Question for everyone...

[Renneberg]

Jim's post about have a great lakes record and a inland trout record got me thinking.

Should Minnesota have a second trout stamp to fish Lake Superior and it's tribs???

The money from the second stamp could go to stocking trout and salmon in north shore streams below posted boundaries. The money from the stamp we now have could go to inland trout streams throughout the state.

The reason I ask is why should my money that I use to buy a trout stamp with go to raising Kamloop (Loopers) and King salmon that are going to be stocked in Lake Superior. Kamloop don't reproduce in any of the north shore streams and the King salmon populations are doing extremly poor because of the lack of food for it in Lake Superior. Both are only around because of stocking from the dnr and both cost alot of money to raise.

As many of you know I fish for trout and salmon all over the state so I'm not saying I would like to see this happen because I only fish for trout in S.E. minnesota. I would like to see this happen because I think both inland trout streams and great lake tribs. and Lake Superior would benefit from this.

What do you guys think???

[JP Z]

Good Point Renne. I could see something of that nature where either they would have 2 seperate stamps.

Or lets say the Stream stamp is $10

Maybe have the Great lakes stamp be $19 but if you have just that stamp you can fish in both........so you're "saving" $1 if you buy the Great Lakes stamp......or if you end up buying them seperately you would get a different Great Lakes stamp for $10 or something.

[Quickstrike]

i would not like to see this, it would force people up north to spend twice as much stamp money to do the same thing people down south are doing, fishing trout! we don't have the resources up here to provide a great stream trout fishery so the dnr takes advantage of what we do have and stocks the lake run fish into superior and streamers into our little designated lakes. i guess i am kind of pointing out the obvious, but i know many people that come up here only once or twice a year to fish trout and they would not be happy if they had to buy two stamps or a more expensive stamp. maybe a couple good points could change my mind.

[tie flyer]

Good question, Renneberg. This morning I read an article in Fly Rod and Reel Magazine about saltwater licenses in the Northeast states. Ted Williams, their conservation columnist, pointed out that licensing provides the government with clear data on the fishery’s stakeholders. Clearly defined groups can better manage our resources and voice their opinions, especially if the DNR knows who and where we are. Williams adds that in the Northeast the strongest opposition to licenses was from commercial harvesters, who take a disproportionate number of fish compared to their ranks.

I’m pretty frugal with my money. I spend hundreds of dollars every year on fishing and hunting licenses. Do I want to pay more? If it would add value to the resource I definitely would.

The DNR spends a lot of money each year conducting creel surveys in the North Shore tributaries. A Lake Superior license should ask these questions just like small game licenses ask about migratory waterfowl hunting. One time I had a creel surveyor (and former DNR Warden) tell me – not ask – that nobody fishes for brook trout. Our native trout is my favorite and I think the DNR should know whether we are interested in coaster brook trout or supplemental exotics like the chinook.

If the DNR sought this information and laid out a plan to act on the data then I would support a separate Great Lakes license.

[GullGuide]

Ted Williams? I thought he was frozen somewhere down in Arizona

Anyhow, I think this would open a hugely unwanted can-o-worms. What would be next? Special stamps to fish Muskies on Leech? One for fishing walleye on Mille Lacs? Perch on Winni? Crappies on Red?

I just think this would be a road we all do not want to travel.

[WxGuy]

I'm wondering if there would be any financial difference in the end...

It's an interesting prospect, being able to allocate funds from N. Shore anglers directly to where they fish. However, would that give more back to the N. Shore or less. Basically, is anyone benefitting more from having one stamp, and how much would that change if there were 2 separate stamps?

[Jim W]

If someone can correct me please do, but I believe a larger portion of the trout and salmon funds goes to North SHore management. Pretty close figures, but more does currently benefit those Northern guys!lol

[chunkytrout]

Ren, I agree and wouldn't have a problem paying seperately at all. As resources for the DNR get tighter, I believe specialized management/funding will become the mainstay and salvation of many trout and salmon species. I think your idea would benefit both fisheries.

Now on that thought, STF, Bruledrifter, and I were discussing the possibilty of a "Second Line" stamp for trolling inland lakers and streamers in managed put and take lakes. Leave the limits as is but allow a second line only in these bodies of water. I don't know what the fee would be. Maybe just a second stamp fee. Seems like a good idea. With a limit of 2 lakers, one guy should be able to troll two lines.

[Renneberg]

Jim, I think your right. The twin cities holds the largest number of trout stamps sold each year. Duluth is number 2 on the list. A good chunk of the trout stamp money goes to the french river hatchery. That's where the dnr get all of there Steelhead, Loopers, King salmon, Lake Trout and Coaster eggs/smolts that they use to stock north shore streams.

If I remember right wisconsin use to have three trout and salmon stamps. Inland, Lake Superior and Lake Michigan. I think they dropped the Lake Superior one because of the poor salmon returns and few fishermen got the stamp. Now they just have a Inland and a great lakes stamp.

I think the best thing about having two stamps is that the money from the Great lakes stamp would go straight in funding stocking programs and research into Lake Superior tribs and the lake itself. The inland stamp would mean more money going to stocking, habit improvement, easements, just to name a few right off the top of my head.

Will that effect trout population above the barriers on the North Shore? Most likly not. Brook Trout are rarely even stocked anymore in North Shore streams and the DNR says fewer and fewer angler even fish for them on the North Shore anymore and there number are at a all time high.

It would be nice if you could buy both stamps for a reduced price. Something like $15. Half could go to Inland streams and lakes, and half to lake superior and it tribs below the posted barrier.

Otherwise make it $10 for each stamp.

Keep the ideas and comments coming guys! We may have something here that could improve are cold water fisheries across the state!

[Surface Tension]

Jim, How many of the northern guys are buying trout stamps?

I have a feeling quite a bit more then you think and possibly monies from northern guys are funding trout management for SE trout streams, most of which will never fish SE trout streams. You have to look at the economic impact to the local economy along with tax dollars raised as well. I started out as a die hard Steelheader and wasn't for the Looper program on Superior but have changed my stance there. Loopers are a big success on Superior and they offer a large window of opportunity for the shore fisherman. Inland trout lakes are another great success here in Northern Mn and again these lakes attract a large group fisherman that buy trout stamps.

What I'm reading from this thread is that maybe SE stream fisherman feel they're not getting there share of trout stamp revenue. I think if you went to a Great lakes stamp that included tribs to their first boundary you'd see a large drop in money available to SE trout management, well thats if you believe all trout funding comes from trout stamps and all revenue generated from trout stamps goes to trout management? What it comes down to is we have more fishable trout water up north and more guys fishing up here which also means more guys buying trout stamps. It would only stand to reason more money is spent here. Something else, Western Lake Superior Steelhead Association does a heck of a lot of voluntary stream restoration. I'm not familiar with SE streams and if there are any groups that do any stream restoration. This could free up monies that could be spent elsewhere. Hey what trout guy wouldn't like spending the day making Brookie bunkers?

Its sort of like the gas tax. I don't have any say as to what highways get the funding but if I want to take a drive down south its there for me.

[WxGuy]

Here's a link to the financial impact of anglers fishing for trout and salmon in MN.

While the north has more fishable water, that number includes the big lake. SE MN has more fishable stream water. And it is a fact that the DNR has posted on their HSOforum, that SE MN has more naturally reproducing trout streams than the north.

One advantage that the north has, its naturally "wild" environments to fish, while the fish are mostly stocked. SE MN has a larger population of "wild" fish, but doesn't necessarily have the "wild" environment of the north.

Of course by wild, I mean naturally reproducing...there aren't any truly "wild" fish left...

As far as stream improvement, and the heavy duty work that gets done, there is a group that gets that done and some in SE MN with the combined efforts of the MNDNR. The latest project is on Trout Run, and is very extensive, and there has been a lot of stream miles that have been done by this group in the last few years. There is a lot of grant money that goes into SE MN stream habitat improvement. Here is a great link for the SE MN TROUT STREAM STRATEGIC PLAN that shows how involved the DNR is in SE MN trout stream management.

I honestly don't know that having different trout stamps would benefit anyone differently, and I can't say if I'm for it or against it, but I am fairly certain that SE MN trout waters are underestimated and underappreciated. Keep in mind when I say this, that I love to fish for trout anywhere, and I'm happy to pay to fish either north or south. If 2 stamps were required...I'd buy 'em both.

[Riverratpete]

I'm going to say bad idea for the plain fact that once they(the gov/politicians) have access to more money do you truly believe that they(the gov) will distribute the money the way it's originally proposed our will they begin to dip into it in other ways and eventually it will just become another money maker for them? With that being said, I do enjoy fishing the North Shore a couple times a year and also the SE streams when I get a chance. I think both systems are just fine the way things are going, if anything, I'd like to see the Salmon run the way they were in the late 80's, early 90's but I guess thats just a wish. It seems to me that the SE streams are much more political with all the regulations/barbless/baitless/C&R, I personally am not interested in more goverment regulation by paying for another seperate stamp which I feel would occur with another stamp.

[coldwaterfan]

Check out Wisconsin regs. They have an inland and a Great Lakes stamp. Obviously there is more "great lake" shoreline in WI to manage and stock than MN, but a great lakes stamp could still do some good for us. Maybe some money could be put into coaster rehabilitation Just a thought.

[Renneberg]

There's one thing I don't understand. You northern boys help me out with this.

If Duluth is ranked second in trout stamps sold in the state and fewer and fewer anglers around duluth (and the entire state for that matter) are fishing north shore streams above posted boundries then why woundn't you guys be for a program to stock and study and improve the big lake? I guess what I'm saying is where are you guys fishing if the dnr is reporting record low numbers of anglers fishing streams above posted boundries on the north shore? Your not coming down to S.E. minnesota are you???

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say that most of you guys are fishing for Loopers, Steelhead, Salmon, Lake Trout and many of the stream trout lakes in the Arrowhead.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong guys.

Only the Stream Trout lakes and a few inland lake trout lake wouldn't benefit from a second stamp. I think Loopers, Steelhead, Coasters, Lake Trout and Salmon could and would benefit from a second stamp and that in turn that would draw more anglers to the North Shore.

Maybe the second stamp should be for Stream Trout Lakes which would include Lake Superior and it's tribs to the first posted boundries. What does everyone think of that???

One thing I wanted to point out is when I posted the order of most stamps sold. That was stamps sold to resident anglers not non-resident. Again here the order from most to least.

1.Twin Cities area

2.Duluth area

3.Rochester area

4.Rest of the state

[Riverratpete]

I know this is slightly off subject but I have a couple questions when it comes to trout. 1. Why can't you fish for Stream Trout in a lake before regular walleye/northern opener but you can fish in the streams? 2. Why do they have the trout fishing closed to ice fishing in some of the North Central counties. Just curious

[Renneberg]

Good questions Riverratpete! I don't know what to say about the first one other then email the DNR and ask them. Maybe some else here can answer that.

Now your second question I can help you a little with. I've heard that the reason those lakes get closed is because of fishing pressure. The DNR close them in the winter because they feel this help the trout grow bigger.

Again maybe someone here can inform us all more about it. Please do if you can.

I to have thought why do they do that to just those lakes? If the DNR has to close them during the winter season because those lake are being fished out then maybe they should stock more trout in them or lower the limit on those lakes so we can fish them year around.

The second reason that popped in my head was maybe these lakes are questionable lakes to have trout in, and that is why they close them during the winter.

[Surface Tension]

One question, how many of those guys in the Twin Cities come up north to fish? Face it not everyone flocks to SE Mn to fish trout. I'm not complaining about about folks coming north to fish either, my point is where you bought your trout stamp has nothing to do with what part of the state you fish.

[Renneberg]

That's true, I head up there every year, but again the Twin Cities is home to the largest number of angler that fish S.E. minnesota.

S.E. Minnesota is alot closer and has better streams (population wise) then the north shore, so it's no wander why we City trout anglers look to S.E. Minnesota first.

[Surface Tension]

Steve, next time you come up you have to let me know.

I'll take you out on the lake and you can get some of what your paying for back.

[so haaad]

Good points, gentlement. I personally would have no problem with special stamps for certain areas. The way that I look at it, I already do...I mainly flyfish in Wisconsin. But if a special stamp would be required for the north shore, then I feel that the funds collected should go back into the north shore fisheries and not into a general statewide fund.

[Renneberg]

Frank, I'll take you up on that sometime! Not sure when though.

[witter1631]

In wisconsin we have sperate stamps an inland and a for the great lakes.. i have never bought one for th big ponds but i wanna get on them and fish for some big brownies and stealies i have always wanted to do that im sure i will this summer if i have time..I think its a good idea i wouldnt mind buyin a license for any license as long as it goes for helpin th fish out..