Here today, gone tomorrow

Over the past 2 or 3 years, I have been amused and interested in reading posts in here and articles in the Post Bulletin newspaper about the addition/introduction of new fishing opportunites in and around the immediate Rochester area.
The reservior introductions and subesquent controversies.
First there was Chester Woods/Bear Creek. Promised to be a world renowed bluegill fishery, providing it was managed properly. Certain limits and sizes depending on the time of the year. Appears to be working.
Then the list grew, Game Haven, a neatly tucked away body of water that required quite a hike to get to. Still gets pressured with liberal limits and no size consideration.
Willow Creek that has put out some tremendous reports the last couple of years, now the dead sea. Again liberal limits, no size restrictions. Easy access.
Silver Creek, no you are not supposed to go there because no one could provide an adequate interpretation of trespass laws. Reports that said those who did venture out there, did quite well. Limit sizes and size restrictions? None.
Foster Arends, a strickly stock and take proposition. Kind of like going to a fenced in game preserve.
The newly developed Country Club Manor proposal. A fishing Disney Land inside the city limits. How long will this last?
Now a pond west of Rochester.
It is funny, with the exception of Chester Woods, no one will admit to stocking these other reserviors, yet there are nice populations of fish in these bodies of water.
Without stricker regulations/mangement, these fisheries will be raped in short order.
The meat hogs and uneducated only think about themselves today, not tomorrow. But are the first to cry later when there is nothing to catch.
One has to only look at Willow Creek as an example of what used to be and what it is today.
Are the rest to follow this demise?
My point here is that we need stricker regulations much like Chester. Conservative limits and acceptable sizes to maintain.
Remember, by all standards, these are not large bodies of waters that can take heavy duty fishing pressure. Rather small bodies of delicate/fragile fisheries that can be ruined in short order without proper managemtent and restrictions.
Will the DNR become actively involved? No I doubt it, because that would require extra enforcement to protect and enforce any restrictions. All will agree DNR enforcement is already spread to thin.
Will these fisheries be sustained and restocked after they are fished out? Who will do it and at what expense?
Live for today and to heck with tomorrow?
Conclusion, too many fishermen and not enough fish to satisfy the hunger.

Great post Ron!

I agree that the DNR does not seem to have adequate funding for enforcement. The CO’s I know are good men with a lot of territory to cover already.
One thing that puzzles me is why the 3rd largest population area in the state cannot have any lakes with walleyes? The DNR puts a lot of funding into stocking “up north” lakes with walleyes. They have recently put walleyes into the Austin area (and I think that is great). Why doesn’t Rochester have access to walleyes? Lake Zumbro still has a small natural walleye population that could be enhanced with some stocking. The new Cascade lakes they are getting ready to open by Country Club Manor should be considered as another option.
And yes, strict limits would need to be put on the waters that were stocked. I think having walleyes close to home would be a great benefit to the Rochester area anglers!

Good Fishing,
Mike

I hear people say that they want to pass the joy of fishing on to their children and grandchildren but then they kill all the fish by harvest so there are none or only a few left in the lake. Do they really think their children and grandchildren are going to stick with fishing when theres no fish to catch because their dad or grandfather took all the fish. These lakes in the Rochester area are very delicate bodies of water and without special laws on them and being enforced these lakes will all be ruined by over harvest. We ALL need to be very carefull on harvest of fish. If we ALL work together and are carefull we just might have some really good lakes for fishing for years to come. Its up to ALL of us. Will YOU do your share to help protect the lakes?
Thanks, Bill

Precisely the reason we catch and release 90% of our fish

I have no background in conservation, but it seems to me that the DNR could have some sort of blanket regulations for lakes less than say 200 acres. Maybe some sort of half-limits? I’m sure that there is no easy solution, but I would think that if the DNR had an idea of the quality of fish that say Willow two years ago or KR-7 last winter were putting out that they would work to protect them, or it could possibly be that do to lack of finances that the DNR just cannot possibly monitor these lakes. I agree that it would be nice to have a option for walleyes here in Rochester, but with no other options within a half an hour, I would guess that it would be tough for the state to keep up with the harvest. Just my .02!

You see there within lies the problem. How much money and protection do certain fisherishers deserve.
What we have are gems. Shall we turn a blind eye or sacrifice what we have because of DNR expectations or the possible cost to protect them? Enough is enough, protect what we have and preserve them. If not for ourselves, how about our children.

Ron has pried the top off some our area’s biggest fishing related problems. The dnr would do well to involve the anglers in some of this decision making. Reduced limits and protection for the larger fish is an essential that just never quite gets addressed. And this trespass issue at Silver creek by those who knowingly walk past legitimate posting signs gives every angler in the area a black eye.

Maybe just having all the little puddles created arond and in town here be designated as catch and release is a solution.

Lets get into a meat hog’s head for a minute.
I am sure their way of thinking is as follows:
I paid for my fishing license, therefore I am entitled to take whatever legal limit there is. It is owed me. That and when I take home a 5 gallon bucket of panfish, my neighbors and freinds will think I am really a pro-fisherman.
Forget the body of water and what it can produce or afford to give up. They are mine for the taking.
Panfish are prolific and you can not over harvest. You might even doing a body of water a favor by taking as many as you can, so as to produce larger and more fish. This is what my granddad told me 25 years ago. Regardless of size or numbers.
It is OK to take a few more then the limit because you are only weaning the over production.
If a body of water goes dead, well then, it is the other pigs who spoiled it for you. Certainly not your responsibilty.
Who cares, we are only talking the lowly panfish species. Not like we are attacking real game fish like walleyes.
With this mentality, is it hard to understand our depleted panfish resource?
Ain’t my fault, I am only one guy, how could I possibly ruin a fishery?
You know what meat hog? If you are really that hungry for a fish dinner, might I suggest you go to MacDonalds, I hear they have an excellent and inexpensive fish sandwich.
Rochester’s reservoirs are not grocery stores, rather sport fishing opportunties.
Respect them as such or try to explain to your kids how it used to be in the good old days.

Another way to say it is that you pay for the fishing licence, thats right-fishing license. Its to go ”fishing” not a license to empty out the lake of fish. We HAVE to practice selective harvest and catch and release or there will be no fish left. These aren’t big bodies of water that can hold tons of fish, these are little bodies of water that hold a few fish in comparision. Please help to protect the fisheries we have been blessed with so that there is good fishing there for years to come. In reality its for YOUR best interest along with your kids and grandkids too. Thank You.
Thanks, Bill

I believe there will be a public meeting with the DNR officers coming up the middle of January in Rochester. I don’t have any details yet, but this meeting would likely be a place to get some of these issues open for discussion. I will be sure to post more information as I receive it.

Good Fishing,
Mike

I agree w/ what you guys are saying, but I would say you’re preaching to the choir. Any fishing related web site has 1000’s of lurkers – those whose only point is to find a hot bite – and get there quick and get theirs.

Look at the number of posts you see – “where can I catch slabs / big walleyes” etc.

In all things of our society – a few ruin it for the many – fishing is just another example. And don’t get me wrong – the water in and around Rochester needs protection – lakes and the streams.

The zillion $ question is how are we going to get that protection – and the zillion $ answer is $$$ – where is it going to come from – and that answer is license fee increases – or pay to play – can we all picture a booth at Willow or Gamehaven or any of the local water (state waters for that matter) where you put a $10 or $20 down each time you want to wet a line?

I can’t say as I relish the thought of either.

Do we need a tag system – your license is the right to fish – but not the right to keep? To keep – you pay extra?

I don’t have the answers – this is stuff coming off the top of my head….

Good topic – and much work is needed.

UG

I’d certainly not mind seeing a permits issued for say 10 bucks on an annual basis for the reservoir fishing as long as that money was in a dedicated fund set up to replace the fish being removed.

If its lurkers we are concerned about though, maybe charge 10 bucks annually to keep the information from the public’s eye and post it in an area where you have to pay-to-play.

The sportsmen of this state are already taxed and fee’d to death by a state government that doesn’t know how to budget themselves. Paying more to keep some fish, something I am already paying dearly for, I don’t think is an an appropriate option. Buy soimply limiting how many fish can be kept from the reservoir waters will help and by eliminating the large fish from the take-home catch we might see a decrease in the number of stingy dorks who think a successful day on the water amounts to how many empty cans they made and how many big fish they take home.

By placing stricter limitations of the waters in question, it will be up to the angler if he/she wants to comply. It isn’t a forced thing. Nobody is telling them they can’t fish and nobody is getting charged any more. Its all about choices as far as I am concerned. I could reak havok on some waters if I wanted to, but I choose to be sure my catch stays well under the legal limit and I also choose to be mindful of the fish’s size that get kept. I am also very mindful of what each different water will bear as far as harvest goes. These are my choices and I monitor myself so that nobody has to tell me otherwise. I know that Ron, Mike and yourself are advocates of this ideology too. Hopefully it will be our example that teaches others to some degree.

If you go back and look at recent posts regarding the fishing of late, you will see that the I’s are not dotted and the T’s are not crosses with respect as to where, exactly, the fishing took place. I have gotten to the point with fishing pictures that the water or the ice is the background and landmarks are not a part of the shot. Unforunately, all of this has become imparetive today because of those who do lurk. The information hiway we find on the internet is tightening up and not because someone is telling people they have to do it, but rather because people like yourself, Ron, Mike and I are tired of people using what we write to deplete a resource.

Quote:

---

Maybe just having all the little puddles created arond and in town here be designated as catch and release is a solution.

---

I wouldn’t mind seeing some of these smaller puddle designated C & R. or at least very strict size regulations. The problem is if you make it all C&R you will reach a point were you have a stunted population. Chesterwoods seems to have worked great, at least as far as the bluegill fishery goes. I remember when I first moved here and fished Chesterwoods 7 years ago all one could catch was 5-6″ gills. This year at a RAF event we had 3 10″ers caught on the same night. Now I just wish they could figure out whats going on with the bass out there.

Andy

I hear you loud and clear Tom. Every time one turns around there seems to be new taxes and or user fees.
However, there are certain things I do believe are worth the extra money. Protecting these reservoirs would be one of them. We all have our priorities in the way we choose to spend our money. I am placing a strong emphasis on priorties here!!!! No such thing as a free lunch.
Just a suggection, how about a user fee of $25 a year to fish the Rochester/Olmsted county reservoirs?
For what you get in return, $25 is a bargin.
The fee could be cut in half for the elderly/retired.
Hey we already have Park/Camping fees.
Half of it might go to the township that holds these ponds and the other half to a special DNR restocking program.
Now some of you might raise your eyebrows when I suggest half to the township? First it expresses appreciation and second, they now have an incentive to continue this work and allow fishermen to access them. Maybe even create more opportunties.
Uncle Grump mentioned the $ sign and significance/influence the almighty buck portrays.
It is a fact of life, fishing is no different, you wanna play then baby you are going to pay.
Limits and sizes? My suggection would be follow what we know has already had positive results. Not only at Chesterwoods/Bear Creek, but also certain pools on the Mississippi River.
10 bluegill limit, period. Each of them must be at least 7 inches in length.
Crappies? The same limit of ten and each has to measure at least 10 inches.
As strong as this might sound, maybe no more free fishing information provided by the many fishing web sites, including IDA. Again, a subscription and fee to access fishing reports.
Now what are the lurkers going to do, maybe they will take up golf.

GOLF?????????? Geeze, did I even spell the word right? That is a radical thought, Ron. Radical. But I like that concept.

The only fee or whatever that I would endorse would have to be absolutely dedicated to and have to be earmarked for fishing enhancement in only those reservoirs which are open to fishing legally….meaning that none of this money could be put into Silver creek unless the joint powers work out an agreement that the township can tolerate and abide by. I am still of the opinion that the powers entered into an agreement with the township that was for water storeage only and that to change it just because someone wants to fish there is simply another piece of government double talking.

I could very well accept a 25.00 per year user fee on fishing these reserviors. Just think about it for a minute. For 25.00 you get a pass to fish all these reserviors for a year and the money, at least most, goes to stock the lakes and manage them. Sounds like a bargin to me. I would even go along with keeping Chesterwoods seperate as they already have a 25.00 per year park fee and it should stay that way too as its one hec of a nice place to go to for only 25.00 a year. Fishing is a very popular sport and we, as fishermen/fisherwomen, need to give back to the sport too. It can’t be just a take only and do nothing to help these bodies of water stay healthy with fish. We don’t have the luxery of having a bunch of bigger lakes like the Farbault area does. Ours are much smaller yet we have a huge city here compared to the size of Farbault and also have alot of surrounding towns too which means ALOT of fisherpeople in this area. My concern is that I want everyone to have some very nice places to fish at and be able to take their kids and grandkids to and share the love of fishing that they have with them. In order for fisherpeople to have and enjoy that we all need to be very carefull when we have such delicate fisheries.

I want to say ”Thank You” to everyone who has and who will take special care and consideration of the fish and the fisheries when they are out fishing. Together we can help keep our fisheries strong and healthy. After all, we ALL win that way. Thanks.
Thanks, Bill

I’m maybe in favor of some kind of fee, but feel that 25 is out of line. 10 maybe. Why not do something with fines that make the local authorities, or whoever will be monitoring those fishing for compliance, have a real reason for doing their job. Like make the first offense $500/cash only fine with 50% going to the agency catching the offender along with 40 hours of picking up trash at the lake they get caught at. The other 50% would be for a dedicated fund to restock the lakes.