Kamloops Production Shift

[Surface Tension]

I did a quick calculation of fees I pay to the MN DNR for watercraft, ATV's, and sleds and came up with over $500 every 3 years.

Add to that small game, fishing, turkey, and deer licenses. Stamps are Trout, Turkey, and Pheasant,

I remember of a time before the Trout Stamps. There was more stocking going on back then but seemed to be funded just fine.

What has changed in the DNR from then till now?

I've proven I'll pay to play but at some point I'd like to know where the money is going.

[Ross Pearson]

Here is part of a recent Sam Cook story on DNR funding with some of the people who can answer operation questions. Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates.

Published January 16 2011

Is it time to raise Minnesota’s fishing and hunting license fees?

Minnesotans love their fishing and hunting. The state ranks first nationally with 32 percent of its residents participating in the sports, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

By: Sam Cook, Duluth News Tribune.

Minnesotans love their fishing and hunting.

The state ranks first nationally with 32 percent of its residents participating in the sports, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

But the state’s Game and Fish Fund, used to pay for fisheries and wildlife management, is dwindling, so Department of Natural Resources officials are laying the groundwork for the possibility of raising license fees. They’re also considering new kinds of licenses that might appeal to more hunters and anglers.

License revenue is the primary way Minnesota pays for its fish and wildlife management. Tax dollars from the state’s general fund pay for only a tiny fraction of those operations.

The DNR's Game and Fish Fund pays for lake surveys, hatcheries, fish stocking, stream improvement and fisheries management. Wildlife revenue pays for managing 1,400 wildlife management areas, managing hunting seasons, prairie plantings, prescribed burns, wetland maintenance and more.

In the past, fishing and hunting license fees have been raised about every six years in Minnesota. But today’s hunting and fishing license fees have been in place for a decade. The funds haven’t kept up with inflation. As a result, the state’s Game and Fish Fund is projected to have a negative balance by 2014, said Dave Schad, deputy director of the DNR. By statute, the fund cannot operate in the red.

The $17 fee Minnesota charges for a basic fishing license is 36th-lowest in the nation.

“If we don’t generate some additional license revenue, we’re going to have to make significant cuts to our programs and services, and that will eventually impact the quality of our hunting and fishing experiences,” said Jason Moeckel, DNR fisheries operations manager.

But Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, said it’s unlikely the Legislature would consider a license fee increase this session. He said he’s spoken with his House counterpart, Rep. Denny McNamara, R-Hastings, chairman of the House Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee, about a license fee increase.

“There certainly is a concern there, with the DNR funding going into the red, although not until 2014,” Ingebrigtsen said in a phone interview Thursday. “What I took from that conversation (with McNamara) is that even with ‘no new taxes,’ we’re going to approach the ideas of fees somewhere in the future, a couple years down the line. Now, I don’t think we can approach it. But I think it’s something that has to be addressed.”

Making the case

At its annual roundtable conference for about 350 stakeholders last weekend in Brooklyn Center, Minn., DNR officials made their case for license fee increases and a restructuring of license options.

Fishing license fees were last increased in 2001 to the current level of $17. If adjusted for inflation, that license should today cost about $22.50, Schad said. Hunting license fees were last raised significantly in 2000. Minnesota’s $23 deer hunting license ranks 30th compared to what other states charge.

Rather than simply raising license fees, the DNR is looking at changing license offerings to make them appealing to more anglers. The agency is considering a three-year annual license, a five-year annual license and a “super individual license” that would cover fishing, big game, small game and required stamps.

Those are some of the options that a Virginia consulting firm, Responsive Management, polled Minnesota license holders about over the past two months. The DNR paid Responsive Management $71,000 to research Minnesota’s license-fee rankings among other states and assess support for various new licenses.

New kinds of license

Responsive Management found good support for the three-year and five-year licenses, which would be offered at a discount over the annual rate. The firm also found some support for three-day and seven-day fishing licenses, which currently aren’t offered for resident anglers.

“I really do like (those ideas),” Schad said. “Based on the information, it looks like a lot of our customers like them, too. The multi-year options, the combination licenses … and making sure there are some low-cost options for occasional hunters and anglers — those seemed to have a lot of support.”

It isn’t clear whether some of those options would increase license revenue, especially if they’re purchased by anglers and dedicated hunters who already buy licenses each year. But offering shorter-term licenses for occasional anglers might result in more license sales. Only 27 percent of Minnesota anglers buy a fishing license five years out of five, Schad said.

Simply raising license fees can have a negative effect, said Mark Damian Duda, executive director of Responsive Management.

“When you start raising fees, you have the potential to lose some license buyers,” Duda said.

Cuts made

The DNR already is operating at less than full strength, Schad said. Statewide, the DNR is down 100 full-time positions out of about 600, or about 17 percent of its work force, he said. The Division of Enforcement is down 21 conservation officer positions.

The agency is trying to hold down costs. By using more fuel-efficient vehicles and driving 350,000 fewer miles per year than five years ago, the DNR has saved about $450,000, Schad said.

But those cuts haven’t been enough to reverse the decline in the Game and Fish Fund.

Some citizens point to the Legacy Fund, generated from sales tax dollars, as a way to offset declines in license revenues. But Legacy Fund money doesn’t go directly to the DNR and cannot be spent on basic agency operations, Schad said. It’s used for new projects and land acquisitions.

Mixed reaction

Joe Duggan of Pheasants Forever is chairman of the Budgetary Oversight Committee, a citizen group that monitors DNR spending and revenue.

“Our recommendation to the department and to the Legislature is that we need to do something,” Duggan said. “It’s been about 10 years since the last major license fee change. … We’re not saying we need a license fee increase now. Our recommendation is we need to take a hard look at licenses and license fees and structure and come up with a plan that’s going to be in place for several years.”

But Ben Kellin, owner of Ben’s Bait in Grand Rapids, said anglers are growing increasingly frustrated with restrictions placed on them by the DNR, including the recent restrictions on the use of ciscoes as bait due to concerns about the fish disease VHS (viral hemorrhagic septicemia).

“It (a license fee increase) has been talked about a lot,” Kellin said. “You look at the cost of a license, $18 or $26, everyone thinks that’s measly. A $2 or $3 or $4 increase doesn’t bother anybody. But nobody is really happy with what’s going on. People aren’t supportive of the DNR. They don’t want to raise fees so the DNR can be bigger and more intrusive in our lives. … Every time you turn around, there’s more signs.”

[Northlander]

I would have no problem paying more for my licenses but not if they keep taking more away. I see less and less DNR in the field, less stocking, landings are worse than ever and our lakes are not marked for safe travel like they should be. Oh and dont even get me started on how they are handling the exotics problem.

My fishing is expensive but I would have no problem paying even double for a license every year to be able to fish.

[shogun]

Instead of raising our resident license fees - why not increase the license fees for non-residents? This makes more sense to me, seeing as it is cheaper for a WI resident to buy a MN license, and I have to pay an arm and a leg for WI license (particularly with the additional trout stamps).

Maybe MN should adopt the multiple trout stamp idea from WI, inland trout stamp and great lakes trout stamp.

[BEAST]

NL this post started last Feb. 2010 - Last post on SK's titled "look at a waist of money French River" was 2/26/10

Just a misunderstanding

[Raider4ever]

I did a quick calculation of fees I pay to the MN DNR for watercraft, ATV's, and sleds and came up with over $500 every 3 years.

Add to that small game, fishing, turkey, and deer licenses. Stamps are Trout, Turkey, and Pheasant,

I remember of a time before the Trout Stamps. There was more stocking going on back then but seemed to be funded just fine.

What has changed in the DNR from then till now?

I've proven I'll pay to play but at some point I'd like to know where the money is going.

ST, you want to know where your money is going? Unfortunately, it is going to maintain ski trails (sssuuurrreeee, only ski trail funds are used to maintain the ol' Lake Harriet Loppet), bog walks, bear humping, finding out why the Red Wing Blackbird no longer uses Red Wing Blackbird Swamp anymore, and other crapola. Very little goes back to those who pay the freight. I am starting to think DNR stands for "Darn Near Ridiculous".

[Northlander]

NL this post started last Feb. 2010 - Last post on SK's titled "look at a waist of money French River" was 2/26/10

Just a misunderstanding

OK man I see now.

[upnorth]

There are too many feel good programs for them to really keep money on the basics.

[Ross Pearson]

In the Economic Impact and Social Benefits Study of Coldwater Angling in Minnesota prepared for the MN DNR it is stated that “ Lake Superior shores and streams anglers were responsible for over $21 million in sales, over $12 million in income, supporting more than 435 jobs.” And, “most trout/salmon angling trips were to the Northeast and Southeast areas of the state. Over 37% of all trips were in northeast Minnesota (Region 2). The type of activity taking place there would include lakes in summer and winter, stream fishing for brook trout, rainbows and some steelhead and salmon, and Lake Superior coastal fishing (from shores and rivers below the first upstream obstruction) for rainbow, steelhead and salmon.”

At the meeting on Lake Superior Rainbow Trout Production Program, Tim Goeman, the Region 2 DNR Fisheries Supervisor said Fisheries currently has a $33 million budget with $25 million coming from license fees. Fisheries spends $1.6 million on coldwater production with $1 million coming from the trout and salmon license. Production at the French River Hatchery has cost around $600,000. So, I would say anglers have been getting more than their money’s worth in terms of only license fees. Tim Goeman said further this kind of expenditure is unsustainable. I believe there is economic reason to support French River Hatchery production but clearly we anglers also need to be paying more for the products we receive from this facility and other services the MN DNR provides. Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates.

[croixflats]

So the DNR is now a social program? I dont support any license increase until they better manage the money already coming in. The DNR must get its house in order so were not throwing cash down the stream ending up somewhere where its not being used correctly.

[Steve Foss]

Ross, thanks again for continuing to do things like breaking the numbers down for us. Mighty useful information.

[upnorth]

So the DNR is now a social program? I dont support any license increase until they better manage the money already coming in. The DNR must get its house in order so were not throwing cash down the stream ending up somewhere where its not being used correctly.

I think that one thing we can all agree on is there are a lot of differing opinions on where priorities should be as far as money goes. We can all complain that there is waste in govt spending and I agree there could be some better efficiencies there.

It would be nice if more items could be put a public vote as to where the money goes instead of someone who has been appointed to the job. At least then we could/would have more input as to where the $$$ goes.

[Ross Pearson]

Here is some very good news from my perspective, Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates.

Published February 16 2011

Minnesota DNR wants to raise license fees for hunting, fishing

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources launched a campaign Tuesday to increase fishing and hunting license fees this legislative session.

By: Sam Cook, Duluth News Tribune

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources launched a campaign Tuesday to increase fishing and hunting license fees this legislative session.

Under the proposal, a resident angling license would go from $17 to $24, and a resident deer license would go from $26 to $30. Several new kinds of licenses would be offered as well, such as a half-price fishing license for 16- and 17-year-olds and a 90-day resident angling license for $18.

License revenue is the primary way Minnesota pays for fish and wildlife management. Tax money from the state’s general fund pays for only a tiny fraction of those operations.

The license fee increase is also part of Gov. Mark Dayton’s budget proposal that was released Tuesday. Any fee increase would have to be approved by the Minnesota Legislature. Leaders of the Environment and Natural Resources committees in both the Senate and the House have said they would consider fishing and hunting price increases, but not for a few years.

The DNR’s Game and Fish Fund, derived from license fees, is dwindling and is projected to have a negative balance by 2014, DNR officials say. Minnesota’s $17 basic fishing license ranks 36th among all states. At their annual round-table meeting with stakeholders in January, DNR officials laid out the case for raising license fees. Without raising those fees soon, they said, the agency would have to make “significant cuts” to programs.

Fishing license fees were last raised in 2001, and hunting license fees were last raised significantly in 2000. The DNR is operating with 100 of about 600 full-time positions unfilled. The Division of Enforcement is down 25 conservation officers.

The governor’s budget also includes a new Hunting and Fishing Heritage Initiative that recommends allocating $6.4 million to the DNR in fiscal year 2012 and $9.4 million in fiscal 2013. That money would pay for basic DNR operations, said Ed Boggess, director of the DNR’s Division of Fish and Wildlife. Some of that money would be used to fill positions that are now open.

[reinhard1]

when you see enforcement is down 25 officers it's time to increase the fees among other needs as well. if all the money used by this increase in fees are used for the purpose intended it is money well spent. good luck.

[Surface Tension]

I didn't see a non resident angling lic increase mentioned.

It is currently $ 39.50

Resident Fishing Lic $17 and proposed to go to $24

$7 sounds measly but I look at it as a 41% increase.

In comparison WI non resident angling lic is $50

WI resident fishing lic $14

One other fee MN charges residents for is $12.50 Shelter lic. while WI resident shelter fee $0

Not that what one state charges for fees justifies and increase and nothing against our great neighbor WI.

Fact is WI seems to be a model MN might need to follow.

[Stringerless!]

I agree that there are better ways to spend what they have. They should make non resident license prices recipricol. That means you pay whatever your home state charges non residents. Now The DNR is gonna put electronic kiosks in a 6 shopping malls to tell about our state parks. IN 6 DIFFERENT LANGUAGES !! Ridiculous !!

[walleye365]

that would be great iv always talked about raiseing non-residant lic. and that is the ticket right there i hope they do that makes perfect sense. Now the state park thing agree 100% if you dont know how to speak or understand english then learn it or to !@#$% bad. Do not understand why we caiter to this so much. BIG waste of MONEY!

[Ross Pearson]

Here is a link for a complete list of license proposals by going to www.mndnr.gov and looking for "Hunting and Fishing Heritage Initiative." Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html

[Stringerless!]

Thanks Ross !

[Stringerless!]

The recipricol thing is pretty simple. If your state goudges us as a non res then we goudge you ! The kiosks do not sound like money well spent to me .

[shogun]

yep I will be peeeeeed if they only increase resident license fees. I need to increase non-res fees as well.

[Surface Tension]

shogun, they're proposing to raise non resident angling fees $1.50

kiosks? I've never caught one.

[upnorth]

One thought on the lack of increase in non resident license may be the tourist industry. Keep the license low and it may keep the flow of people coming in.

[PiedmontAngler]

Has anyone ever seen a "proposed" fee hike ever NOT be put into use?

[Ross Pearson]

Published February 27, 2011, 12:00 AM

Stocked Kamloops will taste local water

Each spring, shorecasters gather at Lake Superior tributaries near Duluth to catch brawny Kamloops rainbow trout. The fish can run to 7 or 8 pounds. They’re gorgeous specimens, deep and thick, with an iridescent wash of rose down their flanks.

By: Sam Cook, Duluth News Tribune

• Kamloops on shore

A 4-pound Kamloops rainbow trout lies on the rocks near the French River. Because of budget cuts, most of this year’s Kamloops rainbows are being reared at the Spire Valley Hatchery near Remer. (File / News Tribune)

More...

• What is a smolt?

Each spring, shorecasters gather at Lake Superior tributaries near Duluth to catch brawny Kamloops rainbow trout. The fish can run to 7 or 8 pounds. They’re gorgeous specimens, deep and thick, with an iridescent wash of rose down their flanks.

Virtually all of them grew up in the French River Hatchery, just up the hill from the mouth of the French River east of Duluth.

Until now.

This year, because of Department of Natural Resources budget issues, about two-thirds of the popular Kamloops rainbows will be reared at the DNR’s Spire Valley Hatchery near Remer.

It simply grew too costly to raise the fish at French River, DNR officials say, where the frigid Lake Superior water must be warmed several degrees. Heating the water is a significant cost at the hatchery.

This year, the DNR is raising about 70,000 Kamloops rainbow trout at Spire Valley and about 20,000 at French River. Idling other tanks at French River is projected to save the DNR about $200,000 per year.

But, after listening to the concerns of Kamloops anglers, the DNR has agreed to bring all of the Spire Valley Kamloops rainbows back to the French River Hatchery in April or May to finish their growth. About 92,500 of them will be stocked near the French River, Lester River and the McQuade Small Craft Harbor in July.

That will mean an extra move for the young fish, but it should allow them to imprint, or form a homing attachment to, the French River water that also flows through the hatchery. The extra transportation step also will reduce to some degree the savings the DNR had hoped to realize at the French River Hatchery this year, said Don Schreiner, DNR Lake Superior area fisheries supervisor.

“We’re compromising cost savings to address not only angler concerns but imprinting concerns,” Schreiner said.

Imprinting matters

If fish don’t imprint to a river, they could stray to any other tributary when it’s time for them to spawn four years later. Although few of them spawn successfully, their return to home streams as adults is what makes them available to shorecasters. Most anglers fish for them at the Lester River, the Sucker River and at the mouth of the French River.

About 1,000 to 2,000 shorecasters and stream anglers target Kamloops rainbows and steelhead (wild, naturally reproducing rainbow trout) on the North Shore, according to the DNR.

The DNR plans to return the Kamloops rainbows from Spire Valley to the French River Hatchery in April or May and finishing rearing them there until stocking in July. That will allow them to grow longer, which increases survival rates, according to the DNR. The fish also will go through a process called “smolting” at the hatchery, which strengthens their imprinting to a specific stream.

Ross Pearson, a representative of Kamloops Advocates, pushed the DNR to finish rearing Kamloops rainbows at the French River Hatchery and to stock them in July rather than earlier.

“In order to have a smolt Kamloops, you have to use the French River Hatchery,” said Pearson, a dedicated and respected Kamloops rainbow angler. “They have to be imprinted at French River and grown as long as they can be … and planted in July.”

The DNR listened to those concerns, Schreiner said.

“There was give and take,” he said. “It appears we’ve come to a pretty good solution.”

Successful program

The Kamloops rainbow trout program has been extremely successful and very popular with anglers, although returns in the past four years have been well below the long-term average. Several anglers, including Pearson, say Kamloops fishing has improved this winter.

“There have been some 20-fish days,” Pearson said.

Kamloops rainbow eggs are taken from adult Kamloops rainbows that enter the French River to spawn each spring. The eggs are now shipped directly to the Spire Valley Hatchery rather than being raised at French River.

The threat of viral hemorrhagic septicemia has complicated rearing and stocking issues as well. A few cases of the disease were found on Lake Superior bays last year, and fisheries officials have changed many procedures to prevent the virus from being spread to inland waters.

Kamloops eggs are treated with an iodine solution to kill any VHS, Schreiner said. They’re treated again at Spire Valley, then tested for VHS before their return to the French River Hatchery.

Steelhead situation

Although steelhead reproduce on their own in Lake Superior tributaries, the natural reproduction is supplemented with stocking. The DNR takes about 500,000 eggs from captive steelhead brood stock at French River and raises the fish to fry stage (just out of their egg sacs) at Spire Valley. Another 55,000 are raised to so-called “fryling” stage, a bit larger than fry but not as large as fingerlings, for stocking in the French River.

The fry will be stocked directly into several North Shore streams well inland so the fish will imprint before migrating down to Lake Superior. They typically stay in the stream for a year after stocking, spend two years in Lake Superior, then return to North Shore streams to spawn.

[Down Deep]

At a cost of $2.2 million a year to produce Kamloops and only 1 to 2 thousand fisherman taking advantage of the fishery any management public or private would be remiss in not taking a serious look at that and try to reduce it. Those numbers would represent a return approximately $2000 per fisherman. That is a big return for the cost of a trout stamp and a fishing license. I don't think the economic impact argument holds up because a $2000 return per fisherman per year would be very unlikely. I personally take advantage of some of those loopers and many have found their way to my grille, but with the DNR shelling out that kind of money for a slim return of catchable fish it makes me wonder the heck they are doing in St.Paul.

[jellio]

If there were more fish there would be more fisherman how many guys fish up there a handful of times and don't get a bite how many would return if they caught a fish....just my .02 I'm sure there is alot of guys who would rather drive 30 minutes than 6 hours and spend there money in there own state if there was a viable fishery. Personally I love shore fishing it's for sure an addiction especially if you can hook into some fish.

[Ross Pearson]

The actual annual cost of Kamloops production for Lake Superior planting has been around $300,000. And the cost of running the French River Hatchery in total has cost around $600,000 per year. A captive steelhead brood stock and Kamloops for inland planting was the other half of the $600,000. The former French River Hatchery supervisor retired last year and it doesn't look like the position will be filled. The original switch to Spire Valley for Kamloops was predicted to save $70,000(from heating cost reductions) with an eventual annual savings totaling $200,000 following retirements in two hatchery positions. So, the future cost of Kamloops production for Lake Superior should be less than $300,000 per year.Each year shore and stream fishing has been estimated to contribute $21,000,000 in sales, $12,000,000 in income, and support 435 jobs. Fishing license fees revenue by itself does not match the MN DNR Fishing operational cost. Fees raise $25 million but the Fisheries total budget is $33 million. We get more than we pay for with just fees alone. But the Game and Fish Fund is projected to go into the red in the near future. And then more serious cuts than we are already seeing would have to be made. Anglers who appreciate the programs and services we receive from MN DNR Fisheries should support a much needed license fee increase. Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates Representative.

[upnorth]

If there were more fish there would be more fisherman how many guys fish up there a handful of times and don't get a bite how many would return if they caught a fish....just my .02 I'm sure there is alot of guys who would rather drive 30 minutes than 6 hours and spend there money in there own state if there was a viable fishery. Personally I love shore fishing it's for sure an addiction especially if you can hook into some fish.

One of the issues with lake Superior is that it is cold and infertile and can't support a large biomass of bait fish, so in turn can't support a real larger number of predator fish.

[Down Deep]

There is a lot of numbers floating around in this thread, but the DNR says the annual cost of this program was $2.3 million and they needed to trim that back. The number of fisherman taking advantage of the fishery is 1 to 2 thousand. That would be a return of between 1 to 2 thousand dollars per fisherman. Even at a cost of $600 thousand it is still a high return per fisherman. The whole DNR budget is $33 million and there are over 2 million licensed Minnesota fisherman. That's a return of about $15 per fisherman. I don't think any stream fisherman should be complaining about a cutback of 10% considering the return they are getting for the cost of a license and trout stamp. I know there are economic impact considerations, but I seriously doubt that Kamloop fishery supports a $1 to 2 thousand per fisherman pay back year after year.

I personally spend a few days a year shore-fishing and many Kamloops have found their way to my grille, but when I look at that kind of expense year after year I wonder if the money couldn't be better utilized.