Biggest sturgeon

[PerchJrkr]

everything is good smoked. someone told me muskie tastes like ham, same with sturgy. why not just smoke dog turds? they probably taste like ham smoked too....

[Bemidjifisher]

 Originally Posted By: PerchJrkr

everything is good smoked. someone told me muskie tastes like ham, same with sturgy. why not just smoke dog turds? they probably taste like ham smoked too....

Wow... Thats mature!!

[PerchJrkr]

what does that have to do with maturity? is it not a fact that everything is good smoked? lots of things that you wouldnt DREAM of eating if it didnt come out of a smoker

[jadkins]

I understand what you are saying as well, I think most people need a lesson in CPR, and I'm sure they are good smoked as are all fish. I'm writing this eating a fresh warm piece of Tullibee. But I don't see the justification of keeping a fish that takes 25-50 years to become of age to reproduce and does so every couple of years. I don't think people understand how delicate of a resource they are playing with. Look at what people can do to walleye or crappie populations in a short amount of time, even with DNR stocking and strict slot limits. I also fish Muskies for fun and on the pro level and I believe that should be a catch and release effort as well and I wish people would become more educated the role they play, maybe they wouldn't have such a fear of them and kill them for no reason other than thinking they are eating every fish in the lake. The only thing I am saying about keeping sturgeon is, why risk the chance of ruining this wonderful resource just to eat some ancient and polluted fish.

[PerchJrkr]

some people take things waay too seriously. im gonna go home and grill up some sturgy steaks to have with my bald eagle burritos for supper

[Bemidjifisher]

I agree with you fully... I think Sturgeon fishing is newly catching on out side the area. Having grown up in that area it was common place to keep sturgeon. It was not uncommon for almost every boat to keep at least one. The population was sustainable. It was a way of life up there. It does bother me when people living over a hundred miles away try to tell the locals what to do and how they should do it, because it benefits them for one weekend a year. Education is the key!!

The laws have changed and I think that keeping one is now the exception not the rule. Since then size has increased and the number caught has gone up. The last 10 years have been very good for the sturgeon. It just takes education, not disrespecting someone for a choice they make. I also muskie fish, I am a USCG licensed captain (guide), and have never kept one or allowed one to be kept in my boat.

[PerchJrkr]

to think... this all started because of something i said JOKINGLY.

[skunked_again]

I know perchjrkr, but it has been fun to read all of your comments. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some sturgeon fillets to fry up.

[PerchJrkr]

THANK YOU! TIP is probably at my home right now confiscating my 69" sturgy steaks and bald eagle burger......

[jadkins]

I'm glad to hear of your musky antics, I have fished Sturgeon for many years as well, maybe more than anything I'm upset that the word is out and the fish are getting hit harder all the time. I guess I should have known that it was a matgtewr of time before it would be exploited, just like most "hot bites" do.

I belive the size has gone up mostly because the river has gotten cleaner. There was a time when the fish were nearly wiped out due to pollution, it's good to see them make a comeback.

I'm sure at one time people depended on the Sturgeon for food, just like all the other game they took in mass amounts, look at some old photos it's amazing. But I don't think that is the case anymore.

I'm not trying to criticize people for keeping a Sturgeon and I appologize if that's how I come off, I am also trying to educate the people from every area, that this fish is, for the most part, just starting to make a comeback. So let's due our part to protect it.

[DTro]

I guess I don't know enough about this, but wasn't the decline due mostly to overharvest? Maybe it was pollution, I guess I'm not sure.

Anyways, the slot limit is there for a reason. I don't think people should feel bad about harvesting one. Personally I would never do it, but I'm not going to look down on someone who does.

It's never fun to see a grand old fish take a knife, but that's the law.

I have to admit, I wouldn't mind trying one to see how they taste.

The upside of keeping a healthy population is starting to show it's feathers. I have to think that maybe some of the locals may not like "out of towners" catching their fish, but it sure can't hurt the businesses up there.

[Scott M]

One tag a year for a few people that choose to keep sturgeon isn't going to do much. Those who choose to keep a few fish within their legal right aren't doing much to the population. A reliable estimate of harvest is gained since fish reduced to possession have to be tagged and the tags mailed into the DNR.

We can thank the 1972 Clean Water Act and a long time closure on taking sturgeon for their bounce back. It took time, make no mistake about it. There is little doubt as to why so little harvest is allowed and the harvestable slot is so small when it may take a female 25 years to become sexually mature.

The catch and release fishery isn't having much of an effect on the sturgeon population. Dorsal tag returns are pouring in and actually quite a bit of information is being learned about these amazing animals. Hooking mortality is thought to be very low since sturgeon can breath atmospheric air for short periods of time and because their inferior suckerlike mouths aren't likely to swallow a hook into the gullet or gills.

Keep fishing for them and propping up the fishery and the economy.

[jadkins]

Good info chise, do you think the DNR would adjust the slot or harvest if they seen an increase in the numbers of fish harvested?

Also I wonder what percent of people that keep a fish are getting the tag to make it legal?

[Scott M]

 Originally Posted By: jadkins

do you think the DNR would adjust the slot or harvest if they seen an increase in the numbers of fish harvested?

IMO Yes, but that situation is highly unlikely. Harvest has only been open for a handful of years now, and not that many fish are being taken. Thats unlikely to change. The window of opportunity is so small in terms of angling days and fish length that most people just aren't keeping them, even if they can. It's a lot of meat and a good deal of preparatory work.

 Originally Posted By: jadkins

Also I wonder what percent of people that keep a fish are getting the tag to make it legal?

I'd speculate not many. It's an uneasy black market. With that much flesh do people really need more than one fish, even greedy people? I'd be fairly confident that poaching numbers are pretty low, but there's no way to tell.

[hanson]

I'm sure the harvest data (from the DNR) for the Rainy River sturgeon is available somewhere but I don't have the time to go digging it up.

However, the St Croix River has a fall season which is seeing more and more interest. Not quite as much interest as the spring Rainy season but there is definitely growing enthusiasm.

Here is some info from the East Metro Fisheries DNR-

"To date we have tagged 395 LKS in the Lower St. Croix River since May of 2003. We have had a total of 73 recaptures of 61 different tagged fish. Nine fish have been recaptured at least twice, with 3 of those individuals being recaptured 3 times. In the first two years of our mark/recapture project we had no recaptures. During the next two years we had a total of 22 recaptures reported (10 by us and 12 by the public). In 2007 we had another 51 recaptures reported (9 by us and 42 by the public). Two things likely account for most of the significant increase in recaptures: (1) we now have more fish tagged out there and the chances of catching a tagged fish are much higher, and (2) more awareness of the fact that some of the sturgeon are tagged and how to report them, so anglers are now watching for tags and contacting us. The fastest reported recapture was 4 days after initial tagging, and the longest interval between tagging and recapture to date has been 1,469 days. Five of the reported recaptures are of fish that have emigrated from the Lower St. Croix and have been recaptured down stream from Lock & Dam #3 as far south as Lake Pepin. The location of recaptures of tagged LKS have ranged from 14.7 miles upstream to 51.8 miles down stream from the site of initial capture and tagging. None of our tagged fish have been reported harvested through the new harvest tag program.

Following are the totals reported through the harvest tag program for the last 2 years. In 2006, 5 LKS were harvested measuring between 51 and 60 inches in length. In 2007, another 7 LKS were harvested measuring between 51 and 60 inches in length."

Reason I posted that info was to note the number of harvested sturgeon. In 2 years of fishing 12 sturgeon were legally kept and reported. I have no idea how many are being legally kept on the Rainy but I bet its less than you'd imagine.

In my few years of fishing the Rainy, I have never seen a Sturgeon kept by anyone fishing around me. Most folks are handling them well and releasing them.

IMO... sturgeon are turning into one of the ultimate sport fish in Minnesota. They are big, they fight like heck, they have low hooking mortality rates, and nearly 100% C&R is regulated and encouraged. I think this is a big stepping stone towards greater C&R amongst other species of fish as fisherman are learning that its OK to release them, it really is.

You have 100s of fisherman heading up there this weekend for the "Sturgeon Excursion" who's primary goal is to fish and catch sturgeon, smile big, take photos, and let them go. What harm is that causing the fishery?

Its the same deal with the walleyes up there, you can keep 2 but are tightly restricted by the slot. Why on earth would anyone drive that far to catch 2 eyes right? There's another example of a tightly regulated fishery that draws legions of anglers to the river to have a great time catching big fish, and letting nearly all of them go.

[Silver Scale]

Some regulations history for the Rainy River / LOW sturgeon.

Prior to 1978 there was no size restritions. In 1978 a 45 inch minimum size was imposed but you could harvest one fish per day per person. Fishing pressure increased and so did the harvest. The DNR figured a safe allowable harvest was about 7600 lbs. Numbers many times above that were being harvested so with the help of a twelve person citizens advisory group the regulations were changed in 2001 to a 45-55 inch slot with one fish per year allowed. Season lengths were restricted also. Still it appeared more harvest was taking place over the 7600 lbs so in 2004 the regulations were changed again to what is currently in place. Here are some harvest figures.

2001-2003 13,500 lbs.

2004 5,000 lbs - Very cold spring. Most harvest occurs in spring.

2005 13,000 lbs.

2006 3700 lbs. There may have been a problem with people not reporting so this figure is probably low.

As you can see there still is harvest occurring. Good thing is that now all the adult females are out of the slot. I think if the harvest should continue to be way above the 7600 lbs that more restrictions will probably take place. Remember this is still a slow recovering fishery. Once enough adults get into the 80-120 lb class then restrictions could loosen up some.

[jadkins]

Good stats Silver Scale, in my eyes that is still too many, but I'm getting over that. The main problem I see is who knows what percentage is actually being registered, I would hope people register them so the DNR can keep accurate tabs on them, but you never know. I have seen people in other states and areas catch and kill sturgeon for no reason other than lack of education...

[PerchJrkr]

it seems to me like there isnt much of a shortage of sturgy's out there. on sunday the guys that we saw fishing stusgy's were catching more than us.... we watched guys last weekend pulling em in hand over fist. i was told right now isnt even that great of fishing for them and June is the time to really be up there if your gonna do it... any truth to that?

[silverfox]

Wow, you guys really are burning this thing. I don't feel bad about keeping that big one that we did. Like I said, that was quite a few years before they had the slot. I would never keep an illegal fish. Makes no sense. I get plenty legally. I went 4 or 5 years, like 1992-1996 where I fished by International Falls for sturgeon and we caught plenty, but in that time we kept a total of 2. I can tell you, we released way more than we kept and released many big ones. There are many, many sturgeon in that river. Actually, I haven't fished there for 4 years. Either the Falls area or Baudette area. Just too many people now.

So, I hope you can just all get out there and enjoy the fishing and have fun. Be safe, and keep eye out for illegal taking of fish. If you see it, Report It! I gotta go..... Loon soup is done!!

[Silver Scale]

Season is closed from mid May until July 1st so if they are targeting sturgon in June they are illegal. Even if catch and release. One other thing I forgot to mention in my above post is that in 2006 there were 1488 harvest tags sold. That figure does include the St Croix river but I don't have any info on how much harvest or fishing pressure actually occurs there.

[CANOPY SAM]

Sturgeon eat walleye eggs! Just like suckers and other bottom feeders.

It might just be supposition, but that may be the reason why they are in the river in such abundance at the same time as the walleye spawning run.

I wonder how many walleye eggs a 70 lb. sturgeon eats in one day?

It's interesting that they seem to follow the walleyes. I guess I can't speak for the mid-summer presence of sturgeon in the Rainy as I only fish the fall bite, but there sure are a lot of em' in there in the fall as well - right along with the walleyes.

Maybe the sturgeon are always in the river?

[troyfideldy]

Just had an amazing thought, Canopy Sam could the sturgeon be heading up the river to spawn just like the all mighty walleye? NO WAY it can not be the time of year and water temperature. In the fall could the water temperature and food supply draw the sturgeon and walleye together into the river? That also just can not be. The walleye and the sturgeon have been living together harmoniously for thousands of years. Neither species has a negative effect on the other species.

[CANOPY SAM]

Troy, I sense a little sarcasm in that. Are you a fisheries biologist? Because I am.

There is absolutely no question that sturgeon eat large numbers of walleye eggs. Did I ever say that the sole reason sturgeon enter the river is to feed on walleye eggs? No. Sturgeon spawn in the river in the spring when the water temps reach 52-53 degrees.

I am only slightly concerned about the rapidly growing number of sturgeon in the river. They are bottom feeders and are opportunistic, meaning they'll eat whatever their big vacuum cleaner noses can find. That's why the bigger, older fish are so toxic. Bioconcentration of pollutants.

The numbers of sturgeon in the river have been steadily rising since tight restrictions were applied to their harvest. They are growing larger every year. They are an extremely hardy species, and in time could most certainly begin to have a negative impact on the overall numbers of walleyes in Lake of the Woods and subsequently the Rainy River.

I was only wondering if many of these great old fish were now living year round in the river, or if there might be some correlation to other species movement that key their migrations.

The walleyes spawn in the river in the spring, and so do the sturgeon. There are also large numbers of both species that spawn on the reefs and sand bars out in the lake. The walleyes follow the shiner minnow run into the river in the fall. Maybe the sturgeon do as well? I don't know. That's essentially all I was asking. I haven't fished for sturgeon during the summer months up there so I don't know if they spend all year in the river or not.

Feel free to spend some time talking with resort owners on the Rainy River and Lake of the Woods and see how they feel about the increasing numbers of sturgeon. Many are not happy as they pose a significant threat to the walleye population, and that in turn threatens their livelihood.

If you think one species cannot overpopulate and negatively impact another more desirable species I suggest you do a little reading on the history of Upper Red Lake.

[CaptJohnWI]

And have you heard the one about how all the crappies in Red Gut Bay of Rainy Lake eat all the walleye fry (like URL)?!

What a lame excuse to use to keep netting crappie on Rainy. The short window of opportunity that crappie have to eat walleyes is far exceeded by the years walleyes have to eat crappie. I have caught many walleye with crappies in them but never one crappie with a walleye fry. The only reason the crappie took over URL is over-harvest of the walleye. If there had been a decent amount of walleye in URL, there would not have been the explosion of crappie.

I have heard this same argument about stocked musky eating all the walleyes even though there were 100 pike for every musky in that body of water. Musky may eat a walleye now and then but the pike eat just as many and they are far more numerous on most waters. Knew one guy that killed every musky he caught because they "eat all the walleyes". He told me he used to be able to catch his limit of big walleyes in the morning and then go back in afternoon and get another limit but now that they they stock musky, he can't catch any walleyes. I pointed out there are far more pike than musky in that water. Perhaps the fact that he and all his kind were keeping 10 big walleyes/day during the spawn had something to do with their demise.

There is no shortage of small walleye in either LOW or Rainy Lake. And if there ever is, it won't be because there are lots of sturgeon, musky, pike, crappies, or minnows. It will be because of over-harvest by people.

[Silver Scale]

Well said John. I couldn't agree more. LOW walleye population is not in trouble even with a slowly increasing sturgeon population. I think if you go back and look at historical records you will see that there were alot more walleyes in LOW prior to the sturgeon collapse in 1905 from human exploitation due to commerical netting. In 1894 alone there was over 900 tons of both walleyes and sturgeon netted. Enough said. The notion that sturgeon are going to eat all the walleye eggs and hurt the walleye fishery is nonsense. Sort of like the timber wolves are going to eat all the deer.

[Silver Scale]

Stureon fishing can be very good all summer long all the way up to I-Falls so yes they are present all summer long. You can also catch them in the river prior to any walleye movement into it.

[CANOPY SAM]

Thank you for answering my question Silver.

I was not suggesting that sturgeon would wipe out the population of walleyes. I was merely discussing the possible impact they may have.

Here are some points to consider.

1) Walleyes and crappies are not top predator species. In the Rainy River system Lake Sturgeon have very few natural aquatic enemies. How many walleyes do you find in the bellies of sturgeon John?

2) URL was an example of an ecological imbalance fed by the perfect conditions. It was partly caused by mans' intervention, it's also still being resolved by man's intervention - to the tune of $$$.

Other examples? - Leech Lake Cormorants

- Spiny Water fleas and shiner minnows

- Milfoil

- Snow geese

3) We're not talking about big fish eating little fish here. We're talking about large vacuum cleaners sucking lots of walleye EGGS off the bottom of the riverbed.

4) There will soon be a limited hunt to control the burgeoning population of wolves in Minnesota.

5) The possible long term impact of an uncontrolled population increase of any species can have devastating and far reaching affects on a reasonably balanced ecosystem.

Don't kid yourselves if you think this couldn't happen. It happens all the time. Am I suggesting that we act on this immediately? Of course not.

I do know there are numerous resort owners, and fishing guides up north that are concerned about it. That's why I brought it up. Not to Grandstand about what I know to be true, as some have done. Just to talk about it, find out some information, and give it some thought.

By the way, my "Biggest Sturgeon" is around 20 lbs. out of the rainy. I'm looking forward to getting into a true giant someday.

[mwodziak]

Canopy Sam,

As a fisheries biologist, do you believe that populations and ecosystems are ever completely stable or balanced?

To me, it seems that almost all people believe that these ecosystems are supposed to be perfectly stable or balanced when there is no effect from us. I really don't believe that any ecosystems are ever stable or balanced, with or without help from us. I think they simply change based on certain weather conditions and patterns over decades. And I think theres a chain reaction when you get one particular period that is better for one species, can either help or hurt other species. You can see that if walleye populations and sturgeon populations can survive massive over harvest like what happend 100 years ago, they can defenitely survive some recent fluctuations in population.

Bottom line, I really don't believe that a large sturgeon population could make a noticeable change in the walleye population. As long as we don't mess with it...

[fishgutz77]

Keep the science coming SAM your on the right track.

I guess I'll have to start some record keeping on the July and August downrigger counts up there to see where this is going.

[CANOPY SAM]

Excellent questions. I believe you are exactly right. No ecosystem is ever in perfect balance. That's what makes the world so exciting.

Although Darwin's Theory of Evolution really can't be proven (many people lose site of the obvious word "THEORY" in there), as we have no empirical evidence what-so-ever of any species evolving, or having evolved in recorded history other than microbes, and that appears to be only attributed to prolonged exposure to antibiotics, I think there is more than enough evidence to support the close examination of a potential imbalance in an ecosystem, and the relevent intervention by man to prevent such occurances.

Many of the ecological tragedies that we've witnessed have been self-limiting. Upper Red Lake for example would have likely leveled itself out over time as the two or three "boom" years of crappie reproduction came to the end of their lifespan. Walleyes would have naturally made their way back up the food chain. It was not in the economic interest of the related communities or the state to wait for this to happen.

In the case of snow geese there was, and still is a grave concern for the natural tundra grasses upon which they feed and nest during the summer months. There were, and still are so many birds, and so much competition for food that they litterally eat the plants down to the roots, ultimately killing the grasses, and resulting in the starvation of young birds unable to migrate south.

This was thought to be a justifiable reason for the mass reduction in their population levels. One also has to consider the extreme likelyhood of rapid disease transmission and mass die-off in this type of ecological imbalance. This is a very real situation, and it happens with many species in many ecosystems all over the world.

However, this again is an example of a self-limiting natural event. Darwin was correct with his observation that only the strong survive. This is ultimately beneficial to a species as it eliminates the weaker animals, and passes on only the strongest genetics to the next generation.

We, as humans, and avid users of the planet's resources just don't like to wait around for a couple hundred years until the populations swing back around. We intervene and do what we can to help. That's precisely why I sympathize with, and always defend the Department of Natural Resources, and the US Fish and Wildlife Services.

So many people seem to think they could simply step in and do a better job than what these men and women are currently doing. Personally, I can't even imagine how they (the wildlife officials) could possibly improve on our current hunting and fishing. Fish and game are plentiful almost everywhere in the US, and it is a direct result of the diligent work, and articulate management planning executed by sportsmen and women all over the nation.

Do they make mistakes? Of course. Who doesn't? We learn from our mistakes. But we should never lose site of the future, and what we might do to improve our planet for generations to come.