt that more fish could be successfully released to fight again IF only people cut the line on a buried hook or made sure to handle fish with wet hands.

JA!!!

[Jim W]

All wonderful and sightful!!!

Most if not all will be discussed at Trout Day this Year!!
Uffdapete, just come and enjoy the day. FYI ,We can't have any commercial activity occurring at Trout day this year. Word got out about rods being sold etc. last year. In turn the park has made me jump through hoops to get a permit for this years event. I am going to call the manager as soon as I get done writing!

See you all SOooooon!

Jim W

[DARK30]

HEY JIM,

IF IT GETS TO BE TOO MUCH FUN FOR THE STATE TO HANDLE, WE COULD MOVE IT TO PRESTON TOO.

WET NETS!

------------------
cast,cast,cast,cast......

[Jim W]

Geeez DArk,
Do you think you have a big enough fire ring????
If we have to take the park over by force we will(just kidding all). I doubt they won't issue me the permit.

Jim W

[Guest]

I like the idea of more protection like a one over 12 requirement. I also like the idea of more brook trout reintroduction. I love catching brookies (and I have seen the ATV trails at Nepstad - bad news). I'm mixed with rainbows. I have an aversion to them only because they seem to stock those brain challenged callenged catchables at places like Quincy Bridge - why pump thousands of dollars of H.I. into a stream and then promote harvest? If the are stocked as fingerlings and can grow, then I have no problem with that.

I also like the idea of expanding the trespass law so you can access a stream legally and stay on posted land with a 10 foot buffer. The problem with that rule is that I can think of people who would fight that rule to the end because they have created their own little fishery of their own for the sole purpose of keeping people out (lower Trout Run for those of you who want an example....even Winnebago Creek). I don't like the current wording of the law - so much as touching the bank of posted property constitutes trespass according to the letter of the law.

Bottom line - more needs to be done to enhance the fishery. Wehoever said we have wonderful streams was right on - they could potentially be even better!

[DARK30]

OK...BUT I'LL HAVE TO SHOW YOU AROUND THERE ANYWAY SOMETIME.

ABOUT THE SURVEY, I THINK (ALONG WITH ALL THE ABOVE) SOME WATERS SHOULD BE ZERO HARVEST BUT THEN SHOULD I FEEL GUILTY FOR KEEPING TROUT OUT OF SOME GUYS FRYING PAN?
THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING, ITS GONNA BE 10-12" FISH ALL OVER THE PLACE.

THE ROOT IN AND AROUND PRESTON USED TO BE REAL GOOD BUT THERES JUST TOO MANY PEOPLE KEEPING BIG FISH. THE SPOTS I KNOW OF THAT STILL HOLD SOME NICE ONES ARE BETTER KEPT TO A WHISPER AROUND THE SMART FIRE!

WET NETS!

------------------
cast,cast,cast,cast......

[Sarge]

Anymore ideas? Keep them coming till sunday then we are filling it out and putting it in mondays mail.

Thanks for the replys I like all of them.

JA one of the questions deals with catching more than one species of trout, I hadn't given it much thought till you said something, then I remembered 15 years ago and Mill Creek, it was really great catching three species at one place, Right behind the gas station.

Good Memories!

[This message has been edited by Sarge (edited 03-08-2002).]

[uffdapete]

I agree Sarge - irresponsible ATV use exists and needs to be dealt with. But in the big picture of environmental problems, erosion resulting from a lack of soil conservation practices is a much more serious problem and will be infinitely more difficult, costly and time consuming to correct. The history of the whole Whitewater valley is a prime example.

This probably needs a separate topic, but what are the options for turning the corner on resource abuse? There aren't enough CO's
to deal with the problems or even adequately cover their assigned areas. That probably means they need the help of folks like us reporting problems/violations we see.

I've chosen to walk, wade or canoe just because I don't care to leave my signature on the landscape. There may be a day coming when I may need mechanical assistance due to physical limitations (OLD AGE!), but I'll hang in there as long as I can.

A neighbor of mine use to say, "4WD just gets you stuck farther from help."