I have a friend who works with the mother of a CO in the Winona area. He’s going to try and get his e-mail and see what a COs thoughts are.
If it’s legal, so be it. I would like to know though. I can admit I know nothing about this. It may be a low kill number or a high one. I really don’t know.
Sorry i said name tag on the net, was a tag with a number on it. That way DNR can track whose net it is. And you were suppose to empty those nets every so many hours. I can remember when there was an abundance of rough fish here and the sport fisherman complained because the commercial fisherman wasn’t taking enough of them out of the river. We have some so called sport fishermen that when they catch a carp, sheaphead or sucker that will purposely kill that fish because he doesn’t like them in the waters. Most of us who commercial fish or have done so do not like to see dead fish in nets either.
Think most here are not balking at the notion of commerical fishing, just as with everything else-was this done in a way that created more waste and should this be more closely monitored by the DNR-which it seems it has been not.
At this point,DNR monitors should be present whenever netters are actively working an area.
Like it or not, the only true way to control the coming invasion of asian carp will be massive netting-just how much collateral damage to the other species is going to occur-get ready to pull your hat over your ears. 
Susanna Song of Channel 5 is doing a report on this subject. She is looking for opinions from folks who would like to comment on why these folks can return rough fish back to the water when it is against the law? Also address the wanton waste aspect. Even if your opinion is pro-killing of fish…You will be on the news tonight.
Call my cell 651-755-5452 if you want her number, and she will interview you.
Quote:
She is looking for opinions from folks who would like to comment on why these folks can return rough fish back to the water when it is against the law?
I thought this law was removed from the regulations? I looked in the MN regulations and could not find anything about it, but there was the following questing and answer.
Quote:
Regulation Review
Q. I saw in the new 2001 DNR Fishing Regulations a highlighted feature that anglers must return any fish back to the water if it ”will not be utilized.” Does this pertain to carp and other rough fish? I thought we were not supposed to put those fish back in the water.
A. That’s a common misconception because, at one time, it was illegal to release rough fish. That old law was removed from the books in 1981, because the DNR realized that it made no sense, for the following reasons:
Only a few (carp and bullheads) of the 35 rough fish species cause any problems to lakes, and even these only harm some shallow lakes, not all lakes, and generally not rivers.
The minuscule number of carp and bullheads caught by anglers has no effect on a lake’s overall carp and bullhead population. In the 1950s, the DNR had a six-person crew whose full-time job was to net carp and bullheads from lakes. It was a waste of money. The species are so prolific that if you miss just a few fish, they can repopulate an entire lake in a year or two.
Because of the old law, anglers were simply tossing carp and a wide range of ecologically valuable rough fish–such as redhorse, mooneye, gar, suckers, and buffalo–up on to shore to rot. The law seemed to encourage wanton waste, which is illegal.
The situation now is this: If you catch a fish–whether it’s a walleye or a mooneye–and you don’t plan to keep it, return it to the water alive so that another angler may catch it someday.
The wanton waste is a different can of worms altogether. 
Not sure about all rough fish, but this comes off the MN DNR site about carp
”
Regulatory Classification: It is a regulated invasive species (DNR), which means introduction into the wild is prohibited. Fish caught while angling may be returned to the same water body.
”
Al
Never mind Farmboy beat me to it. 
Quote:
Regulation Review
Q. I saw in the new 2001 DNR Fishing Regulations a highlighted feature that anglers must return any fish back to the water if it ”will not be utilized.” Does this pertain to carp and other rough fish? I thought we were not supposed to put those fish back in the water.
A. That’s a common misconception because, at one time, it was illegal to release rough fish. That old law was removed from the books in 1981, because the DNR realized that it made no sense, for the following reasons:
Only a few (carp and bullheads) of the 35 rough fish species cause any problems to lakes, and even these only harm some shallow lakes, not all lakes, and generally not rivers.
The minuscule number of carp and bullheads caught by anglers has no effect on a lake’s overall carp and bullhead population. In the 1950s, the DNR had a six-person crew whose full-time job was to net carp and bullheads from lakes. It was a waste of money. The species are so prolific that if you miss just a few fish, they can repopulate an entire lake in a year or two.
Because of the old law, anglers were simply tossing carp and a wide range of ecologically valuable rough fish–such as redhorse, mooneye, gar, suckers, and buffalo–up on to shore to rot. The law seemed to encourage wanton waste, which is illegal.
The situation now is this: If you catch a fish–whether it’s a walleye or a mooneye–and you don’t plan to keep it, return it to the water alive so that another angler may catch it someday.
I wonder if that pertains to things such as Lamprey. Although the few that come into my boat each year are a tiny percentage and killing them will probably have little effect.
Ruger,
I believe Lamprey would be classified as an “invasive species” rather then a rough fish.
Sorry, Hijack over 
Quote:
97C.346 PROHIBITION ON RETURNING CERTAIN NETTED ROUGH FISH TO WATERS.
A person may not release carp or buffalo taken by netting back into the water.
History:2009 c 176 art 2 s 58
The new law started in ’09 I believe and is what Tuck was referencing to. Not to be confused with angling.
Quote:
I wonder if that pertains to things such as Lamprey. Although the few that come into my boat each year are a tiny percentage and killing them will probably have little effect.
A little off topic but:
Lampreys are indigenous to MN. Some species are parasitic (latch onto a host fish) and are therefore portrayed as an invasive species, which is false. In general, the balance of native lampreys does not have notable impacts on the MN fishery. On the other hand, sea lampreys, which are found in the Great Lakes, ARE classified as an MN invasive species– maybe this is what you were thinking of.
Has anyone thought about what the river would be like if commercial fisherman couldn’t take rough fish from the water? The nets that are in question held 10,000 lbs of rough fish that are no longer in the river. I personally witnessed the nets and the commercial fisherman releasing as many fish alive as possible that they were not targeting. Just my opinion that this has been blown way out of proportion and that there is also a hidden agenda here that many don’t know about. I am not in any way for wanton waste of any fish but it seems there is only 2 solutions. Do not allow the commercial guys to net and see where that leads the rough fish population or they continue to net knowing that there will be some unwanted waste. I am more irratated with the numerous amounts of boats in the “scour hole” reeling in fish as fast as they can to get down and get another one. What kind of waste of walleyes and saugers do you think this leads to? Maybe the nets should be moved down river to the wintering catfish where there would be less chance of killing non-targeted species.
I for one have nothing against the netting of rough fish. If you’re a netter or hope to be one some day, good for you. I do have questions about why there seems to be hundreds of dead fish outside the net littering the river bottom in the immediate area of the net.
Did the dead fish float out of a hole in the net? If that’s the case, fix the net and find a use for the dead fish. Throwing them in the river to drift away and rot is not an acceptable use in my opinion.
Are the netters discarding fish from the net that will be unable to survive? If that’s the case, keep the questionable fish and find a use for the soon to be dead fish.
I don’t know if anyone has suggested that commercial netting of rough fish be banned but I don’t think a movement in that direction would find much support here. On the other hand I feel it completely appropriate that people with a collective interest in a fishery would want some answers to the obvious questions raised when you see hundreds of dead fish floating on the bottom of the river. Rough fish or not.
James that is exactly my opinion of the situation. Why are the fish dead out side the net. I think that is the situation not that there is a loss at all. They all should be used in one way or another. As mentioned in my previous post even trollers use all fish caught none are wasted. The turtles can get there own meal.
Quote:
Maybe the nets should be moved down river to the wintering catfish where there would be less chance of killing non-targeted species.
Why would you say that Booner?
Quote:
and that there is also a hidden agenda here that many don’t know about.
I missed this the first time through. Since I was the original poster of the video, please share. I must have missed something.
My friend recieved a response from a local CO that he forwarded the video to. See below:
We are aware of the situation and are monitoring, at this time it does appear to be normal losses associated with the nets. We will continue to follow up.
Thanks for your interest in the issue.
CAPT (removed. I don’t know if they want their name posted on-line)
Central Region Enforcement Manager
Maybe there is no agenda here? I guess I would be interested to hear what the motivation was to post this video on this site? To me things that get blown out off proportion like this just gets real old, and now the commercial fisherman have a bad name for what reason? Did they break the law? I’m not sure, but until the DNR hands down fines I am not going to be criticizing commercial fisherman. I mean when things are thrown around like contacting channel 5 (which they were contacted and ran a report) or “what about peta?” See what would happen if they actually got involved. I just don’t understand what purpose this video was to serve on this site, or what the intent of the reaction would be? To me it seems like a legal matter for the DNR and it should have been handed to them, then they could have decided in what direction to go. I’m just tired of people, in this case commercial fisherman, being shown in a negative light with no facts or chance to defend themselves. Once they are veiwed in a negative way without any substance, they will be veiwed negatively forever. So now that I thought about it some more I will ask the question again. I would be interested to hear what the motivation was to post this video on this site?
Quote:
Maybe there is no agenda here? I guess I would be interested to hear what the motivation was to post this video on this site?
Purely informational.
By your reasoning the next time there’s a fish kill (train derailment, fuel spill, etc.) the info goes to the DNR and nobody else should be exposed to the info, do their own research in follow-up or form their own opinions?
That’s just not the world we live in.
Quote:
Maybe there is no agenda here? I guess I would be interested to hear what the motivation was to post this video on this site? To me things that get blown out off proportion like this just gets real old, and now the commercial fisherman have a bad name for what reason? Did they break the law? I’m not sure, but until the DNR hands down fines I am not going to be criticizing commercial fisherman. I mean when things are thrown around like contacting channel 5 (which they were contacted and ran a report) or “what about peta?” See what would happen if they actually got involved. I just don’t understand what purpose this video was to serve on this site, or what the intent of the reaction would be? To me it seems like a legal matter for the DNR and it should have been handed to them, then they could have decided in what direction to go. I’m just tired of people, in this case commercial fisherman, being shown in a negative light with no facts or chance to defend themselves. Once they are veiwed in a negative way without any substance, they will be veiwed negatively forever. So now that I thought about it some more I will ask the question again. I would be interested to hear what the motivation was to post this video on this site?
Public waters…so let the public know about what is going on. I am glad that BK posted the video. For the very reason that it made me aware of what some of the ramifications of commercial fishing are. It did raise a few questions within. One being, is this common? The amount of dead fish AND the amount of dead fish found OUTSIDE of the nets.
I see the video no different that the news reporting on a suspected poacher. I certainly DON’T think that the video passed judgment on commercial fishing in general. But, as a sportsman, it did make me sick to see all of those dead fish.
FDR
Do you realize how HARD these commercial fishermen work!?! In all kinds of weather condisions, just to make a HARD EARND BUCK! 99.9% of the dead fish where ROUGH fish. Did i say ROUGH ROUGH ROUGH fish! Oh ya lets get it on TV and give PETA some more AMMUNITION! 
Quote:
Do you realize how HARD these commercial fishermen work!?! In all kinds of weather condisions, just to make a HARD EARND BUCK! 99.9% of the dead fish where ROUGH fish. Did i say ROUGH ROUGH ROUGH fish! Oh ya lets get it on TV and give PETA some more AMMUNITION!
ps GET OVER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Forget about it life goes on 
Actually Randy the majority of the fish were drum rough fish? yes. Next fair amount of fish was white bass rough fish? Lots of anglers pursue them. There were also a few crappie and a walleye or sauger. Not saying the commercial fisherman are wrong and the DNR I spoke with when I was asking (not turning anyone in just trying to educate myself before I made assumptions) about the laws and rules of commercial fishing expected and was fully aware that yes some gamefish are harmed/killed during these rough fish nettings. Now I could understand a few fish being knocked off but the amount of fish that were dead here surely needs some sort of attention be it to the DNR, posted to the internet or what have you. Not 1 person is wrong in this situation yet and I dont feel that it was wrong of an avid angler to bring this to the attention of other avid anglers. BK thank you for sharing the video
Quote:
and that there is also a hidden agenda here that many don’t know about.
Quote:
Maybe there is no agenda here?
I had to read your post a couple times just to ensure understanding and I don’t.
What you’re saying is that I shouldn’t show a video of dead fish in the river, but it’s ok to come on and post about a “hidden agenda that only a few know about”?
Where is the substance here?
While you are checking with the “few that know” I’ll check with the guys in the black ‘copter.
My saying get peta involved was tounge in cheek,so you can take it for what ou want.I watched the guys banging fish off the side of the boat last week as they “released” them.Belive they could have cut down on the number of dead fish by handeling them a little differnt.
Why you hating on the catfisherman? 
I had to read your post a couple times just to ensure understanding and I don’t.
What you’re saying is that I shouldn’t show a video of dead fish in the river, but it’s ok to come on and post about a “hidden agenda that only a few know about”?
Where is the substance here?
While you are checking with the “few that know” I’ll check with the guys in the black ‘copter.
I checked ” with the few that know” and here is what I came up with. Let’s say there was some one “who fishes mainly at night” and this person “who fishes mainly at night” knew that if commercial fisherman wanted to go net all the wintering fish in the deep holes of Pool 4 that they wanted, maybe that person would have an agenda to tarnish the reputation of ALL commercial fisherman in an effort to try and keep them away. Purely informational?, It seems a little fishy. I was hoping “the original poster” would give me the answer on motivation of the post.When I woke up this morning I thought to myself, BK cameras in deep water looking for catfish, why would he be in less than 5 feet of water taking video? Still have not came up with my own answer. While we are on the subject of netting, I hope anyone who nets their own bait does not have any unwanted waste. I am only stating my opinion and have not looked into the laws like some have here, but just to remind people that I do believe that transporting bait with out a permit is illegal.
Quote:
While you are checking with the “few that know” I’ll check with the guys in the black ‘copter.
I checked ” with the few that know” and here is what I came up with. Let’s say there was some one “who fishes mainly at night” and this person “who fishes mainly at night” knew that if commercial fisherman wanted to go net all the wintering fish in the deep holes of Pool 4 that they wanted, maybe that person would have an agenda to tarnish the reputation of ALL commercial fisherman in an effort to try and keep them away. Purely informational?, It seems a little fishy. I was hoping “the original poster” would give me the answer on motivation of the post.When I woke up this morning I thought to myself, BK cameras in deep water looking for catfish, why would he be in less than 5 feet of water taking video? Still have not came up with my own answer. While we are on the subject of netting, I hope anyone who nets their own bait does not have any unwanted waste. I am only stating my opinion and have not looked into the laws like some have here, but just to remind people that I do believe that transporting bait with out a permit is illegal.
Me personally, I am glad BK posted this. I had no idea about commercial fishing and it’s effect on the ecosystems. Good or bad. I would think there are a fair number of others thinking the same thing. If it were me out there and I stumbled across this, I would have posted photos as well.
Booner, you need to stop listening to gossip and take the time to check the laws yourself before you start making accusations.
I don’t have time to look up each law for you. I did it once for myself.
1) Mn law requires a person to report a fish kill.
2) Commercial fisherman can take 100 pounds of cats per day. With the size of the cats in my videos, what would that be? 4? Maybe 6 if they were little? (must be over 15 inchs) In the winter, using a seine, what are the chances of scooping up flats in their wintering holes? I’m not going to say it can’t be done, just with a 100 pound limit, why would they?
3) As for why I was in 5 feet of water, I’m not sure that requires the time to reply…but I just left one of your favorite walleye holes moving to another one to take more videos. Pretty easy to spot dead fish in 5 feet of water from a boat.
I agree that the dead fish on the bottom of the river is a waste. But I have been on the other side of this coin for most of my life.In that I’m talking about comm.fishing.I’m not hear to say that how and why this took place could have been differant.When you are pulling sceine hauls on the river you have a VERY SMALL area in which you can pull a net.We all know that most of the river with its current and snags a net can’t be pulled just anywhere.It’s actually a very small % of the river as a hole.There are spots on this river that fish stack up on and those fish never see a lure and aren’t bothered in any way shape our form.The fish that I noticed on film were fish with very good population numbers.The good that those men do for the river far and a way help the river more than a few lost strippers and sheep head.Thanks for letting me stand on the box for a while.I hope everyone the best in there fishing and lifes this year.STEVE
Quote:
Booner, you need to stop listening to gossip and take the time to check the laws yourself before you start making accusations.
I don’t have time to look up each law for you. I did it once for myself.
1) Mn law requires a person to report a fish kill.
2) Commercial fisherman can take 100 pounds of cats per day. With the size of the cats in my videos, what would that be? 4? Maybe 6 if they were little? (must be over 15 inchs) In the winter, using a seine, what are the chances of scooping up flats in their wintering holes? I’m not going to say it can’t be done, just with a 100 pound limit, why would they?
3) As for why I was in 5 feet of water, I’m not sure that requires the time to reply…but I just left one of your favorite walleye holes moving to another one to take more videos. Pretty easy to spot dead fish in 5 feet of water from a boat.
FWIW For those ragging on Brian I’d suggest going back and re reading his posts, NOWHERE does he mention the elimination of netting, nor does he mention how hard Commercial netters work or don’t work, nor does he mention starting any kind of campaign against commercial fishing.
He took some pictures and posted because he had questions as to why this was going on.
Atta boy Brian. 
Al
Quote:
nor does he mention starting any kind of campaign against commercial fishing.
So what good is he doing for commercial fishing by posting this video?
I can see both sides on this subject. I do believe that it was informative of BK to post this video. I also believe that he just didnt “happen” to video this area on his way to his next spot. He put the camera down in this area because of the nets out of curiosity and “look what I found”.
I have mixed feelings on if this should be posted on the web or not. We dont know if these fish died because of rough handling by the netters or not. We do know that they did indeed die from being in those nets at one point. Was this accidental? Were the conditions not optimum for the live release of the gamers? Is this acceptable losses for netting under the DNR’s jurisdiction?
In my opinion John Stears has the correct thinking here. The netters are taking out rough fish and by taking them out there is more room/less competition for the gamers, in all sizes of fish (larval up to adult). Do the losses from netting outweigh the advantages from taking out the rough fish? I cant say for sure. My inclining is YES.
My .02
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
