Pool 3 BORDER defined

I feel like I’ve won the lottery and I figured I’d share the pot with IDO.

Contacted MN DNR today and asked them to define WHERE border water regulations START on the Mississippi in Pool 3.

Their initial response: “The border waters are the waters of the Mississippi river between the railroad tracks on both sides of the river. Between the tracks is border waters, outside the tracks are inland waters”

To which I replied “According to the definition you provided it is considered border waters from the hastings railroad bridge that crosses the Mississippi and downstream, is this correct?” I attached a picture of said bridge to ensure full understanding of my question.

To which MN DNR replied “That is correct”

Long story short, you can use two lines in the Mississippi downstream of the train bridge in hastings (Which is just downstream of the highway 61 bridge). This includes the backside of Prescott island.

P.S. There’s a good chance that Lake Isabelle is also considered border waters however I have not had that clarified.

I’ve by large avoided that stretch of river only due to using 1 line…Now I have a few more miles of river I can fish!! YeeeHaw!

If you do not agree with anything stated above, feel free to contact MN DNR. Their responses were within 5 minutes of sending an inquiry.

Attachments:

1. 

   Sippi.png
   

Your posts have been missed during your hiatus!

HMmm…I’m still waiting for a response from them…
Thanks for sharing though. Now I know I don’t need a MN license to fish that stretch

Which side is considered the WI side. I need to know which side I can troll 3 lines on ???

How can they define something as border water when its the same state on both sides?

The MN DNR fishing regs are clear on this:
“WISCONSIN–MINNESOTA
The seasons and regulations listed below apply to the following waters:

Mississippi River (downstream of the highway bridge in Prescott, Wisconsin and all

waters between the Burlington Northern [Wisconsin] and Canadian Pacific [Minnesota]

railroad tracks), Lake Pepin, St. Croix River, Lake St. Croix, St. Louis River, St. Louis

Bay, and Superior Bay”

I would be very leery of trusting any one person’s word on this matter. Even if they work for the DNR. I have been given wrong advice from officers on several occasions. Looking forward to this being clarified.

If you have the email post it so it can be saved to phones.

I had similar email from DNR on using multiple baits on one line that I have on phone, posted it to IDO few years ago think most found leary as well.

This is true Andy. Folks in St Paul (and Madison for that matter) do not always read and interpret the laws as the CO’s do.

I have an email into Joe Kulhanek, the CO in that area. If he agrees I wouldn’t have any concerns until he’s promoted to a new position. LOL!

From CO Joe:

AS IT STATES ON PAGE 52 OF THE 2016 FISHING SYNOPSIS, MN-WI BORDER WATERS FOR THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER INCLUDE THE WATER DOWNSTREAM OF THE HIGHWAY 10 BRIDGE CROSSING INTO PRESCOTT WI, AND ALL WATERS BETWEEN THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS FROM THIS POINT DOWNSTREAM.

IN REGARDS TO THE STATEMENT IN THE POST IF ALREADY ON THE MISSISPPI RIVER COMING FROM THE HASTINGS PWA, YOU WOULD NOT HIT BORDER WATERS UNTIL YOU GET DOWNSTREAM OF POINT DOUGLAS ON THE WASHINGTON COUNTY SIDE.

IN REGARDS TO THE BACK CHANNEL OF PRESCOTT ISLAND YOU WOULD ALSO HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING DOWNSTREAM OF POINT DOUGLAS AS WELL.

LAKE ISABELLE IS CONSIDERED INLAND WATERS.

THANKS FOR THE INQUIRY AND I HOPE THIS CLEARS UP THE ISSUE

Since Joe is the man that writes the tickets, he triumphs the folks in St Paul.

I haven’t met Joe yet, but I’ve heard good things about him and he’s been johnny on the spot with my questions.

I find it very refreshing to see a government agency respond so promptly and politely to questions from their constituents. Kudos to CO Joe Kulhanek and the folks in St. Paul.

SR

Brian Klawitter wrote:

MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING DOWNSTREAM OF POINT DOUGLAS

It appears this statement is found no where in the 2015 or 2016 regulations.

I searched the entire PDF document and found NO “Douglas” in reference to border waters.

I couldn’t be less trust worthy of any of this information at this point. Quite disappointed, Frankly.

Hey FB, which person in St.Paul wrote back to you?

Patricia Watts, enforcement policy/legal analyst wrote back to myself. As far as I’m concerned their word trumps all, but in regards to ticket writing, yes the individual CO opinion matters.

You have two official responses to your question, and you don’t like how things currently sit within the regs, I encourage you to fish as stated in both communications and if the time ever comes you do receive a ticket go to court and fight to change the wording. Someone needs to sacrifice themselves, I think you’d be an excellent candidate.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Since Joe is the man that writes the tickets, he triumphs the folks in St Paul.

I’ll disagree with this, only because it depends on how hard and far you want to fight it. If you were to fish the area as described in FBRM’s email from St. Paul as a border water and CO Joe gives you a ticket, you would have a legitimate case to get the ticket thrown out in court based the email from St. Paul. Enforcement officers make mistakes too, which is why the court system is in place.

FishBlood&RiverMud wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Brian Klawitter wrote:</div>
MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF BEING DOWNSTREAM OF POINT DOUGLAS

It appears this statement is found no where in the 2015 or 2016 regulations.

I searched the entire PDF document and found NO “Douglas” in reference to border waters.

I couldn’t be less trust worthy of any of this information at this point. Quite disappointed, Frankly.

Agree with this but honestly not surprised by the conflicting info, plus this is not isolated to DNR issues only – this is but one example of why lots of people choose to be lawyers, there’s a never ending supply of work.

I had an 8 minute conversation with Joe this morning.
He was very nice to call me directly to clarify the situation and I appreciate that greatly.

I’ll be following Joe’s defined P3 border waters.

Point Douglas is defined as the last piece of land on the MN side of the St Croix where it enters the Mississippi. That is the starting point for BORDER REGULATIONS.

I asked joe to define exactly where this lies behind Prescott island. He pulled up a map and decided that the first drainage behind the island to be approximately adjacent to the river in reference to point douglas. That is the starting point behind the island.

We discussed the vermillion river.
The vermillion goes from Inland to Border to Inland to border and these areas are defined by the railroad tracks.

I’ve attached two pictures to show the areas I’m attempting to describe above.

Red lines represent border water regulations
Green lines represent Inland Water Regulations
Purple lines represent St Croix Border Water Regulations

Our boundaries….Train Tracks, Point Douglas, Hwy 10 Bridge.

Joe was not clear on how Wisconsin interprets the same scenarios on that side of the river but assumes the railroad to be the border.

Have a great weekend.

Attachments:

1. 

   Prescott-Island-Area.png
   

2. 

   Casino-Area.png
   

Thanks Andy and CO Joe!

That spells it out very nicely. Maybe you’ll see your maps in next years reg books Andy!

As far as who triumphs who, I prefer to argue my case/gain clarification on my time line then the court system.

Patricia Watts, enforcement policy/legal analyst

I’m not picking on Patricia because I couldn’t keep this mess of laws straight but she has interpreted the >border water rules< incorrectly before.

I thought the changes to the wording in this years synopsis would have helped clarify this issue…but leave it to us cat fish guys to get it right, spot on the spot.

The co’s I’ve chatted with briefly are very helpful with showing you the borders, it’s fairly cut and dry once they explain it. But there’s a bit of “interpretation” on specifics vs how it’s written in the regs. If in doubt contact the area co. I wouldn’t want the hassle of telling a co, hey this pencil or keyboard pusher told me this, then dealing with a citation and dealing with the hassle of trying to defend the issue in court. Just not worth it imo.

Good info on an area and the discrepancy within that area.

Thanks for posting!