Proposed Trout Regulation Changes for MN & WI

[Scudly]

I have heard through the grapevines that both MN and WI are considering removing the pre-season barbless hook requirement. Len says it is pretty much a sure thing for WI.

Apparently there have been a number of recent studies that show that the difference between barbed versus barbless for hook shedding mortality is minimal. Pretty much impossible to enforce anyway.

A few papers brought to my attention:

1. Hook Shedding and Mortality of Deeply Hooked Brook Trout Caught with Bait on Barbed and Barbless Hooks. Robert B. DuBOis and Julie M Pleski. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 27: 1203-1207, 2007.

Abstract: WDNR study. Deep hook #6 barb versus barbless on cultured brook trout baited with leaf worms. Hook shedding at end of 6-week holding period average 20% and did not differ between hook types.

2. Barbed and Barbless Hooks and their effect on Jevenile and Adult Salmanoid Morality. A literature Review. Bill Bakke April 22, 2008.

ANOTHER proposal for both states would be to extend the season through October. MN has Sept 15-30 as C&R. Would be willing to bet if extended through Oct this would also be C&R. WI not sure. Sounds like it might be just extending the harvest. WI does not have an end of season C&R deal like MN.

[splakeshaker]

Is this in regards to only streams?

[Scudly]

Good question. Would assume barbless rule for certain trout lakes removed. Are there many like this to begin with? A handul of North Shore lakes are c&r barbless (some also arrificialy only) managed for trophy trout.

Second part about extending season. MN and WI trout lakes you currently can fish through end of month.

[tharreld]

I don't think barb vs. barbless is that big of a deal on a single hook in the mouth (the exception would be small fish). I do think the stakes are raised when you are talking about a treble hook. A barbed treble hook can often times be a challenge if all 3 hooks are making contact. A single barbed hook to the body or eye can also cause some damage.

[Ufatz]

Well fellas, I can tell you this: there is not a barb on any lure or fly I use and its for a couple reasons; first, it is SO much easier to release fish, small brook trout or large angry pike or barracuda or halibut-they all come OFF easier and with less damage to the fish. Secondly, you only have to have a nasty-tempered BIG fish bury a large hook in the back of your hand ONE time before you become a barbless hook guy.

And while those little "studies" the fish and game boys and girls put together give them something to do (trust me, I know) it does not change any of what I said above: easier on the fish and easier on you.

I cannot even remember the last time I used a hook with a barb on it.

[Scudly]

Did a float trip down the Madison back in 05. Guide said he only works with barbless. First fish I had on was a decent sized rainbow. Guide Mitch pulled boat over close to shore, dropped anchor, and quickly jumped out with his net. All of a sudden the fish darted underneath the boat, my rod bent over in half and the fly popped out of the fish's mouth and slammed into Mitch's eyebrow. Had he not had glass on it could have gone in his eye. Then Mitch explained, "This is why we fish barbless!"

Tom you are right treble hooks can cause disfigurement - jaw, gill, eye, and of course higher mortality than a single hook.

FYI, the second review paper I posted shows mortality rates as follow:

Barbless hooks with flies: 1.76%

All barbless hooks (flies or lures): 2.16%

Barbless hooks with lure: 3.00%

All hooks with flies: 3.34%

Barbed hooks with flies 3.88%

All barbed hooks 5.86%

Barbed hooks with lures 6.86%

Anyone want a copy of the full articles, just email or PM me.

[Dave Anderson]

There's more to the MN regs: there's talk of allowing all streams catch and release as of J. 1 and not just the selected ones we have now. In an essence, the early C and R season would sunset and give way to this proposal. The harvest opener and season would remain the same and run until Sept. 15 with the season possible being extended into October (say the 15th). There is talk of the early and late seasons being artificials only and no bait.

Much of this is talk at this point, but efforts are being made to simplify the regulations.

D.A.

[Scudly]

Thanks Dave. Wonder if there are any southeast MN creel surveys that include the pre-season. If so, any idea how many bait fisherman fish the c&r pre-season? I tried bait twice this year during pre-season. Did not catch any trout on crawlers, rather spinners instead.

Would like to see ALL trout streams open Jan 1. It would allow people to spread out as Hay and WW seems to be crowded, especially on a warm day.

[s t fanatic]

i hope the creel surveys for the pre season come up empty handed.

[tharreld]

S.T.

I don't understand the point of your post. Why do you want the surveys to come up empty?

[s t fanatic]

correct me if im wrong, a creel survey is the amount of fish that were caught and kept thus the word creel (a wickerwork basket worn on the back or suspended from the shoulder, used esp. by anglers for carrying fish.) but thats prob. just one of those terms that got changed over the years. i miss back when.

fanatic

[Scudly]

Quote:

i hope the creel surveys for the pre season come up empty handed.

Creel survey for pre-season catch and release, one would hope so. Referring to "fishing survey" for pre-season. Assume MN came to the conclusion to include worms during pre-season during public input meetings in the first place.

[mark p]

I believe ST was making a joke. He was hoping the fisherman's creels were empty since it's the C&R season.

[tharreld]

OH, nevermind.

sorry S.T. I'm a little slow.

[Scudly]

Another proposal in MN that has been kicked around is the idea of allowing 16 and under to fish with live bait, possibly harvest in no kill areas. As has been discussed previously on this board and others, we have slight angler decline in MN, ESPECIALLY amongst our younger generation. Bad news for our future. Only 3% of trout fisherman are under the age of 20, a sign of a dying sport.

Dave Ladd, a businessman and prominent Wisconsin conservationist had a similar proposal in southwest WI. Dave in fact started the Dodgeville TU chapter some 40 odd years a go. Dave tried to get 16 and under rule to allow young people to use bait and harvest trout in no-kill areas. It passed easily in the spring meetings. This passed in 6/7 specific southwest WI counties during April 08 local meetings. Yet the September 08 WCC Trout Committee squashed it.

Some say special interest groups killed it. Others say wardens found this unenforceable. Probably a mixture of both.

I commend MNTU for considering a similar proposal. Honestly I don't think there are going to be a bunch of dads worming with their sons just to limit out or "clean out" any wild trout fishery. Personally I think it is impossible to "wipe out" a wild trout fishery. Yet a few have cited examples of abuse over the years and I'm sure that happens from time to time too. Stream productivity has many factors. I no longer think the #1 problem with trout fisheries is overharvest. There are plenty of other more important factors.

[tharreld]

Only 3% of trout fisherman are under the age of 20,

Is there any historical data on this? Would allowing bait increase this number? There are many reasons why kids aren't involved in hunting and fishing. I'm guessing that the inability to fish with a worm on a special reg stream isn't one of them.

No chance it will pass.

[blackdog1101]

I am one of the people who has floated this idea around here in MN. Tome it seems like a good idea, but I've received little support.

I wrote a friend on the Grant Cty WCC who knows Dave Ladd and was familiar with his proposal. The reason the proposal died was because the wardens didn't support the idea and would be too hard to enforce. In their opinion it would be too hard to determine "How much help is too much help?" Is it OK for Dad to cast the line? Is it OK for Dad to set the hook and hand the rod to the kid? Is it OK for Dad to reel in the fish if the kid gets tired or tangled?

Also, there were only 433 total votes cast in these 7 counties. Not exactly a plethora of people voting either way on this. 71% (309) voted for, and 29% (125) voted against. I don't know if the State WCC really wants to push a measure that had so few votes.

So, while I still think it is a good idea for us here in MN, I can see where there would be problems enforcing the regulation when there are parents who would abuse the system.

[tharreld]

I still think it is a good idea for us here in MN

In what way? Do you think it would get more kids fishing? I can't imagine where a Dad would take a kid to a location where he wasn't able to fish. They could drive another mile and they could both fish.

[Scudly]

To me would make even more sense to remove the "artificial bait or flies only rule" completely on streams with healthy populations of wild trout. To me "healthy" could be defined as 2500/mile or greater.

Any of these have a low population of trout?

1.      Canfield Creek

2.      Garvin Brook

3.      Gribben Creek

4.      Hay Creek

5.      Logan Creek

6.      Trout Run Creek

7.      Whitewater River, North Branch

8.      Camp Creek

9.      Kedron Creek

10.  Root River, South Fork

11.  Whitewater River, Middle Branch

12.  Trout Valley Creek

[Driftless]

A healthy stream should be open to ALL means of fishing.

[blackdog1101]

In what way? Do you think it would get more kids fishing? I can't imagine where a Dad would take a kid to a location where he wasn't able to fish. They could drive another mile and they could both fish.

I'm thinking more in terms of kids who live on or near a stream that would fish after school or on weekends. When I was a kid we rode our bikes to a spring pond and fished, so I was imagining something similar. You're right, if a parent had to drive the kid somewhere, they could just as easily drive to another stream.

[blackdog1101]

To me would make even more sense to remove the "artificial bait or flies only rule" completely on streams with healthy populations of wild trout. To me "healthy" could be defined as 2500/mile or greater.

What is preventing anyone from fishing these streams under the current regulations? Most are open to harvest too.

[Dave Anderson]

Any of these have a low population of trout?

1. Canfield Creek

2. Garvin Brook

3. Gribben Creek

4. Hay Creek

5. Logan Creek

6. Trout Run Creek

7. Whitewater River, North Branch

8. Camp Creek

9. Kedron Creek

10. Root River, South Fork

11. Whitewater River, Middle Branch

12. Trout Valley Creek

It's not that they have low populations of trout (although a few on here are not exactly loaded with trout, and several others are what I would call "fragile"), but it's the point that the streams you have listed are special regs. streams. There are several ways you can look at regs. based streams: protection of the resource, the potential to grow large fish, the potential to grow more fish, or the potential to offer a regulation where people can go to stream X and know that it's a no-kill stream or a slot stream and that the potential to catch lots of nice fish is there.

Having a six year old, I don't buy any argument that regs are the reasons why kids (or persons under 20) aren't trout fishing. If you know persons 20 and younger, they are into a lot more than just trout fishing. Being a high school teacher and former coach, I see every day all of the things that encompass the lives of these kids. Modifying trout regs to allow more variety in methods won't increase the number of 20 year olds and younger who trout fish. Like most things, it starts at home.

Just sayin'

D.A.

[tharreld]

Blackdog, I see your point.

[Scudly]

Give kids more opportunities to trout fish and they will and they will do it with worms.

Quote:

Those anglers less than 16 years old used bait angling techniques more than any other method (67.9%)(Table 13 and Figure 4). Bait angling dominated the gear type used through age 39 though less so as age increased.

Here is Table 13 on page 54:

Source: A Roving Creel Survey of Selected Southeast Minnesota Trout Streams - 2005 pages 23, 54

Vaughn A. Snook

Minnesota Department of Natural Resources

Division of Fish and Wildlife – Fisheries Management

Lanesboro Area Fisheries Office

23785 Grosbeak Rd.

Lanesboro, MN 55990

I tell ya what, I think the HI project areas are a perfect place to introduce a kid to trout fishing. Allowing kids to worm fish on all streams in essence gives them more opportunities. Not only that, hopefully if kids worm fish enough they will appreciate the resource and the odds of gaining an interest in fly fishing will be higher.