New Proposed Regulations

Here is the link to the news relese on the new proposed regulations:

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/releases/index.html?id=1072202135

Dave – have you heard which streams they are talking about designating as catch and release?

Todd Olson
The Fly Guys Guide Service
EFN Field Staff
[email protected]

this makes me very happy. the list looks pretty darn good to me. quite a bit of good water. i just wonder what opening day 2005 is going to look like.

here’s the list…..

Proposed Regulations as of 12-18-2003

Existing

12 Inch Max. Brook Trout

Cold Spring Brook 12 inch minimum

Trout Valley Creek 12 inch minimum

Catch and Release (Designated)

Bee Creek

Camp Creek Slot

Kedron Creek

Root River, Middle Branch

Root River, South Fork

Whitewater River, Middle Branch

Winnebago Creek

Wisel Creek

Slot Limit

Beaver Creek, East

Garvin Brook

Gribben Creek

Hay Creek

Logan Creek

Mahoods Creek

Money Creek

North Branch Creek

Root River, South Branch

South Branch Creek

Spring Valley Creek

Trout Run Creek Slot

West Indian Creek Slot

Whitewater River, North Branch Slot

Catch and Release (nondesignated)

Belle Creek

Root River, Middle Branch

Zumbro River, North Fork

Total Miles Proposed Designated trout Regulations: 137.2

Total Miles Nondesignated regulations 44.3

Total Miles regulations 181.5

Thanks Jake – appreciate the info

Todd Olson
The Fly Guys Guide Service
In-Depth Angling Field Staff
[email protected]

heres a question…..

what’s the point of having a slot limit from 12″-16″??? would it not make more sence to have a minimum size requirement of 16″ or something??? or is some harvest of the smaller 10-11″ fish good for the population??? or don’t they no yet???

If you had a minimum size requirement, there could potentially be a few problems like culling – keeping a fish that’s 16″ then catching another one that’s larger, then pitching the one that’s already dead in brush, etc. Plus, if you have a 16″ requirement, that reads to the average angler that they NEED to harvest a fish that’s at least 16 inches. Keeping a few fish for the frying pan that are 10-11 inches is a great thing on most streams. I look at Camp, Winnebago, even Garvin Brook that have good, healthy fish numbers. Taking some fish out of the general population in that size range limits competition for an already established food base. There is only so much food fo the fish to eat and we can’t change that. We can change how many guys are in there competing for those limited food items. That’s why I have never understood why the DNR would stock catchable rainbow trout on Winnebago. The stream has tons of fish, albeit most aren’t overly big (due to healthy reproduction rates and tremendous water quality), but why put more in there when there are already a ton of trout to begin with? I think you’ll see stocking of catchable rainbow take a dramatic turn. In other words, there will be no more stocking of catchable rainbows in the Quincy Bridge area since it will have protective regulations on it. You can also say good bye to kid’s fishing day and the oversaturation of rainbows on Camp Creek. An easy solution will be to move it (rainbows and kid’s fishing day) to Willow Creek, a marginal stream with plenty of easy wading access in the meadow reaches.

I have no doubt there will be some prety aggravated persons who will cop the attitude that, “We’ve always been able to fish and keep fish from theis stream, and now I’m mad as hell that I can’t keep fish out of this stream.” I have little sympathy for that position considering the majority of the managament plans up until this proposal have been geared towards general regulations, which also translates into little or no guidelines regarding limits, size requirements, etc. If you look at the streams proposed versus how many total number of streams and stream miles there are out there to fish, this proposal doesn’t affect that much water. And another sidenote: putting the three non-desinated streams as complete catch and release is a good thing. They don’t have that many trout in them to begin with and they are now going to get the protection they have long needed, plus, you potentially create some very large trout…I think we all like that. I think more importantly beyond some proposed changes will be the changes that will take place in how the DNR does their management. Last September’s HI tour really opened a lot of eyes in the department itself about how they were inadequately trained in dealing with the whole realm of stream restoration. There will be better intensive HI (no, that doesn’t mean woody debris either) done by better trained DNR personnel.

The bottom line is that these are proposals and they will go before a series of public input meetings in September of 2004. If you like the changes and want to be able to go to certain streams and go after fish that aren’t “status quo” due to slot limits or catch and release regulations because they aren’t managed like all of the others, then you need to be heard.

so what you’re saying is that harvasting smaller fish is a good thing for the larger fish because it cuts down on competition for the limited food source of the stream……alright, i think i’ll buy that.

….but, will the people that are going to be fishing these streams with a 12″-16″ slot really going to keep any fish anyway?

I fish the N. Branch of the WW (12-16), Trout Run (12-16) and Crow Spring (catch and release), and it doesn’t seem to deter anglers one bit. In fact, I think it creates more pressure due to the fact that people fish the area hoping to run into 12-16 inch trout and larger since there is a protective slot.

If these regulations create a system where those who are harvest oriented frequent other streams that do not have any protective measures, then I guess we’ll have to live with that for the time being. I’m willing to bet that the Middle Branch of the Root will still have people fishing it despite the fact that they must (by law) return fish to the water. If it gets the usual seven cars parked at Quincy to relocate to other waters that aren’t protected or have stocked rainbows, then I’m all for it(put them in the marginal waters in teh park – that way they can capitalize on park sticker fees as well). Doesn’t seem to make much sense to pump hundreds of thousands of dollars wirth of HI into a stream, then stock it with catchable rainbows, and let the anglers tkae what they want (brook, brown, or rainbow).

We haven’t even touched upon the issue of poaching and those who do not abide by stream specific rules. I carry my cell phone on the stream with me – TIP is on speed dial……if that’s what it takes to ensure that the laws are being followed, then I guess that’s what we may have to do.

I really dont like this idea. Being a raised bait fisherman I sometimes like to walk the streams with a cup of worms. I dont see how that can be so bad for the fish. Sometimes they do swallow the hook, but most of the time it comes out fairly easy. It would be no different than a fowl catch with a lure. I also dont see how the slot is going to work. Most of the places that I fish have plenty of fish in the 12-16″ range. It is nice to see the DNR doing something with our money, but I dont know if it is the right thing to do. Now all of the bait fisherman will be forced to find some new creeks.

Requiring artificials only reduces mortality rate and would help ensure the possibility of a regulation working (not to mention discouraging poaching, etc.). Bait anglers haven’t had any real requirements or streams that they couldn’t use bait on in how long???

Isn’t there plenty of water for the “bait” people to fish as it is? In fact, aren’t the regulations set up for harvest oriented persons? Go look at the current regulations. There are two streams that have SECTIONS of catch and release (Hay Creek and Crow Spring), two that have slot for brook trout (Trout Valley and Cold Spring Brook), and four streams that have SECTIONS of slot (NBWW, W. Indian Creek, Trout Run, and Camp Creek). I think you have contradicted yourself by saying the the bait people will have to find new water. They’ve already had most of it.

I don’t know you from anyone else in a crowd of people, however, you said something interesting about “the hook comes out fairly easily.” There is a huge difference between foul hooking a fish and yanking out a hook from within the fish, is there not? I foul hook trout all the time when I fish a tandem rig, and I have yet to foul hook one in the gizzard and then “pull the hook out fairly easily.”

You won’t get much sympathy from me on this issue; I guess that’s why the public input meetings might be something that you want to attend.

I don’t believe that he said he was “yanking” the hook out of the fish. How can you rip on a bait fisherman about deep hooking a trout when you foul hook them all of the time? I’m sure that a foul hooked trout doesn’t always live, just as some fish deep hooked don’t always live. I am just wondering what you have against bait fisherman? I am not trying to start something, it just seems that you are very hard on baitfisherman. I hardly ever use live bait, but respect the fact that others can and do.

I’m commenting on the mortality rates of fish hooked by fly and spinner anglers verus bait. When I foul hook a fish, I usually don’t hook them anywhere near a vital organ, and I sure don’t yank out the hook (hook size of flies vs. bait fisherman is pretty large). The comparison isn’t even close. If anything shouldn’t cutting the line and letting the fish go be more important than trying to remove it and killing the fish, especially when it’s hooked deep.

The whole point of my reply was to point out that there are very few restrictive regulations in place, which was a response to “having to find new water.” I don’t have to feel bad that this new proposal limits bait in certain streams…in fact, I’m very much in favor of more artificials only streams. There are a lot of anglers out there in favor of more regulations because they want a diversity of types of streams to fish, whether it be a slot, no kill, no bait, etc. No two streams are the same, so why would we manage like they are all one?

If I’m hard on bait anglers, it’s simply because my own personal beliefs. I could get into specific reasons, but I don’t think it would be appropriate…sorry to you Jerry if I was being hard on you. You’re entitled to how you feel; that’s why I was suggesting you need to go to the meetings and be heard.

DA, I don’t trout fish in Minnesota and I hardly ever use bait when I trout fish in Wisconsin. I can see how bait fisherman would be alarmed though. They either have to change their way of fishing (switch to artificials) or find new water to fish. I would be just as alarmed if they made the streams I fish bait only and banned artificials. I’m not saying I disagree with Minnesota’s proposed changes, just that I can sympathize with what the bait fisherman must be feeling. I wouldn’t like to be told to find new water to fish after I’ve fished an area my whole life either.

Aren’t people naturally resistent to change? I’m sure there were many unhappy anglers in Wisconsin when the DNR went to a multi-tiered system. I have no doubt there will be unhappy people here as well. How can we make things better if we are unwilling to give it a whirl and see if it works? Worse case scenario, we can always change it back. How will we ever know unless we try?

As for finding “new” water, I have mixed feelings. I can empathize slightly with those who with those who have alwyas used bait and may not be able to pull up to just any stream and use bait in the future. The other side of me sees it as a challenge. I explore new stream reaches every year, in fact, I make it a point to fish areas that are new to me. There’s a lot to be said for exploration and finding new water. In Jerry’s case, living in St. Charles, he has a ton of water to choose from all within a half hour or 45 minutes of the city itself – most of which is not under any special regulations (including limitation of bait).

D.A. Im not trying to get into it with you, but I dont see what is wrong with the streams the way they are. In my whole life I dont think I have come across a good trout stream with a shortage of fish. You say that there are very few streams with regulations to bait fisherman, but I dont see why there needs to be any regualations on bait fisherman. I dont bait fish more than a couple times a year, but I think that they have just as much right to the streams as we(artificial baitfishman) have. I completely understand the slot limits and that is a good idea, but there is no need to ban baitfisherman from our streams. I understand that fish sometimes die when baitfishing, but sometimes that happens. I have fished with bait for many years and I can count the fish that I killed on one hand. In that case I take it home and eat it. Once again im not trying to get into it with you but I just wanted you to see the opinion of a sometimes baitfisherman.

I think the rationale is that in order to have these regulations work on streams that are catch and release, then banning bait is a way to achieve that goal. Banning bait and creating more catch and release also creates more diveristy in the types of streams that people can choose to fish. I don’t believe it’s a secret that bait anglers (unintentionally) kill way more fish than other types of legal methods.

If you use bait and rarely kill fish, then I think you are an exception to the rule of bait usage and trout mortality on streams, not the norm. In fact, I’d be willing to bet that many bait anglers unintentionally kil fish simply because they use bait, they pull out the hook (not out of the mouth), put a bleeding fish back in the water, he swims away, and that’s that. I know this happens because I’ve had a chance to fish behind bait anglers who have let those fish “swim away” only to find them floating or at the bottom of the pool some short time later. Does it happen with fly anglers and the sorts – no question. Does it happen as often or with the same frequency if I used bait. No way.

I see the opinions of the others, but I don’t agree with them. In other words, I am very much behind these proposed regulations, and I doubt I will be alone when the time comes for decisions to be made. Until I see some data that using bait on a trout stream has no real effect on mortality (versus flies/spinning gear), then I stand firm on my position.

Should we be fair and have some streams for baitfisherman only, to really look at how it affects a stream? And since no two streams are alike, how does having a stream as artificial only tell us anything because there are a ton of outside influences on a stream besides fisherman. I know that you can determine in general that artificial only will harm less fish, but I have heard people say that the winter season is a “catch and kill” because trout don’t handle stress that well. I don’t necessarily believe that, but a lot of people have different views. A person needs to look at things from both sides before determining what is the right thing to do. I would just be worried that making it illegal to use bait on some streams is only the beggining. What next? Will it be changed that flyfishing only will be allowed and no spinfisherman? If we limit to who can fish a stream and how they do it we are walking a fine line. Just because someone does something in a different way does not make it the wrong way.

Hey, I am for regulations on streams for good reasons. I think that all streams are not the same and some need regulations that others do not. However, you know what? I think that spinners cause more mortality rate than anything else. Why do I say this? Because I am 65 years old, have fished trout all my life, and have had bad experiences with hook and release with spinners. Really bad! Like when I caught a limit and then proceded to fish with spinners so I could release them. I have taken 4 trout to eat in the last 7 years. Do I begrudge someone to catch and keep a limit, absolutely not. To put things in perspective, who probably kills more fish, the guy who uses bait, catches his limit and goes home, or the guys who catch and release 25 to 50 fish in a day and does this many times throughout the season? I don’t know. Does anybody? I fly fish 99% of the time, well maybe more than that. I am wondering if I kill more fish this way. I really do not know and I do not think that anybody else knows either. I am careful and I fish a max of 3 hrs. on a trip. I just don’t know and I do not think that anybody else knows either. It seems that if I am careful on my release etc. that it should be o.k. I hope so but do I really know for sure? No. Have fun fishing as my dad told me when I was a kid, “you won’t catch the fishy unless you put the line in the water’! I loved my dad, he took me fishing!

There arleady are stretches of water in this country that are fly fising only….. if we wanted to see how streams are affected by bait fisherman, shouldn’t we just look at DNR data on creel and electro-shocking? It’s not like we don’t know what effect bait and general regulations have on a stream because THAT’S THE WAY THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN MANAGED. Maybe there should be more data on how many bait anglers are barbless hooks, catch and release guys who actually would cut their line instead of killing a trout to save that Eagle Claw. Sounds like there are just tons of fish out there anyway if you read some of the posts. Why try to make a good thing better? Let’s just do things the way we always have done it in the past. What does a bunch of trained fisheries personnel with college degrees know anyway? What does numerous years of surveys to anglers in the area show anyway? What does in-depth data from across the country know about winter trout mortality? (By the way, they did do in-depth studies here in MN after they opened the catch and release season…what did conclusion did they come to? Let’s open up more streams and offer more opportunities for anglers). Why are states like Iowa, Montana, and Arkansas open to year round angling? I’m sure there isn’t any data out there to show that winter angling has little effect on trout mortality.

Better yet, let’s just sit on our hands and do nothing…nothing. I would have thought that protective slot limits and catch and release angling would be a positive thing, even for those who do not fly fish (and yes, I was one of those guys when I was in my youth). And by the way, there’s nothing in the proposal that says anything about limiting WHO uses the stream. It’s not Russia yet. It does limit HOW you use a stream. But then again, aren’t there limitations in most every other fishing or hunting related endeavor?

You’re right about this being the beginning (and NOT the boom of fly fishing only waters). It’s the beginning of some overdue changes in the way our streams are managed. There will no longer be just plain blanket rules that cover every nook and cranny. And the blanket 5 fish limit with one over “16 is pretty liberal, that is unless you’re at the Lanesboro Park pond.

It seems to me that your saying that the only fisherman that have any affect on the trout population of a stream are baitfisherman (I know your not saying this though). Baitfisherman are the only ones that kill trout or keep them. Baitfisherman are the only ones that would “rip” the hook out of a trout. Not someone fishing with an expensive lure or fly though. Creel and electro-shocking data won’t tell what affect baitfisherman have on a stream, it will tell you how fisherman, nature, pollution, and other influences have on the stream. There are so many variables to consider when looking at the population and size of the trout.
I agree about having different regulations for different waters based on data and what certain streams can handle. I just don’t think that all baitfisherman should be grouped as trout killers or bad for a stream. A few “bad apples” can make a whole group look bad. You are right about maybe looking at the practices of baitfisherman (barbless hooks and cutting line on deeply hooked fish). Don’t think that I don’t support creating new regulations that could help the size, numbers, or health of a population. I hardly ever fish bait, so the new regulations won’t bother me. I was just making an argument for the people that do. Hope the winter season is a good one for you and that the new regulations work out.

Another factor to consider, and one that personally bothers me, is how a fish is fought. This has nothing to do with flies or bait but how long a fish is placed under stress. Land ’em, and get ’em back in the water. Ultra light may sound good on paper but if it extends the fight, it’s bad for the fish. Extended “photo sessions” are bad too.

Good luck to everyone this winter!

Amen Rootski!

Well said…as a guide I for one am sick and tired of lets see how big a fish we can land on how small a rod or tippet!

Yes under some circumstances you need to go to a 6 or 7x tippet with the ability to make a light presentation or a 2 – 3 wt on a small stream. But to deliberately target water that you know holds sizable fish so you can brag about how small an outfit you used is simply not neccessary and needlessly stresses fish. By the way I have done just as well presenting 20-24 midges/tricos with a 5 wt as I have with my 2 or 3 and if you are nymphing there really is very little reason to use anything smaller than 5x and that has included spring creeks too.
Fish smart…Fish responsibly
Kevin Biegler

http://www.sourdoughcreek.com

Actually BT creel and shocking census can give you very specific details on how baitfishing affects a stream. A couple of points are very crucial here. The streams in the midwest while in ‘some’ cases are self sustaining do not typical support reproduction that can stand up to the pressure regular harvesting (unlike western rivers which in many cases can) the balance of these streams are more precarious. Also, there is a significant difference between the way a trout will ‘take’ an artificial insect versus bait or a spinner lure. The type of forage is a big factor. A trout which is hooked deep by ingesting bait or near the gill plates is almost certainly a dead fish even though it may swim off when released, as is a trout that is lipped. When an angler hauls a trout out of the water and holds it by it’s lips like a bass it is a pretty safe bed that the gill beds have been torn or hemorfhaged. To re-inforce what has been said repeatedly I don’t think that there is an effort to discriminate or classify one form of angling as being better than another. What is at stake is a sustainable and self replicating fishery versus one that is merely a cold ditch that has a truck dump fish into. 20+ years Montana realized that it is far more economical and healthier to maintain a natural stream as opposed to stocking. At that time the bait fisherman raised hell too. But now all these years later the fisheries are healthy and there are plenty of opportunities for anglers regardless of their style or methods.

Kevin

http://www.sourdoughcreek.com