LTM Issues

For those of you interested in the results of the public comments made to the DNR in regards to the recent rounds of public input meetings, you can read text of their comments at http://ontheflyguiding.com/public_input_meeting.htm I put in the original text as the comments appeared and have not altered it in any way.

You’ll find that it is an interesting and sometimes entertaining read to see what trout anglers think of many diferent things. You’ll also see that there is overwhelming support for LTM, more land easement acquistions, the implementation of quality habitat improvement, and the relocation of the areas that are stocked with catchables. The yea votes definitely outweigh the nea votes.

With that said, the rumor is that Fisheries is dragging their feet, so to speak, on full and forward implementation of LTM. In fact, DNR met with SEMTAG and announced 15 streams for the LTM proposal. To say the least, the SEMTAG committee was VERY disappointed with the DNR suggestions and lack of good faith on the issue. I’m not at liberty to name the specific streams, but they do include some pretty marginal waters, streams with limited easements, and streams that have considerable amount of private water, not to mention a few streams that already have regulations already in place.

I have no intentions of making this sound like I’m bashing the DNR, however, it’s pretty frustrating to know that many dedicated trout anglers put time into attending the rounds of meetings, filling out and mailing public comment sheets, only to have the majority completely discounted and disregarded.

DA, very interesting reading indeed, alot of different opinions on the state of your streams. Was a couple of the letters that repeated themselves form letters from Minnesota trout groups? If so, maybe the DNR are dragging their feet because they don’t want to be portrayed as catering to those groups.

The idea of classifying an entire stream Catch and Release is interesting. I wonder if it could eventually cause the stream to have a lack of big trout from over-crowding, and lack of minnows for the larger trout. The Big Green River in my area had a catch and release section and the rest of it was 12 inch minimum size limit. They changed it this year to a 10″ to 13″ slot on the keeper section because of the high trout numbers. I noticed while fishing the C&R section this year that although I caught some bigger browns it was full of those little 10 to 13 inchers.

Alot of the steams I fish have sections of C&R water on them. I really believe Wisconsin has it right with this approach because it offers something for everyone. Bigger fish, more fish, and the choice to pursue fish in your own way.

Hopefully the Minnesota DNR will find a common ground where all Minnesota trout anglers will feel like winners.

Birdman,

Having a ton of form letters basically saying they are in favor of the same thing over and over again probably appears like the “special interest trout groups” as we have been labeled, are the leaders and the loudest in getting their agenda across. The irony here is that shouldn’t trout anglers in general have a special interest in maintaining and making the resource the best it can be?

I’m not in favor of making a majority of our streams catch and release, in fact, the opposite needs to occur on certain streams with an abundance of 8-11 inch trout. This is what LTM is about. I can’t think of too many trout anglers who wouldn’t want to go out and catch larger trout each time. In an essence, LTM is trying to create a labeling system not that much different than Wisconsin. The difference with WI is that the outdoorsman have a say with the COnservation Congress. We think we have a say here in MN, but the reality is that we are still at the mercy of DNR decisions even when the public votes in favor of a change. In this case, it was an overwhelming landslide victory for the trout groups. I’m sure that is what is pissing the DNR off terribly. It’s a case of the trout groups educating their followers, providing them the relevant information, and encouraging them to write in or attend the meetings. I doubt the DNR had a clue they would be overwhelmed with this much support for LTM. The fight is far from over; LTM will become a reality by 2004 or 2005 depending upon if the DNR steps up to the plate and makes a viable and relevant solution to this situation. If not, it will get ugly….very ugly .

I think birdman hit on something here that Steve Klotz from the Lanesboro fisheries office mentioned at this years Trout Day in Forestiville.

IN part, the decision to favor any one group or interests for stream trout management is not by any means an easy decision. “Someone will always lose out”.

Also, based on gathered surveys, the largest group of trout fisherman on the waters in SE MN are those who strictly are “bait” fisherman. The smallest group represented in the survey was fly-fisherman. 60% practice some form of Catch and Release and 75-80% practice Catch and Release.

I am impressed with the interest groups efforts over the years, but they have typically been made up of the smallest portion of fisherman on the water. I understand social and political change. It doesn’t (usually) occur because of the masses coming to the polls. IN most cases, interest groups who represent a small portion of the majority win, because of the inginuity, forthright, connections and persistance. Oh, did I say money too?

However, in this case, the DNR are in favor of large trout management, but are wading through outcomes.

IN addition, management ideas and regulations are usually good in theory. However, once put into effect, “Mother Nature” makes the final call.

I wonder how many know this. There is a “slot limit” of sorts that has been put on a Camp creek in SE MN. This was created in favor of Large Trout Management. 12 to 16 inches must go back. However, every year since said slot was introduced less and less large trout have been surveyed by the DNR.

So are they “draggin” their feet or taking the time to make the best decsion for the resource and those who take pleasure in the resoure?

Keep the rods bendin’!!

Jim W

Fly anglers may represent the smallest portion of the population, but if there was a study done in regards to angler hours spent and via what method for the full season (not just from April 1- June 1) what would it show? Once the lakes open up, the reality is that there are fewer bait anglers out there. My point is that the bait anglers may make up the largest contingent of trout anglers, but who spends the most time? If there is such a discrepancy in bait vs. fly, then let’s implement areas that are strictly articificials, limited harvest, etc….and then designate certain streams as “harvest” areas – put the stockers in there and let the bait guys have at it. I know it sounds elitist, but at least you are allowing anglers to pick what it is they want: large fish, many fish, harvest fish and what not.

Is the DNR dragging their feet….if only you knew what streams were initially listed for LTM, you might say yes. They have the data that shows what stream populations are, pressure, and every other variable under the sun. They also have the results of the LTM/public input meetings – what more do they need? They certainly are capable of coming up with a valid list of streams. If they are worried about trout stamp sales plummeting because harvest oriented persons will be unhappy with more restrictive regulations, it won’t happen. People in the area are pissed off about the deer management of zone 3A and 3B – do you think they are going to stop buying a deer tag?? I doubt it. In the end, the resource will offer more diversity, more opportunities, and ultimately larger trout. I would think anglers, retailers, even the communities in southeast MN would want to create a better fishery. Think of the dollar potential it could create.

You can’t blame trout groups for being organized and pushing the issue. TU didn’t spend any money on pushing for LTM outside of what they normally do: web site, newsletter, e-mail. No money was spent on lobbying if that’s what being suggested. Strength in numbers? Definitely. If anything, chastize those who complain about regulations changes yet do not offer up a valid alternative plan. It’s easy for people to complain…what do they do about it in the end is what ultimately matters.

Dave,

Not trying to chastise anyone or label anyone. Just trying to present a different perspective on the isssue.

I do appreciate your high level of passion and energy spent
on the matter. Being proactive on any issue is the only way to go. Unfortunately, government is usually reactive.

Keep up the hard work and good info!

Jim

I didn’t think you were going after me. Just trying to point out that those who are the most vocal and persistent are the ones that get things done in the slow grind that is Fisheries. You can’t change general opinions or attitudes overnight – that is a something that takes time. I’m not trying to sway people’s opinion of trout fisheries (Ok, maybe I am), but the more people understand facts and the processes behind the thinking or actions, the better off the resource will be. I’m not even taking shots at non-fly anglers. I was one of them at one time, and I could frnakly care less how people angle. I do care what happens after they catch that trout…….

Dave, trout groups do indeed have the right to make their voices heard. The point I was trying to make that its alot easier for organized groups to send out a form letter knowing that it will create the impression that there is overwhelming support. The average bait or spinner angler probaly will not take the time to draft a letter and send it, and I suspect most fly fisherman wouldn’t draft their own letter either. I would think that the Minnesota DNR suspects this and therefore is treading carefully.

As far as the changes in the Minnesota streams, a stream labeled total catch and release might not seem such a big deal, UNLESS, you happen to live nearby and have fished and kept fish there for years. That’s one of the reasons why having a section of stream C&R seems to make more sense to me.

Some of the criticism about sections of C and R on streams stems from Wisconsin’s implementation of this tool. I think there are many anglers here who think that putting a stream under a variety of different regualtions depending upon the section that is fished is confusing. In other words, reading the regulations and looking at streamside signs is too complicating.

I’m all for it since I can read and have no intentions of going to a stream to reef it out, but there are others that don’t see it this way .

You are right about that Dave. One section of stream had three classifications within a mile. The DNR has simplified the classifications since though. We did lose some trout fisherman who didn’t want to learn where they could keep trout and where they couldn’t. The classifications have increased our trout numbers but decreased the trout fisherman, although with the better fishing the numbers are starting to climb.

is there really anybody out there that doesn’t want larger trout? no matter what we use to fish with, we all want to catch big fish, right.

Hey D.A., you sure you don’t just want to give us a hint at a few of the streams the DNR is looking at for LTM? i think we’d all like to know just what those guys are thinking about.

I’d love to give a hint, but the DNR has met recently for a second time to renegotiate the stream selction process with “interested” parties. I don’t want to jeopardize an already fragile situation. The stream lsitings will coem out soon enough. I can say that the initial 15 streams that were suggested were not of the caliber and make up that most trout anglers would want. It included two streams already under special regs in the first place, a stream that is entirely private with no easements, streams with limited easements currently in place and several streams that I would categorize as marginal at best.

Give it some time – but I think you’ll all be happy in the end (well, some of you will be happy).

One of the streams considered that is already under some special regs is the the Jim W mentioned, Camp creek. This stream also has several miles of stream side easement and habitat improvement.

Unlike D.A., I am willing to let anyone who is concerned with Trout and its management here in SE MN, know what the original 15 streams discussed 5/7/03 are. These changes will touch everyone not just TU and SEMTAG. And as you can see by the responces and comments recieved by the DNR about LTM they are not the only ones concerned about fishing for trout. But so not to ruffle feathers to badly, I will not post them here, but if you are interested PM me or contact me at [email protected]

Dave you stated ” LTM will become a reality by 2004 or 2005 depending upon if the DNR steps up to the plate and makes a viable and relevant solution to this situation. If not, it will get ugly….very ugly .” You make it sound as if the DNR are the ones not ready to move foward. When in fact it was TU and semtag who said no. And yes, LTM could be “shelved” for a couple years, if TU fights it.

So this question comes to mind, what 15 streams do you want to see LTM on.

You’re right they said no. Thyy said no to the list of streams proposed by the DNR initally. If you know the 15 streams then you should know why they said no. Why would you agree to something that stinks in the first place? SEMTAG (which is a complete joke considering it is a hand picked group by the DNR), TU, MTA, etc. isn’t going to back the DNR if they don’t like the list of streams that they proposed. So that’s why we are where we are. Very few streams either north or south of 90 will get the no kill label under the second round of talks that took place late this week. If you’re involved with the process, then you know what streams I’m talking about. The second round of talks goes beyond 15 streams, so I’m not even going to take a guess.

I could throw out 15 things on my trout wish list, but it’s all wishful thinking (catch and release on non-designated trout waters period, move the kids fishing day off Camp Creek and put it on the Root, 12-16 slot in Forrestville, no kill on SVC, a slot on Garvin Brook, 20 inch minimum size limit on trout caught down stream of the dam in Lanesboro to Peterson, harvest opener moved to the same weekend as the lake opener, move the catchables away from Quincy Bridge and into the park in Elba. Should I keep going????)

i don’t see anything wrong with making camp creek completely C&R. that’s a good little stream with a lot of potential to grow BIG trout. i can see that it might not go over well with all the fisherman thta live in preston, but they still have the root right there if they need to catch some for dinner.

another stream that i think would be an excelent candidate for LTM would be duschee creek. that stream already has a good number of large fish in it and making it catch and realse would only improve it.

i would also really like to see a large river be picked for LTM. A branch of the Root or the White Water would be excelent. with bigger water like that you could really have an opportunty for some True Trophy Trout .

Hell would freeze over before Camp went to a C and R considering its locale and popularity with locals and non-locals. Jim mentioned that they have seen a drop in the numbers of larger fish since the 12-16 slot implementation. Why is that? It wouldn’t have anything to do with anglers having complete disreagard for the rules and are not being held accountable for illegal actions? I’m not saying all anglers, but I can hint at the methods of angling that is being used (garden hackle variety). Does the DNR patrol Camp with regularity? I’ve never been checked on there for any reason ever. To me, it seems like a pretty easy stream to monitor considering a bike path runs concurrent to the stream itself.

i agree.

D>A>

“Garden Hackle Variety”!LOL I needed some humor this AM!

Keep the rods bendin’!!!

Jim W