DNR Answers Trout Regulation Questions

DNR answers questions about proposed special trout regs in southeastern Minnesota.
May 3, 2004

Trout stream management in southeastern Minnesota is currently undergoing significant change and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will continue to count heavily on citizen input to help shape those changes.

A proposed regulation change is one of the changes that resulted from the last two years of discussion and historic examination of trout management in southeastern Minnesota.

To find out what is proposed and answers to frequently asked questions regarding this proposal, please read on. Before you do, Jason Moeckel, DNR Southern Region Assistant Fisheries Supervisor, reminds people that, “regulations are just one tool to provide diverse angling opportunities. Protection, improvement and restoration of aquatic habitats, evaluation of management changes and ongoing information sharing with anglers and other fisheries professionals are vital to improving aquatic resources for our and future generations.”

Questions and Answers

Question: What special regulations are you proposing on trout streams in SE Minnesota?

Answer: Our proposal includes a “tiered” system of regulations designed to meet a variety of angler interests including: 1) 9.6 miles with a twelve-inch minimum for brook trout (artificial lures or flies only); 2) 46.6 miles with catch-and-release only for all trout (artificial lures or flies only); 3) 81 miles with a 12-to-16 inch protected slot (artificial lures or flies only, anglers are allowed to keep up to 5 trout under 12 inches with only one trout over 16 inches; 4) 44.3 miles of non-designated trout streams with catch and release for all trout (no restriction on bait); and 5) 543 miles of fishable trout streams with a statewide regulation allowing a 5 fish limit with one over 16 inches, (no restriction on bait).

Question: What’s the DNR doing to improve trout fishing in southeastern Minnesota?

Answer: Over the past several years, we’ve asked trout anglers what we could do to improve trout fishing and increase angler satisfaction. During the spring of 2003 we held five public input meetings in SE Minnesota. We also held a roundtable discussion in August ’03 and listened to input from trout anglers and local, state, and federal agency staff.

We used this input to develop strategic and long-range plans for coldwater resource management in southeastern Minnesota. The plans identified 25 specific action items that will be implemented over the next six years. Primary objectives of the plan include increased angler satisfaction and catch rates for larger trout.

We are currently proposing to change angling regulations on some streams. Special regulations, which restrict angler harvest, are one of the tools we can use to increase the catch rate for larger trout. We’re also working to increase angler access and improve trout habitat.

Question: When would any new changes to regulations go into affect?

Answer: Any change to current regulations would take affect in spring of 2005.

Question: Will there be an opportunity to comment and affect the final proposed regulations?

Answer: Yes, you are encouraged to comment on the proposal. Fisheries staff will be accepting comments through the end of September 2004. We’ll also hold public meetings in each of the six counties with the proposed regulations, and in the Twin Cities. The meetings will likely be held in August and September. Following the public meetings DNR staff will review all the comments and come up with a final package.

Question: Why is DNR restricting the use of bait as part of these special regulations?

Answer: Numerous studies have shown considerably higher mortality of trout caught and released with bait versus artificial lures and flies. Since our goal is to increase the number of larger trout, we think it’s necessary to limit mortality of these fish as much as possible.

Question: Where did the proposal for special regulations come from?

Answer: Over the past several years, we’ve asked trout anglers what we could do to improve trout fishing and increase angler satisfaction. During the spring of 2003 we held five public input meetings in SE Minnesota. We also held a roundtable discussion in August ’03 and listened to input from trout anglers and local, state, and federal agency staff. We used this input to develop strategic and long-range plans for coldwater resource management in southeastern Minnesota. The plans identified 25 specific action items that will be implemented over the next six years. Primary objectives of the plan include increased angler satisfaction and catch rates for larger trout.

Question: Why is the DNR proposing to restrict angler harvest when trout populations are at or near all time highs?

Answer: Although trout populations are in excellent shape in SE Minnesota, angler harvest may be limiting the abundance of large trout on some streams. The DNR wants to determine if special regulations can increase the number of large trout in the proposed streams.

Question: Do regulations improve trout abundance and size?

Answer: Harvest restrictions can increase large trout if there is available habitat and angling is limiting the abundance of large fish. DNR Fisheries has had mixed success with restrictive regulations in the past. However, the current proposal would provide a much better analysis of how well special regulations work than previous evaluations because the number of streams will provide a larger sample to compare.

Question: Why are you choosing so many of the best trout streams for special regulations?

Answer: Although the candidate streams represent some of the best trout water in southeast Minnesota, our survey data indicate that they represent no more than about 1/3 to 1/2 of the highest quality trout streams in the southeast.

We selected a group of streams that have a good chance of success in increasing the abundance of medium and large trout. The best candidate streams for special regulations are high quality streams with good trout populations, good trout habitat, and medium to high fishing pressure. Streams with lower density populations that are limited by degraded habitat, poor water quality and have low fishing pressure are unlikely to respond to special regulations.

If your question was not addressed, Moeckel encourages you to contact him at (507-280-5063) or [email protected].

Kind of ironic that Jason is in this position while at the same time, Larry Webinger, a game warden from LaCrescent, took it upon himself to write a letter of the editor in the October 1 issue of Outdoor News slandering trout groups in general because of their elitist special interest ways, (specifically MTA and TU), went on record to say there’s plenty of data to show there are more and bigger fish (really….is this the same data his own agency used to come up with LTM and proposed regulations in the first place???), the landowners on Winnebago were the finest law abiding citizens around, played the “What about the kids?” card, made reference to trout and Ted Nugent all in the same breath, and that basically anyone who was a fly angler that went to these meetings bullied the crowds, intimidated, and (I’ll use his own words here) were “repulsive.”

Makes me feel real confident inside when the guy who is to be enforcing the regulations in the area WHETHER HE AGREES WITH THEM OR NOT comes out on record and shoots them down. It’s gotta make Jason Moeckel and the rest of his cohorts n Fisheries feel real good about people within the agency being behind him.

The only real problem I have is that is it really his position, as a CO, to come out and give the opinion that he did? He’s completely contrasting and ripping on something that people he works with are working on. If the enforcer doesn’t like the changes, what message does that send to the masses, or to poachers in general?

I didn’t have much faith in the CO’s to begin with due to their limited availability and resources, but after this, I have no faith whatsoever that the new regulations (and there will be some new regulations for 2005) will be enforced.
Sorry for the extra flames – I’ve had enough of this nonsense already.

I guess I’m with you on this. It’s not up to those in enforcement to interpret the laws. That’s for the courts. Or in this instance, the biologists, to come up with the appropriate rules and regs to best govern these bodies of water.

It’s not a CO’s place to write a letter to the editor or a major news publication (and in this case reveal that he is a CO) and basically denounce the regs, the process, and the groups who have an interest in seeing this thing through. To me, it does send the messsage that implies that he is against the regulations, which could also be construed that he will not enforce them because he isn’t in favor of them.

It doesn’t matter whether or not he’s in favor of them. What matters is if he’s doing his job. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black in this case since he was praised on the NWTF web site for his great work as a CO.

For what it’s worth, Webinger retired from being a CO in May of 2004. Kind of a moot point desptie it being a pretty classless act.

This explains why the email I sent to him this morning asking him to explain his reasoning was “returned undeliverable”.

Also explains why he was talking “out of school” IMHO.

Think he retired on his own?

Quote:

---

Think he retired on his own?

---

If you are asking about Larry Webinger, yes, I believe he retired on his own. Im my opinion, Larry is a stand up guy. I know him well.

I suspect that he Know’s and /or feels the same way I do…that the “proposed restrictions” number 1.. will not help the creation of larger trout…( Tell me when there were larger trout to be caught in the small spring fed streams in southern Minnnesota)…these are Not the streams out west or even of the east….these streams have never really produced the larger trout the the western streams or the larger “eastern” mountain streams produce…WE just do not have the same habitat that those streams do and you just cannot “create it”…Number 2…I’ts not good for tourism…”I.E.” people come here to catch trout to eat or keep…Don’t fool yourself that the majority come to “learn” how to fish…thats just not human nature
If we cannot boast a “Ample” fishier for trout…to keep a limit of 5… then the small towns around these streams would suffer economic hard ships…I.E. Elba relies on the fisherman…to sustain the Bussiness…no trout…and thats trout to keep…no bussiness in elba.
I also think that any “reform” would instead start with the “land” Above the stream..the farming and chemicals that are applied. Before You start Impoving/modifyinf on a “strech”of stream I think you need to look at the whole picture and see whats going on “above it before working on “that” strech first.

And I also think that if you wanted a “true” sense of what the “average” fisherman thinks then just hit the streams and ask…The meetings that are held are stock full of fisherman of one “club” or another…told what to say by one and then followed by the “masses” there is a reason “regular fisherman” do not attend those mettings and its because the “groups” overwelm them…Its easy to get a organized group together Try to get the average fisher dude together is a different matter

Hey don’t hate me..cause I’m right…Its just my Opion…on why this man did what “you” think he did

I think you’re misguided on a few fronts here. Number one, southeast Minnesota does have the necessary habitat to produce large fish. I cite the non-designated streams that are on the proposals as an example, both on paper and with first hand knowledge. Number Two, the streams out West are the way they are for one reason – regulations. Granted, habitat is a very importnat underlying factor. We had great habitat until the white man showed up, cut down forests and turned them into fields, tiled every single inch of their land including the wetlands, and drove the native fish to extinction (that’s right, you’re so called native broookies are NOT the native strain that once proliferated area streams).

I’ll beg to differ a great deal on the point that the reason people come to southeast MN is to keep fish. As a guide, I have first hand knowledge of this. My clients aren’t interested in keeping fish; they’re interested in catching fish. If you think for one minute that the local economies of southeast MN are driven by local dollars, you’re kidding yourself. Go to Lanesboro and walk the streets some weekend and see how many are locals. I can attest first hand that over 80% of the anglers I encounter that I have conversation with are not from the Houston or Filmore Counties. Go to Forrestville state park and walk up and down the banks to see how many locals there are…..

The estimated number of yearly trout stamp sales are in the 92,000 range. How many of those stamps are sold to residents of Fillmore and Houston Counties? Obviously there are some, but I doubt a bulk of trout stamps are sold to locals, which should tell you that there are MANY different types of people who use the resource, and to use the resource doesn’t mean they have to live in a 40 mile radius.

I have a real problem with the tourism and economic factors that you touched on briefly. First off, both Filmore and Houston Co. EDA’s (economic development associations) have come forth with letters to the DNR petitioning the regs due to what they deem as local businesses experiencing a slowdown due to the regs proposals. Keep in mind I used the word “proposals” which is obviously quite a bit different than actual law. I have e-mailed these persons from the counties (elected officials) with basic inquiries about how I’d like to see their data that shows an economic slowdown as a result from trout fishing “proposals.” Funny thing is that I don’t get any e-mail responses, nor do I get any data from their in-depth studies they’ve done on their local economy. Why? Because they don’t have any data, and basically are lying. I understand why the locals in Elba would not be for any regs changes as it’s their business to cater to anglers, especially when there’s a twelve pack of beer at stake for the largest trout of the week (someday that idiocy may stop as well). Like Houston and Fillmore Co’s., they don’t see the dollars that are to be made from anglers who are in pusuit of larger trout. There’s a reason why anglers flock to Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, or Alaska. In warmwater speak, there’s also a reason why a great deal of many hardcore Minnesota walleye anglers (my father being one fo them) makes an annual pilgrimage to Canada to fish. Why? The fish are abundant and larger. How did they get that way? Regulations and habitat (which, by the way is something that can be altered for the better on local trout streams).

Don’t hate specific groups because they are organized. Translation – TU. TU is a highly organized group of individuals who is concerned for coldwater conservation. No where in their mission statement does it bias on the basis of angling methods. I belong to TU but am not active. If it wasn’t for coldwater organizations like TU or MTA, do you think local fisheries would be better?

My reply to your last statement is simple. If the “average angler dude” doesn’t like what’s going on, then maybe they need to stop bitchng and get organized.

I’m not totally sure I want to jump in here…I’m only wearing hip boots!
But…

I do travel a bit and have used a number of guides. I’ve only had one guide that wouldn’t “let” me keep the fish that I caught (the musky the other day). However, because I’m traveling, I don’t want to take any fish home…just pictures. I have thought of dry ice and overnighting them…but that’s kind of a hassle. I take that back…on a guided trip to Winni I did keep some fish…but that doesn’t count. I wasn’t really traveling.

As far as the streams holding bigger fish…I seldom agree with the DNR unless they explain what and why they plan on doing something…however, I do agree with this quote from the DNR’s website.

Quote:

---

Improved soil conservation techniques and reduced erosion mean cleaner water and more trout with less stocking. It also means that there are more trout available now than at any time in the past 30 years. According to more than 2,400 DNR fish population surveys, the trout population in southeastern Minnesota has tripled since 1970 and the average number of browns more than 12 inches long increased from 26 per stream mile in the 1970s to 55 in the 1990s.

But a general population increase doesn’t guarantee good fishing every time. Trout populations still tend to fluctuate from year to year as floods and other factors affect natural reproduction.

Three other factors: growth, fishing pressure, and habitat also affect trout populations, especially the number of large trout. Good growth and suitable habitat are needed for streams to support larger fish. Also, heavy fishing pressure and harvest can have a negative effect on trout size and numbers.

---

Since I seldom get down in that area, I can’t comment of the tourism.

How many of the guides that you have hired were fly fishing for trout guides? I think catch and release for trout when you hire a guide is not an exception but rather the norm.

DA…That’s a very good point…I have never used a trout guide….I’ve always found trout very easy to locate and catch…. (sometimes I just crack myself up!)

Actually, I’ve just fished the Firehole in Yellowstone and the Wolf in WI. I’ve always known I was going to be fishing trout and had my equipment with…

But that’s not my point…when your traveling on business as I do and what to go fishing…most people WOULDN’T want to take the fish home…for obviouse reasons. Wheather a guide would “let” you take the fish home is a moot point if the customer doesn’t want any. If I recall you did say “most” of your guiding business was business folk?

You know DA…you keep this up and I’m going to have to hire you for a day…Don’t say I didn’t give you fair warning….

Come see me in April when the Dark Hendricksons, caddis, and baetis are going. Otherwise we can throw big flies to big fish….trout measured in pounds and inches .

I wasn’t trying to be snide, just making a point that trout guides difer a great deal from warmwater specialists in that harvest isn’t the priority. I don’t think I’ve had a client yet who wanted to keep fish. Like you said, most people can locate trout and probably get a few for the table if they really wanted. The DNR site lists where they stock, and you can probably find plenty of stockers around the opener, at least I know of about a half dozen places they are stocked.

I/ve fished the streams out west,and they are NOTHING like these small streams in sothern minnnesota! they are much larger with more water and flow..which increses the habitat…which all combined, increases the number of “sustainable Lareger Trout” there is no way that The streams here are going to support as many “larger” fish as those streams can…you just cannot incress the size and flow of the streams here,you can “create” more habitat, but there are only going to be AN “x” amount of the larger fish that you hope for..just because of the more aggrsive behavoir of those fish,and the “avaliblity” of there “home “water.

I am prety sure that the “WarmWater” walleye guides James Holst and Dustin Stewart, would beg to differ that they are any “different” than you or any other “WarmWater” Specialist? Or that they Only provide a service for those that want to keep fish..”warmwater” guides are no different than your guiding that was a good one

Quote:

---

Come see me in April when the Dark Hendricksons, caddis, and baetis are going

---

When do they bite on night crawlers? I can catch all I want on flys…I need the guide to help me with the crawlers!

Yup…I’m getting too silly…time for bed.

I would bet that the two (I wanted to type “clowns” but I don’t know them well enough) mentioned above would say the same thing…business travelers seldom keep fish…It would be the vacationer or the ocassional local that keeps them.
As was brought up before, the local has to be a very small percent of most any guides business.

I was suggesting that the warmwater guides would allow persons to keep fish more than a fly angling guide. I’m not suggesting that they take clients out with the intentions of bonking a few fish. I was merely replying to Brain K’s post about other guides that he has used and that he has been allowed to keep fish in the past (other than his recent experience with the musky guide).

Crawlers – fish something other than ultra-clear water on a sunny day and your chances increase, as well as avoid fishing them during a hatch (however, it’s kind of amusing to use flies during a hatch and encounter a wormer and see the looks you get when you start to catch fish all over the place). If I were to fish crawlers, I’d fish them after a rain when the water is off a bit. Actually, there are some fly anglers who tie a worm pattern locally (similar to a San Juan Worm) with a few color modifications and do very well with them after rains when worms and crawlers have a tendency to wander and ultimately a few end up in the stream.

I agree that you cannot compare West to Midwest, but you can certainly employ the same management tactics. I beg to differ that we don’t have larger waters. The Root and Zumbro (two parts of these streams which are under proposed regs) are large enough watersheds with a high enough food base and habitat that they could do VERY well with some protection.

As for the rest of the streams, and I’ll cite Winnebago here since it’s a stream that doesn’t have a lot of natural overhanging coer that is needed to protect those larger fish. The DNR chose the streams for LTM and regs for the simple fact that they have the necessary food base already and those streams would undergo habitat improvement to create more protection (lunkers, cribs, overhanging cover). People may think that the streams were chosen at random, but a great deal of thought and examination went into choosing what streams have hte potential to work. Enforcement of regs is a whole other issue (hence, that’s how my thread about a CO bashing the regs came to be). If a CO comes out and is in disagreement of the regs, what message does that send about enforcement?

Quote:

---

If a CO comes out and is in disagreement of the regs, what message does that send about enforcement?

---

Ask any CO and I’m sure they will tell you that any law whether they like it or not has to be enforced by them. It’s their job, and if they don’t do their job, there are literally 100’s of people waiting to take their job and enforce the laws.

I have TIP on speed dial and agree that the anglers/hunters need to take matters into their own hands. My statement was in regards to the message it sends to sportsmen when a CO basically does not agree with the regs. He can disagree all he wants, but when he uses his position in a letter to the editor to state a personal opinion, to me there’s something ethocally wrong with that.