DNR To Stop Trout Stocking

[blackdog1101]

One other thought: Is there a local sportsman's club or environmental organization that could apply for some of the Lessard funds to do a habitat improvment project, such as removing the smelt, so that there would be better natural reproduction?

[Steve Foss]

We've had the Bside musky debate on these boards before, and it wasn't pretty.

Coho were another option discussed. If the DNR wants to cut back on expenditures, there's little likelihood they'd pay the money to stock a new species. Coho would probably make a much bigger dent in the smelt population much faster than muskies.

I'd also be happy to pay another $5 for my trout stamp. Does anyone have figures on how much straight revenue is generated annually in MN through trout stamp sales?

As for smelt removal with Lessard funds, I'd be all for that. How does one remove the majority of a billion smelt from the lake? I'd think netting would sacrifice some of the very species we're trying to preserve. I suppose some type of trap system could be employed at the rivers/creeks smelt run up to spawn, but of course not all smelt in the lake are spawning every year. Still, it would be one partial solution. Certainly not a permanent one, but if smelt numbers get knocked seriously down for, say, 10 years, that'd be 10 years of even more successful 'eye and laker hatch and recruitment, and that might be enough.

[blackdog1101]

Steve, I'm not familiar with the Burntside muskie debate, so maybe I'm suggesting something that you've already hashed out. But what if there was an "X" year program to stock Tiger Muskies in Burntside? They could help take care of the smelt, and are sterile so they would never develop into a self-sustaining population. I'm usually against hybrid fish, but this is one time where maybe it makes sense?

[grousehunter]

The smelt in Burntside are mostly stunted and I'm pretty sure the muskie would be targeting more lakers and other game fish then smelt.

[Steve Foss]

Steve, I'm not familiar with the Burntside muskie debate, so maybe I'm suggesting something that you've already hashed out.

Yep, been there, hashed that. But what would the forums be without a little repetition?

Cohos would rip through the smelt much faster than musky, because coho prefer the same types of temp ranges smelt do, and because they are feeding machines that never seem to stop. Cohos also are fine table fare, and they get to a good age to catch and eat in only a few years, whereas muskies take a long time to reach fishable age (especially in a coldwater fishery). While some coldwater lakes offer good musky fishing, the species is essentially a warm water species, and there would only be some times in some seasons that some muskies would be preying on smelt.

Introducing either species would eventually increase traffic on Burntside. Whether that traffic increase is musky or salmon folks, it's one factor to consider.

If this is going to become a discussion about muskies vs cohos in Burntside, let's at least keep it civil this time.

[blackdog1101]

If this is going to become a discussion about muskies vs cohos in Burntside, let's at least keep it civil this time.

Less Filling!

Tastes Great!

Less Filling!

Tastes Great!

[StillFishin']

Just wondering why or how smelt got into Burntside? Smelt is a saltwater fish that spawns in freshwater rivers like the St. Lawrance. I believe they got into the Great Lakes via the St. Lawrence, But why are they in inland lakes?

StillFishiin'

[Wanderer]

The theory from the area fisheries department is people were going smelting on Superior and coming back to their places on B-side to clean their catch.

Some have said they would get tired of cleaning and just go dump the remainder off the dock and some live smelt were released.

The fisheries department figures it was more the fact that all those spawning smelt released their milt and eggs as they were compressing and dying in the coolers. What was left was a nasty slime of fertilized eggs that would get rinsed out of the coolers in the lake since nobody would want that junk in their yard or sink or wherever.

[maxpower17]

Quote:

Coho were another option discussed. If the DNR wants to cut back on expenditures, there's little likelihood they'd pay the money to stock a new species. Coho would probably make a much bigger dent in the smelt population much faster than muskies.

That would be a cool option and I would support experimenting with that.

I have 2 questions. Would the coho would effect the laker population? Would the coho be self sustainable at all?

Since virtually all of our lakes in MN are MANAGED for sportfishing and recreational fishing, including the intenional introduciton of non-native species to the majority of our lakes, I don't see how the introduction of this species would be any different than what we have been doing for the last 100 years.

Except that fact that we would be fighting fire with fire.

Quote:

I'd also be happy to pay another $5 for my trout stamp. Does anyone have figures on how much straight revenue is generated annually in MN through trout stamp sales?

I would support this also but unfortunately I think it would have a negative effect on poeple that rarely fish for trout and salmon but still buy a trout stamp each year.

You could combine the 2 topics above and create a DNR approved private stocking effort. Pay (donate) $5 (or more) to get a stocking effort done!

[Steve Foss]

Max, landlocked coho don't spawn successfully in most inland waters, so it's very unlikely you'd get at self-supporting revolving population of them. Like 'loopers, cohos and kings in Lake Superior, it would be a put-grow-and-take operation aimed partly (also as in Lake Superior) at knocking down high smelt populations.

I think coho would initially help the laker population in that hatch and recruitment would increase once the salmon pushed the smelt population down. But of course coho will eat small lake trout as readily as they will smelt, so that could become an issue on a system this size.

Also, there's a biomass issue here. All fish species at some point in their life cycles (and smelt throughout theirs), need to feed on the micro-organisms in the water. For larger gamefish, this is at the fry and fingerling stages. Smelt will feed on those things much longer, probably the whole life of the smelt. And while there are some warmer shallower (and more fertile) bays, Burntside is typical somewhat sterile oligotrophic Canadian Shield water, so there's just not a lot of that type of biomass to go around.

So it's possible that dumping in thousands of coho yearlings or fingerlings each year could cause problems for all the fish species, as there'd be one more group of fish added to the same competitive field.

I'm not a biologist, and I don't know how likely such a scenario would be on Burntside. Just some food for thought.

[delcecchi]

Originally Posted By: delcecchi

Just have to skip the editorial page. :-)

Then you miss all the colorful correspondence between Torko and Lampa

They do go on don't they.

Marsh sort of changed his tune when Tower got dinged, didn't he?

[caseymcq]

MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES

[Steve Foss]

MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES MUSKIES

[thedeadsea]

Any idea how much it costs the DNR annually to stock just Burntside with trout?

I respect the muskie as a game fish and top predator in some lakes. But I just don't understand why some are so heck-bent on having them stocked in every lake? Why not focus on improving the already very good muskie fishing opportunities in the area?

[Steve Foss]

Any idea how much would it costs the DNR annually to stock just Burntside with trout?

[thedeadsea]

A little off topic, but did I hear correctly that the Pike River walleye hatchery is not going to be open this year either?

[blackdog1101]

But I would think that once the cohos grow large enough to eat the smelt, for every smelt that gets eaten, a fingerling coho or laker would have the micro-organisms to eat that the smelt would have eaten.

[Great Outdoors]

With the elimination of the cisco & whitefish reproduction, the trout eggs are the only restaurant to dine at in the fall.

They are also not finding any indication of walleye reproduction with all the stocking they have done.

This being said, I do not believe there is any way that the lake trout are reproducing, and there must be another explanation for the unclipped fins (which I do not have)

[delcecchi]

Looks like in 2008 that burntside got about half of the yearlings from the peterson hatchery. 61,000yearlings or 6,000 pounds. Total production was 130,000. I saw another source that sounded like a yearling was like 50 cents in 1991 so probably a buck or so each these days?

Anyway it is fairly serious money.

[delcecchi]

With the elimination of the cisco & whitefish reproduction, the trout eggs are the only restaurant to dine at in the fall.

They are also not finding any indication of walleye reproduction with all the stocking they have done.

This being said, I do not believe there is any way that the lake trout are reproducing, and there must be another explanation for the unclipped fins (which I do not have)

Foss glues them back on when he lets them go. Prosthetic fins.

[Steve Foss]

I do not believe there is any way that the lake trout are reproducing, and there must be another explanation for the unclipped fins (which I do not have)

Keep turning away from the evidence, Jimbo.

On the other hand, how do I know? Probably it's aliens introducing an Alpha Centauri lake trout strain to Bside as an experiment. And we all know you can never trust an alien when it comes to clipping fins.

[Great Outdoors]

Stevo,

Not turning away from the "evidence," however things just don't add up when other species can't reproduce.

Perhaps you could get your Alien friends to explain it, since the DNR cannot

Or the smelt may have quit eating trout eggs because of high cholesterol warnings

[Steve Foss]

They are also not finding any indication of walleye reproduction with all the stocking they have done.

I'm not trying to be a richard, just trying to use my aging brain to understand this one, so help me out someone in the know.

Walleye are stocked as fry in Burnside in high numbers. No clipped fins to help ID the stocked vs naturally reproduced 'eyes. Are they dyed or irradiated in some way? Because I don't have any idea how an angler or the DNR can figure out whether a walleye caught on Bside is stocked or naturally reproduced, and if you can't tell the difference, how can you get any kind of a handle on natural walleye hatch and recruitment.

I'm not saying walleyes are naturally reproducing in Burntside. But I'm not saying they aren't, either, and I'd like to know how we and the DNR can figure out what's happening. If there's no way to differentiate, then of course there won't be "indications" that 'eyes are naturally reproducing there.

[delcecchi]

The classic way for walleye is they dip them in something that leaves evidence. Just searched and it is OTC, oxytetracycline.

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/fisheries/management/leech/meeting3/logsdon_summary.pdf

It can be seen using UV light. No statement about how long or what part of the fish you have to look at. They will also be using this method to see what is happening on Vermilion with the "compensatory stocking". Turns out too many fry might be a bad thing, if I read their pitch right.

[jonesen]

Ask the DNR to stock musky in Burntside all the other spieces will flourish.

[caseymcq]

... No statement about how long or what part of the fish you have to look at. ...

If I remember right their bones will "glow" under a black light if they have been treated with tetracycline.

I can respect that some may not want muskies stocked in B-side. To each their own. When the discussion went around last time what I took issue with was that some said it isn't "native" (which muskies are native to Minnesota) and then suggested stocking something like salmon or trout (some specifically said brown trout which are not even native to the continent)which are not native to the state with the exception of brook trout. If you don't want the fish there because you believe it will have a negative impact on other components of the fishery, fine. However, if the argument against muskies was to turn towards the fish not being "native" then don't also suggest putting a fish there that isn't even from the state.

I wouldn't stock them in every lake, wouldn't be prudent. I would like to see them stocked in more lakes, and I would go with the criteria that the DNR has established for evaluating the suitability of potential lakes to stock. I think there is a good chance Burntside would be one of those lakes.

I know, I know.. some of you are reading you screens right now saying "OH NO HE DI - INT!" while snapping your fingers in the air (Maki I know you definitely are while waving your pointer finger in the air but just think you could start selling Double Cowgirls and Buechertails)

Not to swatt that hornets nest again but... well... this is usually a civil group that has good discussions that don't degrade to nastienesses The wolf thread was a good example of that, for the most part.

[SkunkedAgain]

Just a clarifying note from some of the earlier posts. The Heritage Funds (Lessard Council) can not be used to supplement existing budgets. That was one of the problems immediately faced by the council. Legislators slashed budgets assuming that the new outdoors/arts tax would fill the gap, but that's prohibited by the state constitutional amendment that established the fund.

Someone put up a good point that a local group could seek funds for stocking, however, from what I saw at council meetings last year, that is not what the council intends to spend the money on. Most of it will go to buying land, gaining easements along trout streams, and other such endeavors.

The most likely of scenarios is that a concerned group of anglers lobbies the DNR to increase the trout stamp cost in hopes of getting more trout stocked.

[DTro]

What is hard to believe is that a big deep (fairly low pressure) lake such as Burntside cannot sustain itself from a smelt invasion.

There aren’t too many lakes of that stature that if left alone could be deemed a “dead sea”.

Quite troubling actually…..

We’ve all seen what can be done to help out a lake to recover (URL). I for one think it’s worth the effort in this case to move towards a healthy Trout lake.

[JBMasterAngler]

Burntside isn't the only lake that has smelt, but how come it seems it's the only lake that is being "devastated" by them?

Also I think the intoduction of salmon would benefit the economy more and faster than muskies would Obviously it would benefit the lake more too because they'd eat all the smelt...then they can try to re-establish the whitefish and cisco and see what happens.

[Great Outdoors]

Stevo,

The walleyes are stocked as fingerlings. They originally tried fry years ago, but test netting showed no increase in the walleye population.

They finally figured out that the smelt were eating the tiny fry.

I have talked about walleye stocking with Joe at the DNR, and if my memory serves me correctly, if they stock a 44 count (fish/lb), they can eat smelt immediately.

If they stock a 75 count/lb, they are too large to be eaten, but too small to feed on smelt.

These will survive on phytoplankton/zoo-plankton for about a year, until they become large enough to begin feeding on smelt.

The DNR has yet to see any natural repoduction of walleyes.