Ban Lake Sturgeon Harvest

Why do we allow the harvesting of lake sturgeon?

I personally think there should be a ban on harvesting a sturgeon of any size or shape and in any fishery at any time.

Life history characteristics of lake sturgeon are unique with respect to other fishes and are as follows:

sexual maturity in females is reached between 14 and 33 years, most often from 24-26 years; and, 8 to 12 years for males (but may take up to 22 years);
female lake sturgeon spawn once every 4 to 9 years while males spawn every 2 to 7 years;
spawning occurs on clean, gravel shoals and stream rapids from April to June in preferred water temperatures of 55-64oF;
female lake sturgeon lay 4,000 to 7,000 eggs per pound of fish;
growth rates are quite variable throughout its range and depend on temperature, food availability, and water quality; and,
the typical life-span of lake sturgeon is 55 years for males and 80-150 years for females.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/sturgeon/biology.htm

There’s no short-term solution to rebuilding sturgeon populations. Heck, we still have predominately YOUNG fish in the state.

#let them live.

there should be a ban on harvesting a sturgeon of any size or shape and in any fishery at any time.

You apparently are not familiar with Lake Winnebago. A well regulated harvest is the root of the protection of the healthy population.

Boy oh boy bring that up on facebook and the mob will end up outside of your house. I have no dog in the fight though I do find it interesting that some of the loudest defenders of the spearing season (tradition/heritage) in Wisconsin are also very loudly opposed to spearing/netting by natives of walleyes.

I simply asked out of curiosity what one does with a sturgeon (I really did not know) and I was called some pretty interesting names.

I wouldn’t defend sturgeon spearing on a purely tradition stance; there is an underlying and essential conservation reason why I defend it. I don’t participate in the sturgeon spearing season but I see firsthand how the sturgeon spearers are an important part of maintaining the sturgeon population here. The 13000 licenses fund a dedicated biologist (even when license purchasers know they’ll have only a 1/10 chance to harvest). Volunteers stand guard over spawning beds to protect them from poachers. Tens of thousands of dollars is contributed annually to fund research along with habitat protection and restoration.

Moreover, the spearers are the driving force for the fishing clubs that make winter access possible for anglers as well as spearers. They bridge cracks, plow roads, and pull people out of drifts.

Why? Because they taste good and people want to eat them. One fish a year? I think that is a good limit.

Last record I recall, the most harvest was on LOTW’s and that was under 600 fish per year. At that time they had well over 5000 tagged fish, which is a drop in the population bucket.

I don’t recall what the harvest for the St Croix is. I know that 8/9 years ago (back when it was a 50″ minimum) there were 2 years when it was 12 fish.

‘bago is a different system completely and can (and does) produce more and can handle more sturgeon then say the St Croix. It’s pretty hard to compare the two bodies of water. Like comparing Mille Lacs to the Mississippi (say P2 on down) for walleye.

Because of the harvest levels we have in MN, I don’t believe banning sturgeon harvest would bother the biomass. In fact, I would say commercial netting kills more sturgeon in MN then what’s harvested each year on the St Croix.

Personally, I won’t keep one. But I don’t think there’s enough evidence to keep others from enjoying a fish per year.

According to the fisheries reports we recieve when we submit tag info up on the rainy, the population has been steadily and strongly growing. This has been happening while a limited and controlled harvest has been occurring.

Allowing manageable harvest is part of managing a fishery. I think the sturgeon program is a success – kudos to thw DNR!

typical life-span of lake sturgeon is 55 years for males and 80-150 years for females.

What age fish are you catching?

What’s the average age of the fish in each of the fisheries?

I just think sturgeon fishing could be so much more.

FBRM-
I agree. Not much to gain, lots to lose.

WinnebagoViking wrote:

I wouldn’t defend sturgeon spearing on a purely tradition stance; there is an underlying and essential conservation reason why I defend it. I don’t participate in the sturgeon spearing season but I see firsthand how the sturgeon spearers are an important part of maintaining the sturgeon population here. The 13000 licenses fund a dedicated biologist (even when license purchasers know they’ll have only a 1/10 chance to harvest). Volunteers stand guard over spawning beds to protect them from poachers. Tens of thousands of dollars is contributed annually to fund research along with habitat protection and restoration.

Moreover, the spearers are the driving force for the fishing clubs that make winter access possible for anglers as well as spearers. They bridge cracks, plow roads, and pull people out of drifts.

Pretty much what I was going to bring up. The reason that fishery is good is because the locals take pride and protect the fish during the spawn. Now if we could just fish catch and release there it would be great!

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

I just think sturgeon fishing could be so much more.

…For all the sturgeon pics you show, what The Heck Do You Need To Be So Much More.?? … rrr

river rat randy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:</div>
I just think sturgeon fishing could be so much more.

…For all the sturgeon pics you show, what The Heck Do You Need To Be So Much More.?? … rrr

Would you be happy catching 20″ eyes all day every day?

Its good to want to see full potential of a species. Sturgeon as they are now are maybe 3/4, conservitively, at what they might become? We’ve all seen the photos of old, giants use to roam our waters, not anymore, and with current harvest rates, won’t ever be.

I would bet more sturgoen are killed by catch and release fishing in mn than those being kept.

nhamm wrote:

and with current harvest rates, won’t ever be.

??

What are our current harvest rates?

3400 tags issued 258 registered* in 2014

That was in the star tribune last year.

Mike W wrote:

I would bet more sturgoen are killed by catch and release fishing in mn than those being kept.

I would argue that

IF

I knew how many larger fish were picked up by the gills. (I don’t have any facts on mortality rates of C&R sturgeon) but even on lighter gear they release fine. We haven’t seen any floaters around Everts and I was watching for them.

I think there was a staggering and massive adult population of sturgeon at one time that is nearly unimaginable for most.

F’up a walleye fishery. Eh, couple years your back to normal.

Sturgeon were f’d in the pre 1900’s and still struggling to come back.

Theyre in no way shape or form similar to all other game fish managed in Minnesota or Wisconsin, if because of nothing else than their life cycles and breeding.

Eat a 4yr old eye, takes 4 years for the dnr to replace it.
Eat a 45yr old sturgeon. How long does it take to replace it?

Catch and release, I do a great job at catching fish over and know I’m doing better than most to release quicker. I try to teach others, yet few listen.

I feel guilty for sharing what I’ve shared in regards of how to catch sturgeon. I feel like sharing no more. I don’t want to help anyone slit the gills of a single sturgeon.

Yeah I catch fish rrr. But it could be so much better.

The sturgeon population is on a rebound. None of us have enough proof as to how good the population is from what it was 50 years ago. We know it is a lot better but not how much better. This improvement is just because of two things. Controlled harvest and the improvement of water quality in the river.

These two factors work side by side. Water quality?? We have done the damage and may never get it fully corrected but it continues to improve. Us as fishermen and women are able to be the driving force to support these two factors. Without us not many others care. We care about these fish and appreciate what they have to offer to us as a sport fish. It is up to us to make this better but to take away for tradition and harvest is not the answer.. I only know one group that pulls tags and keeps one or two a year. They have done this for more years than I have been alive and it is a family tradition. They care about these fish just as much as anyone and respect the species and law in my opinion.

There is no reason to go back and forth with each other. We should be a team and work towards educating other and ourselves. I know a few guys that do just that and appreciate their efforts.

This adult population will not improve overnight. We will be lucky if our children can see a improvement in this population from what we teach them.

FBRM, I appreciate your concerns and where your intentions are. By education people you are only helping. Don’t believe you are hurting because someone “might” kill a fish one day. Just so they do it legally. If I had any worry about harvest it would be the poaching that could possibly happen. Those are the ones I would be afraid of teaching how to fish for this species. I don’t know if it happens and will not assume or worry about that part but it does sit in the back of my mind.

Pick the right fight… To propose taking harvest away would also drag the C&R season with it. If we cannot afford a very small percentage of the population to be harvested…… Then how can we risk exposure to C&R right. We don’t want to see that.

Think I’ve posted these before.

Would be interesting to see current commercial harvest rates of such species combined with anglers.

Attachments:

1. 

   Screenshot_2016-02-18-13-02-41.png
   

2. 

   Screenshot_2016-02-18-13-02-57.png
   

Maybe we should dump a few into Christmas lake

http://www.stclairsturgeon.org/gallery/showimage.php?iid=59

I’m with FBRM on this one. I think that it’s totally fair to ask the question of why? Just because something exists doesn’t mean we should be entitled to kill and eat it. I’m not getting all Vegan on you guys or anything, but I friggin hate the attitude of ‘well I deserve to keep this fish or that fish or 1000 sunnies because by god I’m an American and I have a license’. It’s totally fair to challenge that assumption/belief.

What’s the downside to having no lake sturgeon harvest?
Ummm, Johnny McLimitstein isn’t allowed to keep a 60″ sturgeon to…eat. Because Johnny NEEDS 40 pounds of sturgeon steaks, you don’t understand how much he needs those. His freezer of walleye, crappie, perch, and bluegills are not enough to satiate the need for sturgeon steaks. In fact, his whole marriage and life are predicated on the assumption that he is in fact a man, without those sturgeon steaks how is he to show neighbor Johson McLongSchlong that he is on top of the food chain, in spite of his embarrassingly small member?

What’s the upside?
Fish that take an extremely long time to reach maturity are ‘protected’ as much as possible, hopefully allowing their population to continue to grow.

What’s the downside to having a lake sturgeon harvest?
Sturgeon populations might not reach their potential. It’s an unknown, when’s the last time the DNR had the chance to manage a growing, healthy population of sturgeon? 1885? 1910? Do they know what they are doing? I bet they are trying their best with the information they have, but lets face it, this isn’t Mille Lacs or Red where we can just open up another walleye hatchery and close fishing for a few years. Not that current harvest of sturgeon would create another dark age, but you are talking about multiple generations of anglers missing out on the opportunity to see these fish. They can’t just drive to the next lake and catch some.

What’s the upside?
Ummm, Johnny McLimitstein? Tourism? I guess the Rainy River resorts would lose the handful of clients that go up there to keep a fish. I’m guessing those people would be drawn back when they realize that there aren’t a lot of fish like sturgeon to catch. Walleye fishing just doesn’t quite scratch the same itch for a lot of people..

Phil –

You make some interesting assumptions about somebody that intends to keep a sturgeon.

Currently, with the way the population is reportedly growing, it appears that the tight harvest restrictions are sustainable.

Personally, everybody in my boat gets a tag just in case we catch a new record fish. I haven’t killed one in Quite a while, maybe 15 yrs or so, but if one of the guys wants to smoke one, I guess I don’t see the harm in it. There is a population in LOTW that was estimated at over 60,000 in 2004….. A few hundred harvested each yr is nothing.

Good to know I won’t be needing to sit down and write a nice article on my most successful sturgeon season yet.

Timmy wrote:

Phil –

You make some interesting assumptions about somebody that intends to keep a sturgeon.

Currently, with the way the population is reportedly growing, it appears that the tight harvest restrictions are sustainable.

Personally, everybody in my boat gets a tag just in case we catch a new record fish. I haven’t killed one in Quite a while, maybe 15 yrs or so, but if one of the guys wants to smoke one, I guess I don’t see the harm in it. There is a population in LOTW that was estimated at over 60,000 in 2004….. A few hundred harvested each yr is nothing.

35 fish per SQUARE MILE.

Daaaaang, that’s a lot of fish.

Lol.

Wonder how y’all would feel if that was the walleye population…

Mr. Derek wrote:

3400 tags issued 258 registered* in 2014

That was in the star tribune last year.

Timmy wrote:

Phil –

There is a population in LOTW that was estimated at over 60,000 in 2004….. A few hundred harvested each yr is nothing.

I tend to agree with FBRM given the reasons already stated in previous posts. Does catering to the few hundred that are harvested a year outweigh the 1000’s of anglers targeting this special species for just fun. The popularity is growing in targeting this species and the amount harvested will only go up even if at the moment the amount harvested isn’t all that harmful to the overall recovery. Our group has grown from 10 to almost 30 in the 5 years I’ve been making the spring trip to the Rainy and I’m sure others are experiencing the same. Once you catch one there is no turning back.

Also, I would think the resort owners on the Rainy would argue they enjoy having the interest and increased popularity of this species as it bridges a what would otherwise be a slow month between walleye seasons.

With that said, the 2014 population assessment estimated that there are 92,000 sturgeon in the Rainy over 40 inches. I’m encouraged by that progress from the 60,000 over 40 in 2004 and the 17,000 over 40 in 1989. I guess my main hope is that due to the long time it takes to mature and reproduce they don’t expand the slot range as the numbers have continued an upward trend. With how quick these fish seem to grow up there, they only seem to spend a couple of seasons in that 45-50 inch window.

I think great points are being made all around and it’s nice to see respectful viewpoints from multiple positions. We don’t see this enough on important topics these days.

We’ll be up at Wigwam the 13th-17. Hope to meet those who will be up there at the same time.

I fish sturgeon, don’t catch as many as I’d like, and would never think of keeping one.

From what I understand of the St. Croix harvest season, the fish must be over 60″ to tag and keep, and for Canada border waters, 45-50″ or over 75″.

What if you use your first tag on a very large, ancient fish, only to find out you really dislike the taste of sturgeon? A mature fish with the potential to greatly help the species recover is gone from the system. Seems like an awful waste of a way to find out, and at $5, pretty cheap.

Just my .02

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

Good to know I won’t be needing to sit down and write a nice article on my most successful sturgeon season yet.

35 fish per SQUARE MILE.

Daaaaang, that’s a lot of fish.

Lol.

Wonder how y’all would feel if that was the walleye population…

Not sure what you mean on your first comment?

35 fish over 40″ per square mile for such a young population, the DNR seems happy with it. I am sure it could be WAY more – and it will be.

Comparing it to walleyes is a meaningless argument. If you are going that route, let’s just go all the way and compare it to emerald shiners.

I slam the DNR quite a bit, but in this case, I give them their due…..I view the sturgeon project as a success. To increase the population of 40″+ fish from 17,000 to 92,000 in less than 30 yrs while allowing sport harvest tells me they are doing something right. Does the $5 tag go directly to the sturg program? If so, let’s raise the fee! I would gladly buy a $20 tag just in case I catch the next state record!

Really, you can’t be serious, they are one of the most protected species,

I don’t see any reasons that we should be allowed to keep sturgeon. I think there should be a catch and release record book, and maybe a $10-$20 licence required for targeting sturgeon that the proceeds go to sturgeon alone. Sky is the limit if we would just protect them.

As long as there are Bluegills and Crappies and Perch around, why would anyone want to eat a 50 year old Sturgeon?

All kidding aside, I think in general it makes more sense for us to eat prey species and not eat predator species. Think about it…the panfish are designed to reproduce like crazy because everything is eating them…Walleyes, Bass, Northerns, Herons, Ospreys, Racoons. How many predators, other than man, does a 60 inch Sturgeon have? Probably none. That seems to suggest that nature intended that fish to die of old age, not in a smoker.

Just my opinion.

SR