Trout angler decline

[Dave Anderson]

As someone who was involved with the regs go around a few years ago, I can say that the regulations were submitted to the public by the DNR and not TU. It was their idea, but certainly TU endorsed the idea of offering a diversity in angling opportunities. Notice Houston County has no regulations and as a whole, there are very few regulations when you compare total number of trout miles to total number of trout miles with special regulations.

If people want to be [PoorWordUsage] at TU that they were the ones to get the regs. pushed through, I don't care. That means there's less people yapping at the Fisheries so they can spend more time in the field instead of answering phone calls and e-mails from people complaining about something that has been in place for how many years?

Like BlackDog, I'd love to see some data and actual numbers to back up these claims. Without it, it's just people flapping their gums.

[macgruber]

not sure if i can post the link, but here's the excerpt:

"Fishing has declined nationally. Federal statistics show the number of freshwater anglers fell from 31 million in 1991 to about 25 million in 2006. Saltwater fishing attracted 8.9 million people in 1991 and 7.7 million in 2006. Family and work responsibilities along with the draw of other activities have been blamed for the drop."

taken from an article in the baltimore sun.... dates don't match up, but if you go from '89 to '03, the trout angler decline is 12% compared with the national numbers of '91 to '06 of a 19% decline........

unless there was some other factor, then of course the regulations were the immediate cause of the decline in stamps in '90... but numbers are recovering as more people realize what a wealth of streams there are in this area, how good the fishing is, and as they got used to the regs...... and i guess we can take heart that our numbers are better than the national average......

and i don't think a stream by stream management approach is wrong..... there are plenty of little trickles around where taking five fish a day could deplete a 100 yd. stretch..... and there are some like the kinni where you wouldn't make a dent...... scudly, you yourself said the kinni should be moved up to 10 trout per day..... that would be exactly the opposite of what you're supposedly opposed to with the regs-- something specific to a stream...... and in that case, it might make sense to change the regs on that particular stream-- doesn't mean we need a ten trout limit across the state......

for the most part, though, i'm with you on the bait fishing and c&r--- people should be allowed to keep fish if the stream's population allows it..... and it shouldn't matter how u catch 'em.....

[Big Hit]

You won't see that data because there isn't any. This is peer speculation and assumption started to get a rise out of all of us to cloud the fact that the season ends in less then a week.

[Driftless]

i believe his guy that supplies the data is going to come

up with some data to support his findings. The data supplier

is Roger Kerr . Roger is a retired Fisheries Manager from the

WNDR. He was moved near the end of his WDNR career to

forestry. Kerr is well versed and educated in fisheries and

more knowledgeable about trout that 95 percent of the people

i have spoken to.

I have seen lots of his data and ALL is supported. I bet Mark

is awaiting some more data via snail mail. Mr. Kerr does not use email.

[Scudly]

Article in the Wisconsin State Journal, Aug 19, 2006.

"A creel census (angler survey) currently being conducted on three northern Grant County trout streams is demonstrating that I am not mistake. To date only 7 precent of the angelers contacted on the streams have been local residents, and 90% of the trout caught have been released. And fly fishers outnumber bait anglers two to one. By comparison. a creel census conducted on one of these steams in 1979 showed that 80% of the anglers who fished this stream used worms." In the next piece of data, compliments of TU, it shows worm decline to 24%.

Roger Kerr

[blackdog1101]

Kerr is outdated, and the facts don't support his claims. From the article above, "...social changes such as organized sports, single parent homes, computer games and so on have resulted in fewer people buying fishing licenses." But check the data. Total resident angling license sales are up in MN from 887,553 in 2000 to 905,506 in 2008.

Fly fishers outnumber bait fishers because more people choose to fly fish, not because of the special regs. In 1979 hardly anyone fly fished, so it's a nonsensical comparison to make.

I ask again, do you think that 6581 people in 5 counties got ticked off and quit trout fishing in the 1990's because of special regulations put on 12 streams in 2006?

In the 1990's there was one stream in MN that had special regs on it. Did all those people quit bait fishing in the 1990's due to one stream?

[blackdog1101]

Kerr also overlooks one very obvious point. Many people stopped bait fishing when they realised that C&R was a more conservation-minded approach. They saw the decimation of the brook trout by the previous generation, and many came to see C&R as a better use of the fishery.

[Scudly]

Letter from Roger:

For years Roger has been telling WDNR and TU people that very little harvest occurs now in SW Wisconsin. I'm sure this was not believed by most people. A lot of work has been done in Michigan and it has shown. a big decline in harvest. Then this PA study is published showing a 92.7% release rate for all wild trout in PA in 2004. Bottom line. TU has won. It has changed the behavior of a million trout anglers. And it has made harvesting sinful.

Angler Use, Harvest and Economic Assessment on Wild Trout Streams in PEnnsylvania. R. Greene, R. Weber, R. Caroline, D. Diefenbach, M. Shields, M. Kaufmann, R. MOase, and B. HOllender. August 2006.

[Scudly]

More on Roger.

"It was obvious dealing with 32 pages of regulations was a big turnoff to thousands of area anglers and they quit fishing. The DNR has been in denial for 17 years that this happened. It is the dark side of the program It is the bright side of this program is that the decline in local anglers has been great for catch and release anglers, who also fly fish. These anglers DO NOT have to use the regulation booklet, so there is no intimidation factor to them."

Old Program Had Bad Consequences

La Cross Tribune, 6/27/07

[Dave Anderson]

Why is the retired fisheries manager of a state with a tremendous trout fishery bashing it? Isn't this the same guy who wrote a letter also bashing the removal of stream aquatic plants from boat motors becasue it was too hard for old guys like him to do?

His self interest level over the years is nauseating and I'm glad that we don't have a tool like that on this side of the border.

Kerr isn't a player in this discussion. He's old news at best and knows nothing and has no say (thankfully) in how Minnesota trout fisheries are managed. Is this a two headed discussion now? One is Wiscosnin, which being on a Fishing Minnesota page, I could care less about, or is this about Minnesota?

Hey Mark, I read your blog - I appreciate the kind words from you and Len. Keep up the good work.

[Driftless]

when some one doesn't walk the walk and follow the

rhetoric they are either labeled a malcontent or a kook.

Special individuals with lots of training. You know the ones well

educated in fisheries......

The ones we should actually listen to.

Are dissed if they don't follow "special interest" way of thinking.

There are many here that have NO training in this field and basically spout the party line... they need to be TURNED off.

This attempt to dismiss this guys credentials only

STRENGTHENS his power. He obvious knows quite a bit

and is seen as a threat to the Lock Step crowd.

"Methinks thou protest too loudly"