DNR To Stop Trout Stocking

[ditchpickle6996]

I don't know if this has been posted yet but it doesn't sound good. It is the editorial from last weeks Ely Echo.

DNR's move to stop trout stocking is fishy at best

ECHO EDITORIAL

Trout fishermen will not be happy campers when they find out the Minnesota DNR has decided it needs to reduce or eliminate stocking in 60 lakes and streams. The bottom line: the DNR will save $200,000 a year. The impact on local economies: not a factor in the DNR's decision.

The list of lakes is stunning. Hit hard will be the Ely, Isabella and Grand Marais areas. The company line is that these lakes have "not met expectations or where self-sustaining trout populations have been established."

There is no public comment on this, no chance to ask questions, just a DNR edict from St. Paul that smells more than fishy.

Lakes that will be deleted from the stocking program in the Ely and Isabella area include: Ahsub, Burntside, Conchu, Dan, Ojibway, Regenbogen and in Sabin Lake in Embarrass.

Lakes that will see reductions in trout stocking include Crosscut, Divide, High, Hogback and Section Eight. Oh, and some body of water called Lake Superior.

Here's the DNR's reasoning, "The new approach follows an in-depth assessment by DNR staff and implements various aspects of the DNR's Lake Superior and southeast Minnesota trout plans. Last year, the DNR stocked 2.2 million trout at a cost of $2.4 million. The planned changes will result in an immediate savings of about $70,000 in electrical and feed expenses and up to $200,000 annually when changes are fully implemented.

This is one of those DNR decisions that makes outdoors people wonder just what goes on in that state agency.

Some of the lakes being removed from the stocking program were functioning just fine as non-trout lakes. But the DNR decided they should be poisoned to kill the fish living there so trout could be introduced. Now, trout are no longer going to be stocked. Will we see poisoning return a few years down the road?

We weren't able to talk to the folks in the Tower DNR office about this, but we certainly have some questions to ask. There's likely a few trout fishermen, bait store owners, resort owners and others who will have questions as well.

The real question here is why was this bombshell dropped without any warning? The DNR fish and wildlife department budget for 2010-2011 is $193,200,000. Will cutting one-tenth of one percent of the budget really make that much of a difference? Is this a sign of things to come in the trout stocking program? Are further cuts on the line?

The only good news we could come up with before deadline was that the reason Burntside was being removed was "increase in lake trout natural reproduction, don't want to stock a genetically different strain at this time." If that's the case and stocking doesn't make biological sense at this time, we're willing to live with that.

But if the overall reason is the bottom line, were any options even discussed? Wouldn't a $2 increase in the $10 trout stamp generate $200,000?

Plenty of questions for the DNR on this poorly presented decision to cut trout stocking.

[Steve Foss]

A lot of uncertainty here. Without actually getting the DNR's perspective on the move, it's hard to make much sense out of it all. This editorial shouldn't have been written until the Echo had solid information.

I do believe that Burntside will suffer if stocking stops. Walleye and laker fishing alike will go back downhill toward the "bad old days" of when smelt were knocking down reproduction and recruitment and locals considered Bside the dead sea. I believe there are still way too many smelt for the laker and 'eye populations to be self-sustaining, even though they seem to be rebounding.

I guess we'll see how it plays out, if indeed they quit stocking. I'd say it's time to get ahold of our legislators, and not just those who live up here, but anyone who comes up to fish on any of these lakes. The Legislature makes the DNR do stupid stuff often enough. Perhaps now it's time for them to make the DNR do the right thing. Actually, my guess is that there's an unspoken mandate for all state agencies to cut, cut, cut. Partly it's the Pawlenty philosophy of government, and partly it's the sour economy pushing down state tax revenues and other monies.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Bummer deal!

[Harv]

I agree Steve. I think we need to get a hold of legislators and get start questioning them on why. So many ways to make up $200,000.

[sheephead2]

Didn't we pass a bill for 3/8 percent sales tax for funding fish and wildlife clean water and arts. Doesn't this money go for that . I am confused someone have there hand in the bag of money and funding something else. Also we buy a Trout stamp were is that money going

[splakeshaker]

I saw a similar article in the Duluth paper. It will affect many of my favorite lakes and I could say from personal experiences some of these lakes will go down hill fast. Some of the named lakes are really pressured hard and produce nice fish. If they wanted to cut down, I think they should have chosen different lakes that have poor populations/growth rates/popularity among anglers. I would have no problem paying a few more dollars on my trout stamp to keep the stockings going, if they're going to the right lakes. Burntside for example, which I have never fished, is a very popular lake , that people travel to as a destination to chase lakers, and they're going to cut it out? How about cutting out walleyes on the LOTW or Mill Lacs. It the same thing but just for different people. Certainly better ways to go about this than just to hang it up. Hogback by Isabella is loaded with campers/fisherman all summer and half the winter. The lake produces some very nice fish and family traditions are going to be affected. That lake has a great campground, a nice pier and landing. They've already invested into to lake and I'm sure it more than creates revenue for itself, the dnr, and the state.

[pushbutton]

like it or not the walleye is on the top of the proverbial food chain, trout simply do not fill the coffers as do the almighty eye. i think it is unfortunate, but it is the way the world works, especially in in tough economic times.

[DTro]

Like mentioned earlier. Outdoors amendment + Trout Stamp Fee (should) = Non Issue

I just don’t get it...

[Wanderer]

The story printed in the Outdoor News has a very different slant to the same story.

Basically it states the DNR has reviewed the trout stocking program and have found some efforts are not having much if any return on investment for multiple reasons so they'll cut those out.

They'll change some of the rearing practices such as raising fewer Kamloops at the French River hatchery and more at the Spire Valley hatchery by Remer. This will save the money they spend on heating Lake Superior intake water for part of the year. They'll continue stocking the same number but at a cost of possibly 70k less.

As far as Lake trout go, the number of yearlings will reduce by 35% but the fingerling amount will increase by 30%.

So, in short, they haven't been told to cut the program to save money, they've just reviewed the program and are trying to be more efficient with the money they are spending.

The walleye program is next.

It sounds like what we've wanted our "Government" to do all along. Spend our money more wisely.

[Hazzard]

Lake of the woods and mille lacs are not stocked lakes for walleyes check your facts befor posting

I saw a similar article in the Duluth paper. It will affect many of my favorite lakes and I could say from personal experiences some of these lakes will go down hill fast. Some of the named lakes are really pressured hard and produce nice fish. If they wanted to cut down, I think they should have chosen different lakes that have poor populations/growth rates/popularity among anglers. I would have no problem paying a few more dollars on my trout stamp to keep the stockings going, if they're going to the right lakes. Burntside for example, which I have never fished, is a very popular lake , that people travel to as a destination to chase lakers, and they're going to cut it out? How about cutting out walleyes on the LOTW or Mill Lacs. It the same thing but just for different people. Certainly better ways to go about this than just to hang it up. Hogback by Isabella is loaded with campers/fisherman all summer and half the winter. The lake produces some very nice fish and family traditions are going to be affected. That lake has a great campground, a nice pier and landing. They've already invested into to lake and I'm sure it more than creates revenue for itself, the dnr, and the state.

[Steve Foss]

The story printed in the Outdoor News has a very different slant to the same story.

Basically it states the DNR has reviewed the trout stocking program and have found some efforts are not having much if any return on investment for multiple reasons so they'll cut those out.

They'll change some of the rearing practices such as raising fewer Kamloops at the French River hatchery and more at the Spire Valley hatchery by Remer. This will save the money they spend on heating Lake Superior intake water for part of the year. They'll continue stocking the same number but at a cost of possibly 70k less.

As far as Lake trout go, the number of yearlings will reduce by 35% but the fingerling amount will increase by 30%.

So, in short, they haven't been told to cut the program to save money, they've just reviewed the program and are trying to be more efficient with the money they are spending.

The walleye program is next.

It sounds like what we've wanted our "Government" to do all along. Spend our money more wisely.

Thanks, Tracy. That makes me feel a lot better. Amazing how different a newspaper piece can be when the journalist actually talks to the people involved and gets the facts before sitting down to write.

[leech~~]

Originally Posted By: Wanderer

The story printed in the Outdoor News has a very different slant to the same story.

Basically it states the DNR has reviewed the trout stocking program and have found some efforts are not having much if any return on investment for multiple reasons so they'll cut those out.

They'll change some of the rearing practices such as raising fewer Kamloops at the French River hatchery and more at the Spire Valley hatchery by Remer. This will save the money they spend on heating Lake Superior intake water for part of the year. They'll continue stocking the same number but at a cost of possibly 70k less.

As far as Lake trout go, the number of yearlings will reduce by 35% but the fingerling amount will increase by 30%.

So, in short, they haven't been told to cut the program to save money, they've just reviewed the program and are trying to be more efficient with the money they are spending.

The walleye program is next.

It sounds like what we've wanted our "Government" to do all along. Spend our money more wisely.

Thanks, Tracy. That makes me feel a lot better. Amazing how different a newspaper piece can be when the journalist actually talks to the people involved and gets the facts before sitting down to write.

Other then it's hard enough to catch a Looper lately as it is!

[DaveSorensen]

Here is the information directly from the DNR's website:

First link is the news release:

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/index.php/2010/01/07/dnr-to-make-changes-to-trout-program/#more-43414

This link is the DNR coldwater management program web site that tells what lakes will be affected and why.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fish/trout/coldwater.html

Interesting information, might not be what you want to hear if one of your lakes is affected but there does seem to be some reason behind doing what they do.

[DaveSorensen]

I have a question for the Lake trout folk. My limited knowledge about lake trout is that it takes them anywhere from 5-7 years before they can reproduce, that winds up being about a 5-6 pound fish. They survive for a long time. I know catch and release is practiced by a lot of people, but my question is Canada changed the limit to one Lake trout, should Minnesota do the same? Not talking the put and take fisheries that are on the designated trout lakes, but looking at Burntside for example, should that lake have a one fish limit? Just curious what people think about that.

[Redlantern]

Dave, a few years ago it changed from three to two a day. It made me decide to cut back on my trips up north. I think maybe shortening the season would be a better alternative, from my viewpoint. If I don't go very often for two a day, I sure am not going to go for one a day, unless I could have an aggregate limit. Just my take on it.

[leech~~]

I have a question for the Lake trout folk. My limited knowledge about lake trout is that it takes them anywhere from 5-7 years before they can reproduce, that winds up being about a 5-6 pound fish. They survive for a long time. I know catch and release is practiced by a lot of people, but my question is Canada changed the limit to one Lake trout, should Minnesota do the same? Not talking the put and take fisheries that are on the designated trout lakes, but looking at Burntside for example, should that lake have a one fish limit? Just curious what people think about that.

I think someday Lakers will go the way of the Musky, to much fun catching them and to much respect to eat them?

[caseymcq]

Thanks, Tracy. That makes me feel a lot better. Amazing how different a newspaper piece can be when the journalist actually talks to the people involved and gets the facts before sitting down to write.

Sometimes they get in the way of selling newspapers

Good reason to read the TJ for news and save the other publication for lining the kennel

[DTro]

Good reason to read the TJ for news

I have a hard time reading that one too

[delcecchi]

Just have to skip the editorial page. :-)

[caseymcq]

Just have to skip the editorial page. :-)

Then you miss all the colorful correspondence between Torko and Lampa

[DTro]

Now that you mention it, it would be a much better paper without the editorial section.

That goes for the letters and the editors themselves.

[Steve Foss]

Now that you mention it, it would be a much better paper without the editorial section.

That's often been said about the TJ. Usually by conservatives, but I'm an independent and have never had much use for any newspaper's editorial section. Even all the years I spent working in newsrooms I never cared much what others' opinions were about public policy, and I never figured anyone cared about my opinions.

I'd go weeks without visiting the editorial pages, which are really just Silly Town in print form.

[DTro]

You are right about the sillytown thing, but in all honesty you don't even have to read the thing and you already know what Marshall and Nancy Jo will have to say, but hey that is what's great about this country.

Sorry, so how about those trout....

[Steve Foss]

You are right about the sillytown thing, but in all honesty you don't even have to read the thing and you already know what Marshall and Nancy Jo will have to say.

Yep, they are as regular as the sunrise, all right. Just as the editorial writers at conservative papers are predictable. I know Marshall tried long and hard to find a thoughtful local conservative columnist, and probably is still searching for one.

A person only reads the editorial section if they really want to. If a person gets P.O.d reading leftish sentiments on editorial pages, why read them at all? Unless a person actually WANTS to get P.O.d, and that's a different matter altogether. Plenty of folks out there who read editorials they know they are going to disagree with just so they can have something to shout at.

Trout? Was this thread about trout?

[A1000HOOK]

If the trout population in Burntside goes dramatically down, the smelt population will go up. Then what will happen if smelt take over the lake ?

[JBMasterAngler]

Good question, I thought natural reproduction in burntside wasn't so good because all the smelt ate the eggs?

[Steve Foss]

Natural reproduction has been on the rise. I know some dispute this, but there simply have been too many fish pulled out with non clipped fins to ignore the evidence. The DNR clips the fins of stocked fish, and when I started fishing Bside eight winters ago almost every fish I pulled out had clipped fins. Now it's well over 50/50. Sometimes if a fin isn't clipped all the way up to the body on the stocked yearlings, it'll grow back, which can throw things off, but other Bside anglers have been reporting an increase in the number of unclipped lakers taken. I haven't kept records, but over eight years I've caught hundreds of lakers out of Bside, and if my catch is 50/50 clipped/unclipped, things are pretty clear in my mind.

To me (and the DNR, of course), it's a settled matter that there is more natural reproduction than there used to be.

That being said, smelt hurt lakers, 'eyes, ciscos and whitefish by eating their eggs and competing with fry for micro-organisms in the sterile water that the fry need to survive. So the smelt knock down how many eggs will hatch, and they trash recruitment because of the competition for food. This is all happening because there are millions of smelt in the lake. The last netting the DNR did produced fewer smelt, but they'd used a slightly larger mesh if memory serves, and while there are 8 inch smelt in Bside, most of them are much smaller and probably weren't accurately sampled.

So I'd bet the smelt population continues to boom.

I think the only reason it's not still the dead sea is that we've been paying the DNR (through our taxes and license fees) to stock scads of lake trout and walleye, and that's allowed those species to make some sort of a comeback.

St some point the lake could reach a point where there are enough 'eyes and trout to sustain themselves naturally even with the smelt, but I'd be very surprised if that critical mass has been achieved yet.

If the stocking stops, I don't think there's any reason to expect those two species to remain at fishable numbers after several years of harvest by anglers. I look at Burntside as an experiment half finished, and if stocking stops it's an experiment abandoned before its time just to save a few dollars.

And on a local economic note, Burntside had very little winter angler traffic when I started fishing it. Now a typical weekend during laker season puts lots of people on the ice. The reputation of the fishery has grown, as has the popularity of fishing for this powerful and fast species, even as lake trout numbers have come up. That's adding money to the Ely area economy. Gas, motels, bait, booze, restaurants, tackle, etc. And guides. There never used to be winter laker guides on Bside, but now I know of three who are working the lake. If the DNR is saving $200,000 through eliminating and reducing stocking, I'd be very interested to see how much of those savings would come from Burntside. There's no doubt in my mind that Bside lakers have added a lot of $ to the Ely economy in recent years, and I'm sure it's a lot more than the few scores of thousands they'd save by stopping the Bside stocking.

The Burntside Bash alone might inject as much money into the local economy as the DNR would save through their proposed Burntside plan, and I have no doubt that the economic injection into mostly small rural communities that results from all the stocking brings in more money than is going out for the stocking.

In straight economic terms, saving $200,000 statewide is penny wise and pound foolish.

[cashcrews]

Seems to me that discontinuing the laker stocking in Burntside will be a bad thing, for many of the reason's Steve has mentioned. Perhaps the DNR has decided that the smelt situation has put the lake trout population into "lost cause" status already. If the DNR stops, I wonder what it would take to get some private funds raised to continue the stocking?

It would have been interesting to fish Burntside prior to the smelt introduction. I have a feeling it was probably on par or even better than some Canadian Lake Trout Waters.

A buddy and I have kicked around the concept that Burntside would be a prime lake to experimentally stock with muskies. They'd sure do a number on those smelt. Just like some of those Canadian waters that support both muskie and lake trout populations very well. I suppose this might screw things up entirely, but the DNR seems to be fine with letting the lake die as is. (Sorry for opening this can of worms.)

Cashcrews

[DTro]

They should throw a bunch of Muskies in there, maybe they can take care of some of those smelt.

Or better yet, toss some big ol Flatheads in there. They’ll love to snack on those smelt. However those 2lb Trout could end up being the main course

[blackdog1101]

Like mentioned earlier. Outdoors amendment + Trout Stamp Fee (should) = Non Issue

I just don’t get it...