Big lake trout article

[Timber Donkey]

http://www.duluthnewstribune.com/outdoors/fishing/3770605-angler-has-big-lake-trout-day-near-superiors-shore

Gorgeous lake trout.  What an awesome catch.  

How old do you folks think a fish like this is?  

[JBMasterAngler]

That's a good point on the stocked rainbows. I was fishing several creeks between Duluth and Two Harbors last week and schools of 10 inch rainbows were swimming in and around the creek mouths. All the cormorants were having themselves a nice buffet.

[Northlander]

I have caught a few nice lakers uptight fishing that 25 minus with bombers and husky jerks. Nice fish for sure.

[certified jumbo]

Nice fish for sure.  Congrats to Jim.  Its fun seeing him fish in the spring, he's always willing to share a hot tip or some advise. 

It amazes me hhow many big lakers are caught out their.   This winter was out of control.  Numbers seem good.  

[barchbirk]

might take him a few years to finish that big one off:

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/fish/eating/lakesuperior.html

 

 

 

[Timber Donkey]

I was thinking the same.  Eating something that large isn't high on my priority list.  

Everyone is entitled to do what they will as long as they are within the law but keeping a large, native fish to save non-native fish seems backwards to me.  It seems an article comes up every year about large lake trout being kept to save rainbow smolts.......none the less, a nice fish.  

[FowlSki]

Mercury, it's what's for dinner.

If the looper fisherman feel the need to target and kill as many old, native fish as possible in order to make the looper stocking program a success that should be a sign to the DNR to end the stocking program. 

[tacklejunkie]

Mercury, it's what's for dinner.

If the looper fisherman feel the need to target and kill as many old, native fish as possible in order to make the looper stocking program a success that should be a sign to the DNR to end the stocking program. 

​Agree. The lakers are native to the lake. The steelhead/loopers are an exotic. And, Superior lakers are slow growing. I've heard people, especially old timers, complain that the lakers are outcompeting the salmon for food without the realization that the lakers belong in Superior. The salmon don't

[certified jumbo]

Many people are catching and eating lake trout of all sizes between Duluth and two harbors.  Probably more than we think.  Look how many big lakers were kept this winter.  I saw lots of pictures of people of all ages with multiple large lakers on the ice.  I watched the john Gillespie fishing show this winter and some of the guys were keeping 20 pounders to smoke.  PPoint being, this happens a lot. You may not like it and thats perfectly fine.  

The other thing you hear a lot of more and more is people are targeting or attempting to target non lake trout species when they troll.  More anglers want the salmon,  browns and rainbows over the lakers.

II'm not trying to argue with anyone just adding a couple other thoughts.  I enjoy fishing all trout and salmon fish.  

 

[Ross Pearson]

Fishermen's attitudes about their favorite fish (Kamloops and Steelhead versus Lake Trout) reflect their values about those fish and little more.  No one is right or wrong here since we don't all have the same values regarding different fish species.  There are hundreds of thousands of Lake Trout in the restored MN Lake Superior Lake Trout fishery. There are only thousands of rainbow trout.  In order to have the diversity of some shore and stream fishing opportunity on the North Shore, it will require continued planting.  Lakers are the top pedator affecting the abundance of forage and most other fish in the nearshore fishery.  I have personally caught no Lake Trout since last fall.  Those few lakers I caught from shore then were mostly planted fish themselves as were the three mentioned in the DNT story that this topic is about.  The Lake Trout population is not affected by the small number that I am catching.  There are no lakers in my freezer or house at this time.

Edited June 23, 2015 by Ross Pearson

[I fish, therefore I lie]

Quoting Ross: "....Those few lakers I caught from shore then were mostly planted fish..."    Should it make any difference whether a fish is planted or not? And what of sustainability? If a species can't sustain itself, to what ends should we go? How long should we pour money into a species proven to be unable maintain itself naturally? Brown trout failed miserably because they were too dumb to find the spring-fed river  holes to spawn in(unlike the brooktrout). The Altantic salmon program ran its course in just a few years due to lack of returning fish. So. The looper program is failing, and we're supposed to put even more money into it? This is the same type of logic Washington is using. "The program isn't working because we're not funding it fully." At what point do we face the music?  After XX-years of failure,shouldn't we have learned something?  Don't get me wrong, I love fishing loopers in the streams. But I have to be realistic in this age of ever shrinking budgets and recognize that my passions shouldn't be subsidized by others. 

 If looper advocates are willing to consider the total cost of rearing an entire year class of loopers, and divide that by the number of returners, and then re-divide that number by the people who persue them, then we have a number should reflect the actual cost to fish them. I propose a looper stamp that covers that cost.  If there is one(I wish it was only one) thing wrong with our society, it's that we don't expect to pay our way as individuals. We're always waiting for "The Government" to step in and bail us out, never acknowledging the ultimately WE are the government, and there ain't enough money to go around. The sooner we adopt a pay as we go attitude, the better off , and the freer we'll all be.  It could be worse. We could adopt the European system where only the elite get to hunt and fish. Think about it.

Edited June 23, 2015 by I fish, therefore I lie

[Ross Pearson]

For those that have not seen or want to revisit the 5-yr.-old discussion on the French River Hatchery, Kamloops, and Steelhead, here are the links on fishingminnesota.com : 
http://fishingminnesota.com/forums/topic/152626-kamloops-production-shift/
http://fishingminnesota.com/forums/topic/166978-license-fee-information-meeting/

[FowlSki]

Fishermen's attitudes about their favorite fish (Kamloops and Steelhead versus Lake Trout) reflect their values about those fish and little more.  No one is right or wrong here since we don't all have the same values regarding different fish species.  

​As soon as you start killing other fish to protect "your" fish you are heading down a slippery slope.   Especially when you are killing a native fish to protect a non-native stocked fish.  There is definitely a right or wrong on that subject. 

A lot of the statements in the rest of your post are a bit concerning and/or off base but I'm not going to sit here and pick it apart.

If you are the "kamloop advocate" you may want to reconsider your stance on this practice of killing old native lake trout that take years to grow to that size.  It certainly does not shed a good light on looper fisherman. 

 

[I fish, therefore I lie]

Considering how long it takes a laker to reach spawning age, especially the really big females, advocating/celebrating their demise speaks volumes about the mindset and (lack of?) character of those who have already forgotten how easily we nearly wiped them out, and/or how long it took to re-establish a self sustaining population.  And for what? To support a exotic that is unable to sustain itself? Really?  My tax dollars and license fees are subsidizing this?

Edited June 23, 2015 by Rick
Took out the name calling.

[maxpower117]

I too am extremely disappointed about the motivation behind keeping large lake trout. Another thing to remember is the vast amount of time and money the DNR had spent over the last 50 years to restore the lake trout populations. 

The time and money spent on exotic steelhead and loopers is only a drop in the hat. 

I've reconsidered my opinion about looper stocking because of this article.

I'll NEVER see that 40"+ lake trout replaced in my lifetime. It's a shame to have to die only for a few fish that can be replaced in 1 year.

 

Edited June 23, 2015 by maxpower117

[Jarrid Houston]

I agree that it sucks to see big fish get taken out of "OUR" waters......  My opinion is that sometimes, people just need to feed there ego, by keeping big fish..   Don't get me wrong, I like to keep fish as much as the next guy, but cant bring myself to keep a "legend" of a fish (even if its from L. Superior).  Similar to the river (which I am way more familiar with), keeping the big walleyes isn't helping the future.  I am a big supporter of recycled fish, but To each there own....  Sucks sometimes...

[Timber Donkey]

To further shed light on this topic I'll introduce this article which was produced by the state of Wisconsin.

http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/supps/2003/apr03/trout.htm

To the comment about there being hundreds of thousands of lake trout in Lake Superior, read the above article.  The comment is correct, to some extent.......the largest population of lake trout belongs to the siscowet which aren't easily accessible to the average angler.  This makes the near shore population of lake trout even more special.

Don't get me wrong, I love to eat fish as much as the next person, but I also like to think that I'm doing so responsibly.  It seems that for the last few years we've seen articles with folks holding big lake trout that they caught to protect rainbow trout smolt.  To use that reasoning to harvest a trophy fish that we all (most I'd bet) would agree is not a prime eating fish to try and save a stocked species seems silly.  I'd also bet there isn't a peer reviewed scientific publication out there saying that by harvesting large lake trout, that you're saving rainbow smolts.

At the end of the day I can only control what I do.  I will continue to eat fish, but I also plan on doing my part to pass down our fisheries in a better condition than I received them.   

Topics like this are good conversation points for anglers to discuss.  We will never all agree, but never the less, it is a good conversation to have.  At the end of the day, we're all in this boat together.

[Ross Pearson]

The top capture from the MN DNR's Lake Superior Management Plan's Lake Trout Chapter shows about a 10% annual mortality each year from both fishing and lamprey predation.  And the bottom shows 20,985 harvested which would make the lean lake trout population over 200,000.  I was told the three fish in the story had a total of 8 identifiable rainbow smolts around 10" in their guts.  But, I agree that the few anglers targetting lakers in hopes of preserving more rainbows cannot really impact the lake trout population.  Other reasons to fish are indeed more valid.

[I fish, therefore I lie]

Ross, for the sake of argument, are you able to supply us with the total dollar costs for producing the most recent batch of loopers planted, and how many were planted?  And can you post the total cost for the planting year that produced our more recent returners and their numbers. I suspect that when all is said and done, that we're subsidizing looper chasers to the tune of several hundreds of dollars per returning fish. And with no future expectations of things improving. Can you tell us with a straight face that these costs are really justifiable? Please don't wade into the tourism dollars aspect of the argument as justification since a huge majority of looper chasers are locals.

[Ross Pearson]

Off topic but... averages provide a better picture.  The first 2 captures are from MN DNR regional supervisor Tim Goeman's presentation to the Lake Superior Advisory Group in February.  The 3rd is what the North Shore economy would lose without the French River Cold Water Hatchery, since most of the North Shore's shore/stream opportunities come from its products.

 

[maxpower117]

But, I agree that the few anglers targetting lakers in hopes of preserving more rainbows cannot really impact the lake trout population. 

Then the few lake trout taken shouldn't impact the rainbow population. So what is being accomplished other than broadcasting an unpopular agenda? 

[Ross Pearson]

Some think they maybe saving Kamloops by targetting big lakers.  I don;t think the biology would support that belief.  The story was initially reported to Duluth News Tribune reporter Sam Cook simply to share an incredible big fish moment,  Sam's own inference "Pearson also is an avid Kamloops rainbow trout angler. He and Bahen figure they’re saving Kamloops rainbows with every big lake trout they catch trolling." is not written as a direct quote from either of us as far as I know.  I was not interviewed and didn't want to be as it was really Jim's story as he caught the fish.  As a result, other anglers have been offended.  In hindsight, I wish it had been reported as simply a fantastic experience being shared without mentioning Kamloops at all.  The story posted on this forum, however, may help let some know that we need the capabilities of the French River Hatchery to grow bigger fish for Lake Superior planting in order to counteract predation and have successful stocking programs.

[Big Kype]

A fantastic experience indeed. Congratulations to Jim and his fish.

[maxpower117]

 

I'm not calling you a liar, but that quote or message had to come from somewhere. There are two seperate articles posted in this thread with the same message. 

The first fish I ever caught out of superior was a looper. This was back in the mid 90s. Since then, I haven't fished for them. I'm now a triller out on the lake and really enjoy catching and eating lake trout. It's my opinion that the system needs these large fish to be a desireable fishery. There are tons of smaller eater size fish that are supporting the meat hunters. I also understand there are a good number of 40"+ fish in there too. But those fish are hard to replace. 

While I don't mind having steelhead and loopers around, I don't think it should come at the cost of the large native lake trout. 

[Ross Pearson]

I have learned that I can't tell others what to value in fishing or life in general.  Choices we make towards what we fish for and how we do it are personal if done within the law.  I believe Kamloops and Steelhead do have value for a great many anglers as do Lake Trout.   I agree the opportunity to fish for Kamloops and Steelhead should not come at a cost to Lake Trout or other fisheries.  I will continue to promote effective planting programs for Kamloops and Steelhead because I believe in their value for myself and others.

[barchbirk]

I agree with Ross.  Fishing is a personal experience and choice and it is not our place to tell others what to fish for or how to fish as long as it is within ethical and legal boundaries.  But the debate about Kamloops Rainbow Trout does go beyond these norms because it is an artificial, man-made, government program which we all, as anglers, are being asked to fund.  Ross wants an updated hatchery facility at French River while the state has opted to use an existing facility (Spire Valley) to raise the trout to releasable size.  The problem is if these off-site, smaller trout are a viable replacement for French River raised fish.  This year marked the first year where the returning fish were raised at the Spire Valley facility. 

I would argue that no matter where the trout come from they pose several problems.  Kamloops Rainbows compete directly with Steelhead for the limited spawning areas on North Shore streams.  The argument is made that the steelhead, being a more fit fish, is able to ascend our streams and reach habitat that the less fit loopers cannot.  This is true in some streams while many streams see both types of fish in the same beds.  Nature just doesn't work this way.  Or work this way for long.  I feel that loopers negatively affect steelhead.  The natural reproduction of them at any rate. 

Loopers do fill a role on the North Shore.  But they are not as important, economically, as some would attest.  With the great ice this spring I think it was an object lesson to see the hundreds of anglers off of 21st and Brighton Beach and the relatively few off of French River.  Those choosing to fish for herring, coho, lake trout versus loopers.  Maybe ice conditions played a role.  With ice fishing over, walleye season yet to come, people do come to Lake Superior for open water and fishing.  So do the anglers off the pier at Park Point.  Loopers fulfill some lower purpose, not some higher one. 

[I fish, therefore I lie]

Ross, thanks for posting the info. I don't believe including the glory years of looper production in the average does justice to what's happening of late. So for the sake of argument I'll use $500/fish as the basis for any economic justification.  Considering how few anglers actually target loopers, do you really think this is a justified (and sustainable) expense?  The economic impact data is for ALL Lake Superior streams, and ALL species. Co-opting those numbers to support any single program like the looper fishery is disingenuous at best, especially when you consider that 95% of all looper activity takes place between the Lest and Gooseberry rivers. That's only a quarter of the major streams flowing into the lake.  Boil it all down and we have a heavily subsidized fishery enjoyed by a relative few that is consuming resources arguably better spent elsewhere.

On the other hand, we have slot limits on walleyes, so why not a slot limit on lakers. Out west, Washington state has a punch card system for steelhead. Once you fill your punchcard and you're done for the year. Similarly, if we had an annual punchcard for lakers over, say 32", with a limit of one or two, we'd reduce the loss of the big old spanwers we depend on to sustain the fishery.  A punchcard could be printed when you purchase your license, so the inconvenience would be at a minimum.  Anyone bagging a slotted fish without validating his punchcard would be subject penalty just like any other poacher.

[Ross Pearson]

I have been feeling like the "Complaint Department" lately.  So, I am going to bow out of further tangental discussions generated by the topic "Big lake trout article".  The MN DNR Lake Superior Fisheries office is currently in the process of revising the Lake Superior Management Plan and most if not all of the issues mentioned in this topic are under their consideration at this time.  The public has had and will have further opportunity to make their concerns known regarding the draft and final plans.  Sportfishing, commercial, and conservation interests have contributed a lot of time and effort to present their positions and recommendations for management issues.  Individuals can join these organizations to have their voices heard on the issues that concern them or independently respond when the time for more public input arrives.  At some point MN DNR Fisheries will publish all the issue responses from the Lake Superior Advisory Group.  Kamloops Advocates is only one of about two dozen representatives in the group.  The first draft for the plan that will guide MN DNR management for Lake Superior is scheduled to be completed sometime this fall. The MN DNR Lake Superior Fisheries Office at French River should be happy to provide more details and answer questions.  As they often say to us - Happy Fishing.