And the Winnebago system is not all that dissimilar from “an iconic lake in central Minnesota.” Yet somehow it’s avoided the same degrees of boom and bust by multiple species experienced there.
A bust was recognized ahead of time, and not prevented, though it was reduced from being a complete bust with reactive measures. A walleye, even the oldest that ever lived, if it was a Sturgeon of that age speared… It wouldn’t be worth bringing to the scales
The idea that you have to study an animal for multiple generations to understand and manage it has face validity, but not necessarily actual validity. They closely monitor the population, the age structure of that population, reproduction, and recruitment. Fish are registered like big game, and the limits that trigger a closure are different based on gender, etc. I
I severely hope they’re monitoring the younger fish much closer.
Knowing that the age of the sturgeon harvested are multitudes more than the age of walleyes harvested on mille lacs.
..
I’d truly like to know what the DNR plan is for Sturgeon.
Is it to grow sustainable harvest? And a bigger harvest? More local and state revenue.
Is it to build age and size and find the Sturgeon species potential it once was prior to caviar exportation, ban on harvest and reopen due to local pressure amongst the depression era?
Are we simply patting ourselves on the back that the populations are what they are despite overwhelming odds 20-40-60 years ago. And the plan is to simple ‘keep it up’?
I want my grandchildren and your grandchildren to see the sturgeon potential. I know I won’t live long enough. What’s the DNR want?