Trout Stamp Hike

All,
If you haven’t heard the 2004 trout stamp fee will increase to $10. I am wondering if anyone knows a fast route to past and future DNR allocations, itemization reports and funding break downs?

Very curious to see if this money is being well spent. Or at least if the 10$ increase is warranted!

Yes it is “suppose” to be used for the continued maintenance,
stocking etc of our trout streams and lakes, but as you may know, money isn’t always disseminated as intended!

Thanks for your time. Now back to fishing!

Keep the rods bendin’!!!

Jim W

I’ve been wondering about this myself. Every time there has been a fee hike, it seems that we get less. In the late 60’s and early 70’s the DNR was saying that they would be adding another 5 miles of prime trout water every year. Thats been over 40 years and about $20 per license ago, and I don’t believe I can find that 200 miles of trout stream anywhere! We have actualy lost streams since then. Our overall stocking has decreased. And there’s supposed to be money being generated from Lottery tickets going into our natural resources. What Gives???
John Eggers

I’m not overly shook up about lack of stocking. Granted, I would like to see more stocking of fingerling browns and reintroiduction of brookies and less catchable rainbows (especially in H.I. areas – Crow Spring and the Quincy Bridge area for example).

I have no problem with $10 considering the amount of use I get from the stamp, but I’m not at all convinced the DNR uses trout stamp money for habitat improvement with the slightest clue at all. Why do stream improvement on very marginal waters like the Litle Jordan? Why blow $71,000 to do Torkelson, when it’s a half ass job at best. Go look for yourselves if you don’t believe me. The depth is terrible becaue they didn’t remove any of the silt at all, then the lunkers don’t actually provide any overhanging cover, something they are designed TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE! The lunkers aren’t even at the heads of the pools to provide the cover and depth necessary to improve the fishery.

If they stick this money into doing more angler surveys, I will be shocked and dismayed since they have oodles of data that show the trout anglers want more protective regulations and more diverse opportunities on the streams.

If they hand over X amount of dollars each year to the Hiawatha Chapter of TU and say, “Go ahead and pick a stream to do H.I. it,” then I wouldn’t have a problem with $10. It would finally be money well spent.

is the trout stamp the only price that is going to be raised, or are other licenses going up in price too? i thought i heard that the small game licenses fee was going to be raised. maybe i’m wrong.

anyway, i agree with D.A in that i certainly don’t mind paying a $1.50 more for a license considering all the use i get out of it. heck, you can’t even get a long distance phone call for that much anymore . i would like to think that the extra money that the price hike is going to produce is being used to help improve the quality of the fishing in MN. unfortunatly my gut feeling is that it’s not. if it was, like Jim said, i’d think that the DNR would have their finacial statements more readibly accesesable for public viewing. it would just give some reassurance as to what money’s going where.

oh yeah,
i was also wondering if D.A. could explain the reasoning behind wanting LESS stocking of catchable sized rainbows .

Catchable sized rainbows appease one group – those interested in harvesting fish. Now, if they want to move the catchable sized rainbows to WW park or other “marginal” waters, go ahead. In return, I would expect them to stop stocking catchables in areas that have decent brown trout populations. Why create competition for the fish that were born, bred, and have survived in the stream up to that point? Not only do they have to compete with more fish for a LIMITED amount of food, they also have to contend with anglers who are pounding that area extra hard. Frankly, I don’t hold catchable rainbows in very high regard. They aren’t very smart, they aren’t very pretty as a trout species, and they are placed there for one reason – harvest. To me, it’s not much for sport catching stocked fish.

All of the DNR’s financial side of things is public information. All you have to do is ask. That’s how I found out how much they wasted on the Torkelson Creek project.

i understand where you’re coming from, but i’m not sure i completely agree. those fish are put in there for harvest purposes, and if they get caught that easy, they will be harvested . the coloration may not be as spectacular as a brook or brown trout, but they are just as fun to catch.

if people are going to harvest trout, they aren’t going to care wether it’s a naturally born brown or stocked rainbow. if they want to keep fish, they’re going to keep fish. that being said, stocking rainbows for harvest makes sense. that way people who want to keep some fish can keep those and might leave the smaller browns and brookies .

I agree with you Dave on Torkleson. The stream is horrible atleast above the bridge and full of silt. As that the work that they did? Definitely not as good as the work done on the middle branch and others. Are they finished with it yet? If this is where my trout stamp money went, then what a shame. Because that creek blows. Why did they even pick one that is just a trickle? Why not build up Big Springs which has a small population already or some others that flow a little better and not full of silt?

I also agree with Jake. People are going to kill anything that they pull out of these streams. Not just rainbows. However you are right when you say that stocking bows will hinder the growth of brookies and browns. Why bring in another fish when those that have been there need to survive? Then in reality the stocking of rainbows hasn’t affected the brown and brookie pop. that much. In fact aren’t brookies making a comeback? The browns have contiued to survive in the whitewater system with rainbows stocked with them and will continue to do so.

I am excited to see the DNR plan come into effect. This should solve a lot of problems with the ‘harvest’ of trout and allow for more ‘hogs’

Alright fellas. looking forward to more discussion.

Craig

What do those hundreds of trout do in the meantime? Not eat? Then explain to me why the DNR just dumped a whole truckload of those ugly raceway rainbows into Winnebago Creek, a stream that already has huge numbers of fish (not necessarily large fish). I know because I fished it today and saw or caught many of them. This in turn creates more competition for fodd for the browns and brookies that are already there. Makes no sense to me. Go dump them in the Middle Bracnh of the WW in the park or below the Dam in Lanesboro.

The average angler will stop hammering areas that have H.I. like Quincy Bridge if they continue to fish and fish and NOT catch those stockers. They will go to where the stocked fish are. Stocking rainbows for harvest makes sense; it does not make sense to stock them in streams with already significant trout populations or in areas that have had thousands of dollars and hundreds of volunteer man hours put into them. And if you think that people will throw back those “smaller” browns and brookies because they are catching rainbows, you’re very sorely mistaken and naive to what really goes on at our local trout streams. If you don’t believe me, contact the DNR and get before and after elctroshocking data – before the opener and later in the season. Then find out how many fish per acre, not per mile, per acre, are over 12 inches and get back to me. Truth is that there are VERY FEW trout over 12 inches (stocked rainbows don’t count – count only real fish). People keep trout because they can. I doubt the type of fish actually matters to them.

Brookies making a comeback – on streams like Upper Crow Spring where H.I. has been implemented to improve numbers, or protective regulations like on Trout Valley or Cold Spring Brook. Those could be considered successes, but I’m not sure they are making a comeback per say. There was talk about brook trout reintroduction on some of the headwaters of certain streams, but I haven’t heard about that in a few years.

P.S. Torkelson is a “finished” product by the way. Makes you feel good about a stamp increase whn they pissed away $71,000 on a worthless H.I. project. The silt, I was told by someone in Region Five headquarters, is a result of lack of water in area streams. Truth is, they didn’t dig it out in the first place and creat he necessary depth overhanging cover. I’m sure they are hoping for heavy rains/run-off in the future to blow the silt out. My question is why didn’t they do it right the first time? My next question is when are some of those in charge of the resource going to be replaced with employees who are more efficient at their jobs?

Quote:

---

Then explain to me why the DNR just dumped a whole truckload of those ugly raceway rainbows into Winnebago Creek, a stream that already has huge numbers of fish (not necessarily large fish).

---

….just a guess here, but isn’t camp winnebago a camp for the mentally disabled? maybe they are having a special event there this weekend and they want some of the campers to be able to go fishing, catch a few decent sized fish and enjoy themselves. i really don’t think that they would care if it’s not a naturally born brown trout. just a thought .

the point i was trying to make earlier was if a fisherman goes to a stream with the intent of keeping fish, and the first few fish he catches are these harvestable rainbows, he might think twice about keeping a little brown he catches in hopes of catching more rainbows.

if these fish weren’t in the system, he’d just be keeping anything and everything.

DA,

I am sure you are aware of this. IN response to your last comment. Politics! Those in charge of the Year end funds collectd from Trout stamps are Memebers of the Citizens Oversight Committee appointed by the Commissioner in turn appointed by the Govenor in turn put in office by……..

Let’s start a campaign…NO MORE RAINBOWS!!!!lol

Jim W

Camp Winnebago is a campground area, and the rainbows weren’t in the Camp Winnebago section. It’s not just Winnebago, it’s Crooked as well. Crooked has no campground for anywone with any disability as far as I know. Point being – stop stocking ranbows in streams that already have oodles of trout . Persons with intentions of keeping fish aren’t going to say – hey I caught a brown, but I’m going to let it go. If they are there to keep fish, they will kepp fish. I don’t want to play the minority card (although for some reason four members of the southeast Asian Community were given invites to last week’s roundtable on the future of trout management; that’s the same meeting TU and MTA boycotted), but do you think persons of that nature are going to throw fish back? I doubt it.

The political side is what frustrates me since it’s clear we have persons at the local level who are unwilling to listen to what the anglers want in the trout resource management. I for one want more regs, better H.I., more stream easement acquisition, and individual labeling of streams for those of us who are NOT intersted in catching stocked rainbows. If I wanted some rainbows, I’d go to Hy-Vee.