Ban Lake Sturgeon Harvest

What would be the point of keeping one at this point to beat the current ‘kill’ record (lets say you get a #100’er)? When many of us know of (or have witnessed) sturg that have crushed that record and have been released already. Many of which are well documented. I just can’t see that being something to get you chest puffed up about- but yeah you could hang your hat knowing your name is in the registration book With a much smaller fish than others caught already.

I’ve never kept one or have had the opportunity to try it but would like to once, just to try it for myself. I don’t see the current management practice as a problem unless those kill numbers go x10 or up. I don’t like keeping fish when I’m on a trip (like at Rainy) just because it’s an extra something to mess and travel with but I also wouldn’t want to keep a 60+ on the croix during that keep season. Some day, maybe I’ll kill one in that smaller slot. I’m certainly not going to slash the tires of anyone who does.

Does the $5 tag go directly to the sturg program?

It goes to the general fund.

Nick, do those charts include the WI commercial fishing numbers?

LOTW and The Croix are two different animals. They aren’t nor should be considered the same for regs.

Sturgeon grow slower on the Croix then LOTW’s or ‘bago.

Speaking of the Croix here only….

I don’t think sustainability is the issue with the current regs.

The issue is that it’s going to take the better part of a persons life time to replace every 60+” sturgeon taken out of the St Croix River. (I know, I know there are fish popping the 60″ mark every year) …

I’m a little slow FBRM, but with time, I’ll catch on.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Nick, do those charts include the WI commercial fishing numbers?

Not sure. Text is below, I would assume not for the years before 1922 but ??

Townsend (1902, p. 715) reported that the years between 1895 and
1899 had been fully as prosperous for the fisheries as at any previous period. “The total yield has never been greater, and more fishermen are now given employment than ever before.”

The U. S. Commission of Fish and Fisheries and its successor, the
Bureau of Fisheries collected statistics on the commercial fisheries of the Mississippi River in 1894, 1899, 1902, 1922, and 1931 ( Smith, 1898, Townsend, 1902, Sette 1925, Fiedler 1933). The 1902 survey has not been published in detail, but was summarized in the Bureau of Fisheries Statistical Bulletin No. 175. The Bureau of Census (1911) made a survey of the Mississippi River fisheries in 1908, but Sette (1925, p.209) does not consider the figures comparable to the other surveys.

Additional statistics have been collected at Lakes Pepin and Keokuk
in 1914, 1917, 1922, 1927, and 1931 to 1938 (Coker 1929, Fiedler 1933,
1935, 1936, 1938A, 1938B, 1940, 1941, Fiedler, Manning and Johnson
1934). Each section of the river was covered by a fisheries statistician who asked the fishermen how much gear of each kind they used and how many pounds of fish they caught during the preceding year. Since few of the fishermen and fish dealers kept detailed records, the statistics probably are inaccurate. Despite the approximations which must be made in such a survey, the statistics give a fairly accurate picture of the major changes in the fishery over the period covered (Fig. 16).

The states represented on the Upper Mississippi River Conservation
Committee have collected statistics on the fisheries for 1947 to 1950
( U. M. R. C. C. 1948A, 1948B, 1950, 1951, 1952). These statistics are based mostly upon annual recorded sales of fish and are therefore probably more accurate than the earlier surveys.

The committee referrenced, covered the river from St.Paul, MN to Caruthersville, Missouri

Awesome thread. Lots of great info & insight here.

T

Hope the thread want to harsh of a topic.

Good discussion all.

Enjoyed following the various points being discussed, we don’t have a lot of sturgeon in Illinois but they’re a pretty amazing fish.

Definitely good for special fish species like that to hang around, don’t want them to be like the alligator gar where their range is vastly reduced these days. Illinois still has a 157 pound record alligator gar on the books, from something like 100 years ago. Have no idea when the last verified alligator gar catch occurred in Illinois waters.

Alagnak Pete wrote:

What would be the point of keeping one at this point to beat the current ‘kill’ record (lets say you get a #100’er)? When many of us know of (or have witnessed) sturg that have crushed that record and have been released already. Many of which are well documented. I just can’t see that being something to get you chest puffed up about- but yeah you could hang your hat knowing your name is in the registration book With a much smaller fish than others caught already.

I’ve never kept one or have had the opportunity to try it but would like to once, just to try it for myself. I don’t see the current management practice as a problem unless those kill numbers go x10 or up. I don’t like keeping fish when I’m on a trip (like at Rainy) just because it’s an extra something to mess and travel with but I also wouldn’t want to keep a 60+ on the croix during that keep season. Some day, maybe I’ll kill one in that smaller slot. I’m certainly not going to slash the tires of anyone who does.

I just noticed in the 2016 MN regs there is a new catch and release state record for muskie, lake sturgeon, and flat head.

Yes sir! No reason to kill a beast just for your name on paper. Great option that hopefully gets used.

It’s about time!! Let’s recognize some of these giants that people are tossing back!!

Here’s hoping everybody has a productive and safe sturg season! And remember – don’t hold em by the gills……If I can be taught that, anybody can.

And the trees were all kept equal, by hatchet ax and saw

today a 40# is a giant by most.

a 100# is a “record”

But on LOTW, a giant was, once upon a time, considered to be OVER 200#.

Think about that.

I would have to buy a hoist for my boat.

I personally love to fish sturgeon. I love it so much that when we go to LOTW that’s all I fish for. And we go up there around 3-4 weeks out of the year. I never have kept one but have tasted a smoked 1…very good! I personally don’t mind the 45-50in slot but the 75 and over let those live. What irritates me more is when I’m up on the Rainy in the spring watching some rough handling sturgeon like they’re a piece of crap! Very frustrating! I try to teach people to not to grab them by the gills or hold them vertically by the mouth.
Fish Blood…great articles! I care about this species as much as you and anything I can do to help it grow, I’m all for it.

My personal biggest 71×29 what a fight that was!

Greg, does LOTW have any other fish BESIDES sturgeon?

They do Brian! I know of 2 northerns and about 8 walleye. And I’ve seen others caught too
!

I never would have know.

philtickelson wrote:

…Just because something exists doesn’t mean we should be entitled to kill…it.

For some entertainment, take this one over to the hunting side and insert “wolves” instead of “sturgeon”.

reverend wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
…Just because something exists doesn’t mean we should be entitled to kill…it.

For some entertainment, take this one over to the hunting side and insert “wolves” instead of “sturgeon”.

That’s neat, but age comparisons between wolves and sturgeon are so different that renders your comparison useless.

Life span folks.

Try to absorb that.
It’s hard, I know.