Kamloops Production Shift

[BRULEDRIFTER]

did anybody say anything about killing lake trout?

Man that was a leap!

Please keep it real.

Actually, by you proclaiming "Bring Back the King" and wanting to bring back the sort of chinook fishery there once was WOULD require killing off the lake trout. The only reason the chinooks were as successful as they were was because the lakers were all but wiped out of the lake by over harvest and lamprey. With no top predators to chow on the booming smelt populations the introduced salmon thrived. With the native lakers eventually making a comeback, and without the vast quantities of smelt there once were, and poor breeding conditions for a non-native fish to survive, the salmon eventually loses. They found their niche in the lake, and are what they are now, a bonus fish. There will never be any way possible, no matter how much money is dumped into a salmon program to get a salmon fishery like Lake Michigan. They are two completely different fisheries and Lake Superior is just not productive enough to support two glutinous predator fish. THe food chain just doesn't support it in an unproductive lake like Superior.

..... Please keep it real!

[Down Deep]

To be fair to the Viking fans the state could impose a license fee for your favroite spot.

[Ross Pearson]

Even though the MNDNR could be moving forward on FRH Rehabilitation since the HDR Rehabilitation study was completed last summer, there has been no apparent progress towards fixing the facility!

The following is from the MNDNR commissioned HDR Engineering study for French River Cold Water Hatchery Rehabilitation Analysis: “After the budgeting contingencies are added to the total, the project budget will need to be about $7.6 million. We believe the proposed FRH facility-wide rehabilitation and modernization costs, although substantial, are realistic and justifiable for the level of infrastructure enhancement and performance capability provided. The rehabilitation and improvements to the FRH as recommended in this report will insure that this facility can provide its needed production contribution to the overall needs of MNDNR in the future. Due to the age of existing hatchery infrastructure, now approaching 38 years for many components, continued reliable operation requires renovation or replacement to prevent failure. For comparison purposes, a new cold water facility would cost from $15-$25 million not including land acquisition costs.

Renovation should be completed at FRH instead of an entire facility replacement since much of the existing infrastructure can be restored to meet the 25 year goal for operation. Plus new construction would take much longer to accomplish compared to renovation. It is not recommended to close the FRH since its mission and existing infrastructure are very important to the entire MNDNR fish production program. Costs for renovation, while substantial, are very comparable to what other state and federal facilities are encountering throughout the country

Implementation Plan Benefits

The MNDNR fisheries program will benefit from the proposed rehabilitation of French River Hatchery as follows:

Capability to Meet Stocking Requirements and Production Goals

The proposed improvements to the French River Hatchery provide long-term fish production capability needed to meet current Lake Superior management objectives. The present Lake Superior management goals require Kamloops production to sustain the put-grow-take fishery and steelhead fry production to supplement the naturalized steelhead program. It is anticipated that the goals for both steelhead and Kamloops programs will change over the next 25 years. The renovated FRH should be able to accommodate future program changes.

Biosecurity

Ability to rear and stock STT and KAM for Lake Superior and tributary streams with significantly reduced biosecurity risk (99% assurance level). Proposed treatment improvements will provide desired biosecurity to allow FRH to assume its original role of production and direct stocking of STT fry above

migration barriers without off-station rearing.

Facility Maintenance

The rehabilitated facility will reduce the amount of staff time and annual operating costs associated with maintenance work needed to repair and operate antiquated systems. However, periodic annual preventative maintenance will always be required, including new or renovated systems.

Efficient Use of Water

The facility will continue to incorporate recirculation and reuse water treatment technology to permit selective water reuse and water conservation.

Efficient Use of Manpower

The improvements outlined in the report will result in more efficient use of manpower by providing higher fish production efficiency, less system maintenance time requirements, and reduced labor for some culture tasks.

Energy Cost Efficiency

The proposed improvements to the FRH will result in consistent high-quality fish produced cost effectively. The infrastructure improvements will provide some savings in operational costs due to improvements in performance, energy savings, reduced facility maintenance costs, and improved fish production efficiency. Energy conservation and energy cost reduction features are included in rehabilitation and improvement recommendations.

Effluent Treatment

The facility will include improvements to the wastewater treatment system to allow full compliance with all applicable state and federal effluent permitting and discharge treatment requirements.

Action Needed by MNDNR

In order to implement the French River Cold Water Hatchery Rehabilitation Project as outlined in this report, the MNDNR needs to perform the following generalized tasks:

· Due to the critical importance of back up power for the lake supply pumps, replace the emergency generator and associated electrical components as soon as possible.

· MNDNR to seek funding sources for construction of the recommendations outlined in this report. Options include license increases, bond bill or fish hatchery stamp.

· Provide funding and authorization of the design phase of the renovation project so that construction documents are ready whenever capital construction costs are released. Planning and Design Engineering costs will be about 8% of the authorized project construction total.

· Obtain water supply sampling and testing as recommended in this report

· Begin preparing environmental permitting documentation in conjunction with design due to long lead times for permit reviews.

· Prepare final construction documents and distribute them to all permitting agencies/bureaus requiring these documents for permit application and approval.

· Continue coordination and communication with reviewing agencies, user groups, legislative staff and the general public.”

As I have maintained previously throughout this thread topic, there is no way to impact the North Shore Lake Superior fishery without the use of the French River Hatchery! Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

[certified jumbo]

Thanks for the update and thanks for your continuous work. By the way, beautiful fall pictures on your website. I'm impressed!!

[tacklejunkie]

Actually, by you proclaiming "Bring Back the King" and wanting to bring back the sort of chinook fishery there once was WOULD require killing off the lake trout. The only reason the chinooks were as successful as they were was because the lakers were all but wiped out of the lake by over harvest and lamprey. With no top predators to chow on the booming smelt populations the introduced salmon thrived. With the native lakers eventually making a comeback, and without the vast quantities of smelt there once were, and poor breeding conditions for a non-native fish to survive, the salmon eventually loses. They found their niche in the lake, and are what they are now, a bonus fish. There will never be any way possible, no matter how much money is dumped into a salmon program to get a salmon fishery like Lake Michigan. They are two completely different fisheries and Lake Superior is just not productive enough to support two glutinous predator fish. THe food chain just doesn't support it in an unproductive lake like Superior.

..... Please keep it real!

+1

IMO, the native laker population comes first. In fact, I've become a bit of a purist when it comes nuturing and protecting the native fish verses stocking exotics into Lake Superior.

[Ross Pearson]

As you appear to know, the opportunity to catch fish like the one below are why many feel the French River Hatchery is worthy of rehabilitation. Thanks for your support! Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

[buzz1ng]

Kamloop stocking is a great way to give people a excellent shore fishing opportunity. I dont know to many places on the great lakes, or any lakes for that matter, where you can stand on shore & have the opportunity to catch 5lb rainbows. It really gives the normal guy a chance at a great fish.

[Feathers Rainin]

Kamloop stocking is a great way to give people a excellent shore fishing opportunity. I dont know to many places on the great lakes, or any lakes for that matter, where you can stand on shore & have the opportunity to catch 5lb rainbows. It really gives the normal guy a chance at a great fish.

Lake Michigan. Bigger fish, more fish, more variety, more spots to fish. The cost per looper is insane in lake superior.

[Poacher's pariah]

Fisheries managers are finally taking a look at fisheries and whether or not they are sustainable. A put-and-take fishery like loopers, while cheap in comparison to salmon, still isn't sustainable. Steelhead used to be sustainable, and could again be sustainable with the modification of the barriers that keep fish from reaching the upper river spawning grounds on rivers like the Knife, the Lester, and even the Baptism. Unfortunately, opposition from the tree huggers and picture takers has the DNR gun shy. They're more afraid of the envirowhackos than the sportsmen. Nothing is likely to happen to improve the Northshore watershed until we get in the ear of our representatives, AND, are willing to pony up the money it will take to complete these projects.

[leech~~]

Lake Michigan. Bigger fish, more fish, more variety, more spots to fish. The cost per looper is insane in lake superior.

Lake Michigan, shallower, warmer, more fertile. But I live in MN and fish Superior so lets develop our lake a bit! Yep, it's going to cost more to fish here.

[Ross Pearson]

Re: Feathers Rainin,

Lake Michigan doesn't have the level of predation from lake trout that is present in Lake Superior. Even so, I suspect that the cost of angler caught fish in Lake Michigan from stocking programs is also probably pretty high. The fish managers there have accepted the concept of stocking to create recreational opportunity. Not wanting to go to Lake Michigan to fish, I appreciate having the North Shore opportunity to catch something from shore realizing that it comes at a price.

Re: Poacher's pariah,

The number of Steelhead offspring leaving Knife River is about the same as it was during the banner years for Steelhead decades ago. The difference now is that they are heavily preyed upon in Lake Superior by the restored Lake Trout population. Steelhead are no longer abundantly sustainable on their own because of predation primarily when they enter Lake Superior. Other than Lake Trout, we will never have sustainable fish populations of much abundance on the North Shore. If you want something to catch from shore or in the rivers, it can only come from planting at a large enough stocking size (9-10 inches for Kamloops) to counteract predation in Lake Superior. We need a rehabilitated French River Cold Water Hatchery for this purpose.

Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

[JBMasterAngler]

How are you going to modify some of those north shore streams? Blow up the waterfalls? Those "picture takers" you complain about bring ALOT more money to the north shore than steelhead anglers do!

[oilandwater]

All of this sounds good and feels good in terms of 'where else can you catch fish like this', but the glaring point remains: How are we going to pay for it?

The recommended fix for the hatchery is going to cost almost $8 million dollars; equal to 25% of the entire Fisheries Division annual budget for the entire state of MN. The yearly cost after that blows away any reality in terms of cost-per-returned-fish. Regardless of how many people 'claim' to fish for Loopers, those that are dedicated enough to spend more than 3-4 days per year specifically targeting these fish (and not just including it in 'whatever bites trout-walleye-salmon' when trolling) still number only in the low hundreds at best. Are you few willing to pay $XXXX per year to sustain this?

I live on the North Shore. I love oranges. I could spend a fortune falsely creating the conditions in which to grow oranges because of how much I love them, how tasty they are, and how good for me and others they are, but the point remains; I live in northern MN. So I grow raspberries.

How are we going to pay for it? FIgure that out, then we can have the other discussions.

[Ross Pearson]

The HDR rehabilitation study outlined above in this thread provides the answer to the question of how to pay for the FRCWH rehabilitation: " MNDNR to seek funding sources for construction of the recommendations outlined in this report. Options include license increases, bond bill or fish hatchery stamp." Every bonding session the MNDNR presents funding requests to the legislature in mostly unpublicized procedures for many millions of dollars. This upcoming session there is already a request for 4 million dollars for upgrading the infrastructures at some of the other state hatcheries. It is both Kamloops and above barrier Steelhead fry planting from a captive Steelhead brood stock at the FRCWH that are creating the North Shore rainbow opportunities we currently enjoy.

Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

[Ross Pearson]

Here are some numbers from: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/areas/fisheries/lakesuperior/Trout-Report.pdf#view=fit&page=4 - from a Trout Angling in Minnesota survey:

"Key Findings

· This survey targeted Minnesota trout anglers, with a study emphasis on the rainbow trout (Kamloops and steelhead) fishery in Lake Superior and its tributaries.

· A total of 85,825 anglers purchased trout stamps during the study timeframe; 2,500 anglers were sent surveys with a response rate of 59%.

· An estimated 30.5% (26,177) of trout anglers fished Lake Superior and its tributaries with 14.6% (12,530) participating in the Lake Superior rainbow trout fishery.

· Of trout anglers participating in the Lake Superior rainbow trout fishery during the study timeframe, 20.4% targeted only Kamloops, 34.0% targeted only steelhead, and 45.6% targeted both Kamloops and steelhead. Based on the 85,825 Minnesota resident anglers who purchased trout stamps during the study timeframe, these results suggest that 12,530 Minnesota trout anglers targeted rainbow trout in Lake Superior and its tributaries during the study timeframe. 2,575 targeted Kamloops exclusively, 4,291 targeted steelhead exclusively, and 5,664 targeted both Kamloops and steelhead."

Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

[Poacher's pariah]

2500 surveys sent. 59% participation = 1475 respondents, of which only 20.4% were exclusive looper fisherman. That means that only 300 people claim to be exclusive looper chasers. That's a long way from your 2500.

And who gets stuck for the bill for this minority of exclusive fishermen? We all do. If the looper fishery is to be revived, charge people who keep them $100 for every fish they kill. Washington state back in the 70's had a punch card system. You keep a fish and you immediately punch your card. Once you've reached your quota for the year, you can't fish for steelhead. Period. If a guy want's to keep loopers, a $1000 punchcard would go a long way toward funding the FR Hatchery. BTW, who is going to pay the annual power bill for heating the lake water up to an acceptable temp to raise the fish?

The question is whether the Department of Natural Resources can continue to spend more than a half-million dollars a year to operate a hatchery that provides fish for about 2,000 anglers,(.1% of all anglers) according to DNR estimates. Minnesota has about 1.5 million anglers in all.

According to one scenario provided by the DNR, raising and stocking Kamloops rainbows costs about $406,000 annually, shared by the French River Hatchery and the Spire Valley Hatchery near Remer. The cost of each fish caught by an angler is about $185, according to that scenario.

Long story short, this is a very expensive fishery with little payback, and those who choose to pursue it should be willing to pay for that privilege, and not expect the rest of us to foot the bill. The looper program is almost the angling equivalent of social welfare.

[Ross Pearson]

From above: the survey sample yielded results which "suggest that 12,530 Minnesota trout anglers targeted rainbow trout in Lake Superior and its tributaries during the study timeframe. 2,575 targeted Kamloops exclusively, 4,291 targeted steelhead exclusively, and 5,664 targeted both Kamloops and steelhead." The FRCWH is necessry for any program (current or future) that will impact the Lake Superior and its tributaries fisheries. Pesently it provides for both Kamloops and Steelhead stocking.

The FRCWH programs generate economic and social benefits to the state, region, and anglers fishing Lake Superior’s shoreline and streams. The 2002 Economic Impact and Social Benefits Study of Coldwater Angling in Minnesota Prepared for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources found “Total direct sales due to anglers fishing Lake Superior shores/streams amounted to over $21 million, with another $12+million in direct income on an annual basis. Total expenditures support over 435 full and part time jobs.” Over the 25 years that a rehabilitated FRCWH would be functional, this would mean over 500 million dollars for the North Shore economy. These economic and social benefits are only made possible with a functioning FRCWH and will be lost if the FRCWH fails due to lack of the very much needed upgrades of the facility.

FRCWH Rehabilitation would benefit anglers but more importantly for taxpayers it will benefit the North Shore economy in a pretty big way. This is how the state gets paid back for their investment. The state of Minnesota makes these kinds of investments every legislative bonding session.

I, too, believe we North Shore anglers should be paying more to support the Kamloops and Steelhead opportunities generated by the FRCWH programs!

Going fishing now - back later!

Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

[Poacher's pariah]

Ross, not to rain on your parade, but these "income projections" suffer from the same skewed math that brought us things like the Great Lakes Aquarium. Politicians and bureaucrats know that if they lack enough direct support for their pet project, that they can use "projections" that have little basis in fact to sway their audience. Few people, when listening to a snake oil salesman, AKA, politician, make the effort to actually analyze the data. The aquarium was supposed to generate millions of dollars in income every year. instead, they get subsidized to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per annually. All because in order to sell the project, they inflated the projected annual attendance rates to include every visit by every person to canal park. As much as I love fishing steelhead and loopers, I have a difficult time with the idea that others should subsidize my passion.

[leech~~]

Ross, not to rain on your parade, but these "income projections" suffer from the same skewed math that brought us things like the Great Lakes Aquarium. Politicians and bureaucrats know that if they lack enough direct support for their pet project, that they can use "projections" that have little basis in fact to sway their audience. Few people, when listening to a snake oil salesman, AKA, politician, make the effort to actually analyze the data. The aquarium was supposed to generate millions of dollars in income every year. instead, they get subsidized to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars per annually. All because in order to sell the project, they inflated the projected annual attendance rates to include every visit by every person to canal park. As much as I love fishing steelhead and loopers, I have a difficult time with the idea that others should subsidize my passion.

You mean like a new Vikings stadum!

[maxpower17]

Quote:

Long story short, this is a very expensive fishery with little payback, and those who choose to pursue it should be willing to pay for that privilege, and not expect the rest of us to foot the bill. The looper program is almost the angling equivalent of social welfare.

If that's the case, then why should I be required to foot the bill for walleye stocking, musky stocking, catfish stocking, etc... I don't fish for them and I can imagine that this cost is much greater than the FRH.

You won't have to worry though. It's already been confirmed that the DNR will be pulling money fri other programs to dump into Mille Lacs. Yet another thing I shouldn't have to pay for. Right?

Not everything needs to be proportional as far as spending goes.

[buzz1ng]

MAXPOWER17 +1. Couldnt agree more.

[Poacher's pariah]

It's a numbers thing. There are a couple thousand steelhead/looper fisherman, and there are a million plus walleye chasers. Of coarse they're going to put the money where the greatest demand is. A dollar a head from us is $2500 bucks. That won't even pay one fisheries employee for a month. On the other hand, a buck a head from a million........

Conversely, if you are a passionate steelheader/looper chaser, do you really want 50,000 guys tromping all over your favorite rivers every season? Do the math. There isn't enough space to support them. Which goes to reinforce the argument against keeping the FRH open. A small population of fisherman have little hope of convincing the DNR to spend big bucks on us for only a little bang. Rather than saying they're spending X dollars per fish, think of it as if they are spending X dollars per fisherman. Don't get me wrong, I love my trout fishing! But I'm also a realist, and recognize that the (DNR) money follows the money. Most NShore fisherman are local. We don't spend much money on lodging and other "touristy" stuff to the degree walleye chasers do. And Mil Lacs in an industry unto itself. How many permanent, non-DNR jobs do you think our total spending supports on the northshore, vs Mil Lacs?

[maxpower17]

Quote:

A small population of fisherman have little hope of convincing the DNR to spend big bucks on us for only a little bang. Rather than saying they're spending X dollars per fish, think of it as if they are spending X dollars per fisherman.

Why?

I don't understand this. Why does cost per fisherman matter? Sure it's expensive, but it's still effective and people use the resource to its maximum capacity.

Your point is like saying we shouldn't pay taxes to fund food stamps because less than 50% of the taxpayers don't use it.

[Down Deep]

I live in the Duluth area and it is an asset to drive down to the the big pond several times a year to try my luck at a trout dinner and appreciate the experience. However, I can see the writing on the wall and the money for loopers is going to dry up. IMO t funding the looper program is more a fact that the DNR can't raise the money they need to adequately fund the Dept. I see it as more of a political reality. The DNR proposes their budgets and get beat back by the MN legislature. So they go back to work and start prioritizing their spending and look for low hanging fruit and the cost of the looper programs has a brightly lit sign that says "Look How Much I Cost".

[oilandwater]

A bonding bill for this project just places a heavier debt on that state credit card; That's not paying for it. There is no government/bonding money tree. Debt now will have to be paid back, and may come due at a time when additional money is needed for new upgrades in the future. As for the license fee increases or hatchery stamp ideas, we as trout anglers can't afford what it would cost to fund this through that mechanism.

Its awfully hard to extrapolate those kind of numbers for total Looper focus from anglers. Our trout stamp sales are statewide, with a few hot pockets. I think it is grossly incorrect to try to assign that figure of 12,500 Looper anglers from that survery. Those with a higher interest in the activity or the survey results are much more likely to respond to such a survey thus creating an imbalance in the surveys received, and on a topic like this you don't have a counterpoint group arguing against it to skew the results back to the middle. The figure of a few hundred anglers that count on, focus on, and depend on the Looper stocking program is more accurate. Outside of the usual few hundred people that fish the breakwalls or French/Bluebird shore for Loopers in spring, there are very few trollers that depend on the Looper fishery (or unharvestable steelhead fishery) to place them on the lake. They come for salmon and trout, and Looper focus or Looper catch make up a very tiny part of their bag or their motivation. Look at the late fall trollers that seach specifically for Loopers; the same two dozen vehicles between all accesses....

Let's face it; outside of your traveling-Joe that comes to the shore one weekend a year to fish, the average Looper angler comes from primarily one of two groups; the upper-middle class 40-some year old professional, or the retiree. One of these is happy to pay more for their specialty fishery, while the other may be willing but very unable to pay what it would cost to maintain the program. The only time that you can consistently count on a chance of catching a Looper from shore is Feb-May; a time when students are still in school, so there is very little youth recruitment/retention. This off-tourist season may give a small boost to local motels/hotels, but one that would pale in comparison to a traveling youth hockey tournament or similar event. Again, extrapolating such 'suggested' numbers such as were presented ignores all the other drivers of that economic activity for the benefit of the argument.

I don't think we even need to touch on the difference between welfare programs that keep people fed and a specialty recreational fishing opportunity.

Until we can find a way to fund the project that is financially sustainable, it is just another specialty pet project for the tax dollar.

[oilandwater]

DownDeep, I appreciate the same benefit that you quoted for a local trout dinner. Realistically speaking, however, how much of that catch is Rainbows versus Lake trout or Salmon, species that seem to be self sustaining or have a better catch-per-hour reality year round that the Looper. I agree that they will need to prioritize, and there's your answer.

[maxpower17]

Wow. It's amazing how the attitude of the angler across the board is to give up. I see this with the walleye community as well. When faced with an apparent problem, the choice is to admit defeat, "face reality", and give up.

Since the DNR is searching for low hanging fruit, there's no reason to stand up and say wait a minute. This program has been around for decades. This is something I've grown to love. This program has provided me another opportunity to catch a fish I otherwise wouldn't have been able to. It's exciting to wait all 9 months to try it again next year. Somehow this program was a an idea good enough to spend a lot of money on decades ago.

[Poacher's pariah]

Decades ago we didn't have a revived lake trout fishery. In the absence of lakers, the loopers and kings reigned supreme, but now that we've restored some balance to the system with a resurrected and self sustaining lake trout population, loopers have pretty much found their place in the natural order of things. Six bucks a piece seems a pretty steep price for lake trout forage. The best laker fishing I have is in early summer when the DNR dumps the loopers in the rivers. The lakers will show up in a heartbeat scarfing up these tender and dumb little morsels and pitching a bomber long A in a rainbow pattern is an almost unbeatable presentation for about 2 weeks around the planting sites.

[maxpower17]

From Kamloops Advocates, Lake Superior Steelhead Association, and Superior Sport Fishing Alliance combined effort - Reasons to upgrade the French River Cold Water Hatchery statement being sent to the MNDNR and Minnesota legislators:

"Present and future restoration, supplemental, or recreational stocking efforts for the North Shore area are most effectively met by the use of the FRCWH and would not be possible without the hatchery’s unique operational capabilities. The FRCWH has the ability to heat the rearing water facilitating faster growth of the fish being raised. The Kamloops program and other fish stocking efforts have demonstrated that a larger smolt (fish offspring that have matured) planting size of 9 to 10 inches is required to counteract predation losses and create a reasonable adult return rate. The 3% Kamloops returns of the past came from a continuous rearing policy at the FRCWH for Kamloops offspring. This 3% adult return rate has been the best for any fish planting program on Lake Superior. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) fisheries assessment information indicates that returns will be many times greater with a planting size at 9 to 10 inches. The FRCWH has demonstrated the ability to produce fish of this critical size with continuous onsite rearing.

The current combined Spire Valley/FRCWH production policy can at best produce Kamloops at a 7 to 8 inch planting size. The MNDNR Steelhead smolt program produced fish planted at a 7 to 8 inch size and only yielded returns of 0.6%. Continuous FRCWH production of Kamloops has yielded 5 times better returns when the majority was 9 to10 inches in size. Without the ability present only at the FRCWH to allow smoltification (fish maturing) in a hatchery setting yielding growth of the fish to be planted well beyond a presmolt size, there cannot be the reasonable return rate that a cost effective program requires.

The FRCWH allows stocking Kamloops at a bigger size than other state hatcheries which results in more fish for anglers to catch and more angler participation. The FRCWH discharges its rearing water into the

French River which in turn enters Lake Superior. FRCWH imprinted Kamloops return to the French River as adults because of this situation created only because the FRCWH is operating on the Lake Superior shoreline. Planted fish from any other hatchery in the state could not be planted at the larger size because they would be imprinted to the hatchery where they reached the smolt size (around 6”). As adults they would not be programmed by imprinting to return to the North Shore. If another hatchery’s fish are used on the North Shore, they would need to be planted at a smaller imprintable size in the rivers where a return is desired. This would result in a very low survival and return rate due to the greater mortality from predators on smaller fish when they enter Lake Superior from these rivers. Lake Superior stocking needs to be done in a manner that counteracts predation. The best growth combined with the best imprinting for the fish to be planted can only be accomplished by using the FRCWH for the production of fish to be planted in Lake Superior and its streams."

Ross Pearson - Kamloops Advocates

I'm guessing you missed this part.

[oilandwater]

6" or 9", a lot of public money goes down the gullet of lakers, cormorants, and gulls. Now that the lakers are a major predator, the size diffence helps, but certainly fails to negate the issue.

The other main difference between now and years ago? Energy costs. The water for the hatchery has to be pumped, treated, heated, cooled, pumped again, etc. Energy used to be cheap, now its not. Stocking Loopers used to make sense, now...

For what it's worth, it has nothing to do with what you or I 'like' to do. We all love catching Loopers and 'want' it to continue indefinitly. When the program can't be paid for, however, changes are necessary, especially when big-dollar demands come up. Until the person arguing has the checkbook to fund it, the 'wants' and the 'gets' columns are going to be a little different.