Does the state do a good job of managing fish?

Allan Davis wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>philtickelson wrote:</div>
Don’t stream trout not reproduce in lakes? Or do you just mean that the trout stocked in put-and-take lakes don’t survive?

Not sure the complaint here, could you elaborate?

Right most lakes the trout cant reproduce, but I am talking about the survival of the stocked fish. A lot of the fish die after a year because the lake has a bad oxygen level or the temp of the lake is to hot. Brook trout and rainbows are more picky they need more specific levels. Brown trout are more hardy they have a wider range of oxygen and temps. The downfall of brown trout they take longer to grow. The complaint is that they should stock more browns because they will survive easier. Also try and make the streams more habitual for long term survival. A lot of streams could be killer with a little work.

Stream trout can’t reproduce in stocked lakes, thought they will try. The DNR doesn’t stock trout in unsuitable lakes. They look over the situation pretty carefully. The problem is that these are inferior , relatively stupid hatchery fish that are too willing to bite for their own good. Most stocked fish are caught ….and kept….every year. But what they heck they’re stocked in there to be caught.

SR

In NYS I think for the my area they do a great job as good as could be expected.

Steve glad to hear you mention Rainy. We were talking about that very thing pertaining to Kabetogama last year. Fish over 12″-14″ were hard to find. Slot limits seem to be a problem, what the solution is I don’t know. I’m just glad we keep talking about these things so the DNR understands we are watching.

I think a lot of people think that the DNR isn’t doing what they think should be done. Many folks think managing our fishery means just doing this or that. Then on top of this they somehow expect that for their 20 dollar fishing license the DNR should be doing spending unlimited dollars to fix a suspected problem. My take on the DNR is that given the budget and resources they are doing a great job. Would each Area Office do more if they had the staff and budget? You bet they would. I suspect that the DNR Fisheries offices would be more effective if more anglers actually dropped in and talked about their concerns and took the time to find out more about the problems and complicated solutions that are needed. But we don’t seem to do this, rather we tend to be critical and anti-DNR. If the DNR isn’t doing what we think they need to be doing, I suspect we need to look at our part in this and quit demanding that they come up with a sack of magic beans.

I’m going to buy a Powerball ticket!

I almost agree with Vern!!

AND as in my case, even if they are tired of seeing me, they always have a smile on when I walk in the door at the two offices I visit.

I agree with Vern about going to the offices and there is only so much that can be done with the funds they receive however our DNR gets a hell of a lot more money then what our $20. license covers.

I’m not complaining about their funding, but I don’t think anyone should leave this post thinking they should pay more… WE are already.

2014-2015 budget link

Attachments:

1. 

   budget-14-15.jpg
   

Dutchboy wrote:

Steve glad to hear you mention Rainy. We were talking about that very thing pertaining to Kabetogama last year. Fish over 12″-14″ were hard to find. Slot limits seem to be a problem, what the solution is I don’t know. I’m just glad we keep talking about these things so the DNR understands we are watching.

Like Mille Lacs a handful of years back, Rainy is now a walleye catching mecca beyond anyone’s craziest dreams. Why? Everyone seems to live in the present in these types of scenarios and never ask why. 70 or more percent of the fish seen are now OVER 20″? Why do the fish bite ALL the time when you find them? Like at Mille Lacs the past decade, before reality set in, are the Rainy fans in denial too–and NOT asking why and asking what the future will mean due to the present day scenario?

Long term slot limits….??? Is Leech Lake the next one a few years down the road?

Quick, throw some gill nets in there, they don’t hurt/affect a system/fish at all…..

X2 Buzz

Alot of it is the responsibility of the fisherman/woman also. If the quality of fish are not there weather it be size or quantity I don’t think the state/DNR is responsible for what we take out. It is up to the individual what they take. The more we take the less there is math 101! IMO it boils down to the limits that are allowed. It is obvious that some fisheries are be destroyed from being over harvested. I think there should be more management on the fish habitat than anything! Invasive weeds, fish species ect., spawning areas protected and so on. If the habitat is destroyed we won’t have to worry about any fish management! Alot of it is the responsibility of the sportsman/woman. We need to do our part also! IMO.

Rivergills wrote:

X2 Buzz

Alot of it is the responsibility of the fisherman/woman also. If the quality of fish are not there weather it be size or quantity I don’t think the state/DNR is responsible for what we take out. It is up to the individual what they take. The more we take the less there is math 101! IMO it boils down to the limits that are allowed. It is obvious that some fisheries are be destroyed from being over harvested. I think there should be more management on the fish habitat than anything! Invasive weeds, fish species ect., spawning areas protected and so on. If the habitat is destroyed we won’t have to worry about any fish management! Alot of it is the responsibility of the sportsman/woman. We need to do our part also! IMO.

“spawning areas protected” ??– Your DNR says “makes no difference” at Lake Mille Lacs…” lol Sorry I could not resist that one…lol but surelycan’t argue with what you said.

So does the South Dakota and North Dakota DNR Steve.

(personally I don’t have a good handle on this to have an opinion as I’m too use to the river)

The DNR doesn’t manage the fish, they manage the people that take the fish. ~ unknown MN DNR employee

Brian Klawitter wrote:

So does the South Dakota and North Dakota DNR Steve.

(personally I don’t have a good handle on this to have an opinion as I’m too use to the river)

The DNR doesn’t manage the fish, they manage the people that take the fish. ~ unknown MN DNR employee

The Dakota’s do not have comparable fishing pressure in most cases to most of Mn. waters–when you look at year ’round relative numbers.

So Brian on this diagram where the Pittman Roberts and Dingle Johnson $ come in?

I left that link in my post just for you Vern.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

The DNR doesn’t manage the fish, they manage the people that take the fish. ~ unknown MN DNR employee

Actually the DNR does very little managing of “fish” and alot more of managing “people”, whether it be anglers, politicians, special interests or “others”. It’s a BIG job !!!

I am not a DNR employee either…..

I guess that was my point. As a sportsman/woman we need to do our part in fish management. The DNR is not the one doing the fishing.

By going to the link under FEDERAL it looks like another 58 million isn’t accounted for in the pie chart? Am I reading this right?

Rivergills wrote:

I guess that was my point. As a sportsman/woman we need to do our part in fish management. The DNR is not the one doing the fishing.

Best post in this thread!!

Its tax time and when I look at all the hoops a simple person such as myself has to jump thru getting the taxes filed, I just shake my head when it comes to the DNR getting even simple things done. I get frustrated with the tail chase that comes with anything the DNR is asked to do but understand that more than anything it is a political choke collar that keeps them at bay.

I know and speak with several of the personel at the Lake City department and consider them friends. In talking about a few issues I have brought before them myself and in attending several townhall type sessions on getting special limits/slot sizes put on local reservoirs I have seen first hand the frustrations that the department has had to deal with pertaining to lawmakers, better known as politicians. If any one aspect of DNR management of game and fisheries could be eliminated to streamline things, I think it would have to be the legislature. For that matter I think before any member of the legislature could vote or influence the outcome of any law or idea aimed at fishing or hunting each and every one of them should be required to show a current fishing license for Minnesota or a current hunting license for the same and anything pertaining to deer or big game they should be the holder of such a license. We have too many huggers signing laws that screw with sportsmen that have absolutely no idea, other than being book smart, of what goes on in the field.

I think the DNR does a reasonable job. The legal beagles and media do more to hinder the DNR’s ability to do good than anything else.

From a management perspective with finite budgets I’d like to see the DNR steer away from or limit put-and-take and focus on maintaining or improving naturalization. I think you’d have a much better chance in having your dollar go further. I’m not saying it would make everyone happy…

Here in Wisconsin I would say it varies by species. The Wisconsin DNR has done a pretty awesome job with the Brown and Brookie streams here in Chippewa and Eau Claire county, and as an avid fisherman of trout, I love that. For walleyes, which used to be one of my favs, not so much. A combo of poor regulations and over harvest from indian spearing has pretty much wiped out alot of my favorite walleye lakes from when I was growing up. The only good walleye lakes I have now are tiny lakes near Hayward in the middle of nowhere with little fishing pressure. Grindstone and lower Long are two lakes that used to be amazing for walleye, now they are pretty mediocre, though Grindstone does seem to be recovering a bit. I think a big problem is the Wisconsin DNR is way too obsessed with turning every lake into a bass fishery. Don’t get me wrong, I love bass, but it’s kind of rediculous. I would like to say they are trying the best they can, but not sure I believe that. Just my two cents.

I mostly fish for fish that do not have to be ‘managed’ much so the fish reproduce naturally and the lakes have cycles of good and poor fishing. Natural systems have cycles-deal wit it. Also lakes usually cannot be stocked to the point where they are an excellent fishery. So think about all the world class walleye waters they all have natural reproduction, same for other species too. A DNR can ‘prime the pump’ with stocking or make a fishery ‘good’ but do not expect much more than that.
Lakes have cycles because of fishing pressure too and that is ok-fishermen and fishery folk should not panic——IMO

First the DNR spends its time managing people, unfortunately. As far slots for walleyes I go along with them if the lake has natural reproduction capabilities/habitat. Allowing the larger fish to go back creates a situation in which more spawning female fish can survive. Thus increasing natural reproduction with larger number of breeders in the overall population. Enhancing natural reproduction and numbers. I guess the next question would be is slots a good idea for lake walleyes where walleye reproduction is little or nonexistent. I would say no as this would be a considered a put and take body of water. Slots are bad if left in place too long in any body of water. We could see it happening on Leech down the road.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Rivergills wrote:</div>
I guess that was my point. As a sportsman/woman we need to do our part in fish management. The DNR is not the one doing the fishing.

Best post in this thread!!

Agree exactly as anglers be better stewards of the resource.