|
Aug 14th, 2010 @ 12:00 PM Moose Lodge 330 N E 10th Ave Grand Rapids, MN 55744
-----------------------------------------------------------
October 9th, 2010 @12:00 PM Pine County Bank Hwy 10 N Rice, MN
56367
STATE BOARD MEETING SUMMARY FROM April 17, 2010 The MDAA State Board Of Directors Quarterly meeting was held on April 17, 2010 at the Lakes Café in Perham. The meeting was well attended with most of the chapters represented. Several items of importance were discussed at this meeting. Plans for a “Take A Legislator Spearing” event were discussed and will be revisited at subsequent meetings. We also started to plan for our display at the 2010 ice fishing Show in St. Paul which will be held in December. The MDAA is also now represented on Facebook and discussions for taking advantage of the trend toward social networking were discussed as a way to improve our visibility statewide by taking advantage of these free services that will help us reach out to other spearfishermen and women statewide. The DNR has announced a survey which is targeted at Northern Pike Anglers and slated to be taken this summer. A committee was established to scrutinize the survey for misleading or biased questions as well as other areas where we felt that the data could be misinterpreted. We do not know if the DNR will change the survey to reflect our concerns but we have filed a specific report with the fisheries chief and can only hope that the fine work by this committee will be carefully considered. Our goal is helping to make this survey as effective as possible. As we move toward a mindset that encourages “Look and release” as well as a newly emphasized respect for the resource, we hope that these concepts will be reflected in the results. Improving your MDAA Newspaper was also discussed. Emphasis is placed on the need for articles, photos, recipes and anything of interest to our members. Chapters should also submit their meeting, banquet and event schedules for a planned Events Calendar we are working on. We hope to have this up and running in the next issue or so. The paper continues to improve and these adjustments should help move that process along nicely. Important legislative issues were reviewed and discussed. With the current legislative session just about complete, we look to next year to continue the process of achieving our goals. Officers for the Executive, State Board were elected for the coming year with the current slate of officers being reelected unopposed. Submitted 5/5/2010 by Tim Spreck MDAA President
MDAA OPPOSITION TO NORTHERN PIKE SLOT LIMITS: WHY THEIR IMPLEMENTATION STANDS ON SHAKY GROUND Tim Spreck MDAA President In a recently published study commissioned by the DNR, David Fulton who works for the Minnesota Cooperative Fish And Wildlife Unit (a division of the U.S. Geological Study), came to the conclusion that most Walleye anglers prefer a reasonable number of fish for the table over filled bag limits. Furthermore, Walleye anglers prefer fish of an average size around 17”and do not generally pursue fishing on lakes that are known to have trophy Walleye. The result of this interesting survey is that the DNR is now being forced to reevaluate their entire program with regard to Walleye. We are not at all surprised by these findings. In fact spearfishermen and women have preferred good, mid range Pike over trophies for as long as I can remember. For us, on average, the hope of bringing a fish home for supper trumps the desire for a trophy every time. Why then does the DNR have such a tough time understanding this? Their current management policy is geared toward trophy Pike and more trophy Pike. In the pursuit of this goal, the numbers of lakes that the DNR has locked up with slot limits has increased faster than we can keep track of the changes. With their head buried firmly in the sand, the DNR continues to propose and implement protected slots with little regard for our input on this subject. The current policy which favors the production of trophy Northerns over managing for quality eaters is based on an intentionally misleading survey that was conducted several years ago. In this survey participants were asked if they would like to have the opportunity to catch a trophy Northern Pike. Of course the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. The result was that the DNR began to implement protected slot limits on an increasing number of lakes with the intention of fulfilling this perceived desire. Of course the wording of the survey was engineered to bring about a desired response and is incredibly disingenuous and unscientific in its nature. The survey should have asked if anglers would like to gamble on having a small chance of harvesting a trophy Pike if it meant having to give up the ability to take nice mid- size eaters. That would have certainly solicited a completely different response. Wording means everything and in the world of unbiased science, there is no place for studies that have a preconceived agenda. With the results of this survey firmly in hand, the DNR began to regulate. Slot limits were placed on an increasing number of lakes. As the number of regulated lakes approached 60, Fisheries officials stated that they were done and that no more slots would be imposed. Today there are close to 130 lakes with slots and they represent most large bodies of water and an incredible amount of lake acreage. As a result of this unbelievable escalation in regulation, the winter spearing resort business on slot lakes has suffered dramatically. Why would anyone travel for a weekend of spearing and have to watch good quality eater fish swim away? Now, more than ever, given the current economic problems our country is facing, we should work hard to support resorts rather than continue to regulate them into oblivion. Last winter I personally spent many, many hours on a lake that has a 24-36” protected slot and watched several good quality, mid range Northerns swim away . Conversations with old timers who have fished this lake for years produced an alarming consensus. This lake has been famous for good eater Pike and to the best of anyone’s recollection, never produced a trophy. Why then is it now being managed as if it has the potential to produce trophies? Talking to fish biologists also confirm our suspicions in this matter. Many lakes cannot produce trophies as a result of their size, structure, forage, biomass, fish genetics and etc. Biomass is simply the number of pounds of fish any given lake can hold. When a healthy lake biomass is threatened with increasing numbers of Pike in the slot, something has to give. Without harvest, they continue to eat and spawn. They cannot grow bigger and stunt. This erases any hope of growing them to trophy size. The other negative ramification is that as Pike populations continue to eat and spawn there is downward pressure on other species. Think of it in comparison to Deer population. Harvest is, and should be, an important part of the management process and without it, entire lake populations will suffer. Unfortunately the DNR continues to ignore science in the pursuit of trophies we do not want or need. The real problem with slots for spearfishermen is that they do not apply the same bias as they do for hook and line anglers. A hook and line angler has the luxury of hauling in a fish, measuring it and then deciding if it is of legal length. As spear fisherman, we have to be sure of the size of our target fish. Once we spear them, they cannot be returned to the water. As a result, we are forced to add on a sizable “fudge factor” to every fish that enters the hole. I estimate that in order to remain legal we have to give away about 2-4 inches on each side of the protected slot to make sure of compliance. A fast moving, aggressive Pike may require an even larger margin. In a lake with a 24-36” slot this all translates to an expanded slot of at least 20-40”. As a result of our desire to fish legally we find ourselves unable to harvest anything. Pike under 21” are generally unable to be filleted given their bone structure. Most can be pickled but let’s be honest, you can only eat so many pickled fish and this is only a small part of why we harvest fish. On the upper end of the slot, we also have concerns. This expanded upper end of 40” removes most lakes from contention since Northerns this large are seldom seen. The result is that these lakes are effectively closed to spearing. It is really just another example of discrimination against spear fishermen. Whether it was planned this way or just ended up this way is unknown and at this point irrelevant. Last year as I testified in the House committee in favor of the removal of slots for Pike, I made the statement that spearfishermen are typically blue collar anglers who prefer fish for the table. Although many of us enjoy traveling to new areas and spearing for sport on occasion, we are most often spearing locally and are primarily interested in harvesting fish to eat. We are not going to apologize for this motivation and we shouldn’t have to. With our ever increasing practice of “look and release” as well as our steadfast support for the current possession limit of three pike with one over 30”, we are doing our part for conservation. We certainly don’t need to be regulated away from our right to harvest a good, quality fish as a result of over regulation in response to incorrect and skewed data. In the past we have thrown up our hands in defeat as increased regulation was implemented with little regard for our desires. That time is over. We are no longer intimidated by those who intend to discriminate against us. We have the numbers, connections and resources to make our case convincingly and intend to pursue fair, honest, unbiased management where our input is not only considered but considered carefully.
The following is of special interest to our Members and is a exerpt taken from the DNR REPORT (pages 63 - 65) Long Range Plan for Muskellunge and Large Northern Pike Management Through 2020 Criteria for Lake Selection and Evaluating Special Regulations The following criteria were used for selecting lakes during the toolbox initiative in 2003, and are again recommended for any additional lakes where new length regulations are considered for northern pike. A) Assessment of recruitment; B) Assessment of growth; C) Connectivity to other waters; and D) Social considerations (described in muskellunge management on pages 42-45). Selection of regulations for northern pike relies primarily on correct assessment of recruitment (reproductive success). Because we do not have direct measures of recruitment, the extent of recruitment must be judged by combinations of gill net catch rates, assessments of available spawning habitat, evaluations of stocking practices, and (if available) population density estimates. Where we have density estimates, densities of 6 fish (14 inches and larger) or less per acre are indicative of low recruitment. Gill net catch rates associated with low recruitment are often less than 5 fish/net. Examples of lakes with moderate recruitment had gill net catch rates of 6-10 fish/net and high recruitment would likely be more than 10 fish/net. Evaluations of stocking and available spawning habitat will be judgments by field staff. Low recruitment typically results in good growth rates. Average back calculated lengths at age for low density/low recruitment populations have been at least the following: Average length (inches) Age Males Females 2 16.1 16.8 3 19.6 21.1 4 21.6 23.5 Growth information by sex should be provided and evaluations of regulations should include growth data collected by sex. Providing age distribution of gill net catches may also make it possible to calculate mortality rates for the population. Low recruitment/low density populations typically have average lengths in gill net catches of 21 inches or greater and good populations may be over 24 inches. Proportional stock densities (PSD = ratio of numbers of quality size to stock size fish; see Anderson and Gutreuter 1983) of greater than 40% are also indicative of low density populations. Moderate recruitment lakes had average lengths of 18-22 inches (usually less than 21 inches) and PSDs of 18-60% (usually less than 40%) in gill net catches. Lake basins that are broadly connected with other basins make enforcement and evaluation of regulations more difficult. A further consideration is that high rates of development along a lakeshore make it difficult to communicate collectively with lakeshore owners compared to lakes with predominantly state or federal ownership. Evaluation periods for new regulations should be a minimum of 10 years, and preferably 15 years since individual fish can live for 14 years or more. Evaluations will consist of some combination of spring trap netting, spring short term gill netting, and routine summer population assessment netting every five years. Uniformly made multimesh experimental gill nets for summer assessment netting have been used as the standard technique for monitoring fish populations in Minnesota since 1941 (Moyle et al. 1950). Trap netting in early spring during ice-out and spawning is an effective method for sampling large numbers of pike. Trap nets are set along shorelines and take advantage of the tendency of pike to move into the warmest water they can find as the ice is receding. Spring short term gill netting consists of setting nets for 3-4 hours during the morning or mid day while water temperatures are still cool (less than 60 o F). Summer assessment netting is most useful for tracking historicalchanges in relative abundance and lengths of fish in the pike population. Similar long term information does not exist for spring trapping and short term gill netting. All three methods are useful for examining the size structure of pike populations; however, maximum length of pike observed is usually larger from spring trap netting. Catch rates from summer assessment netting correlate very well with population density estimates whereas spring trapping and short term gill netting do not. Criteria for evaluating regulations consist of changes in relative abundance (catch rates) of northern pike and other fish species, and changes in average length and proportions of various sizes of pike (e.g. PSD). Observed changes are compared to similar parameters in reference lakes without length regulations.
Public Input and New Proposals Special regulations are implemented following the process for exempt permanent rules (Minn. Stat. Sec. 97C.005). Public input for making decisions is essential to gain understanding and support for a successful management program. Involving the public provides a means for incorporating the public’s values, interests, needs, and desires into decisions that affect their lives, and encourages the public to provide meaningful input into the decision process (IAPP 2006). It is the agency’s responsibility to provide the necessary information so that the public can participate in a meaningful way. The following steps and timeline describe the decision making and public input process for new special regulation waters. 1) Area Fisheries Manager contacts stakeholders to initiate discussions and get initial input on proposed changes. In some cases interested stakeholders initiate the request by contacting the area fisheries office. 2) Area Fisheries Manager submits a written proposal (described in Appendix F) for Regional and Statewide Review in January. 3) Proposals are reviewed and approved by the Division of Fish and Wildlife for broad public input by March. 4) Notice of proposed management change published in local and statewide newspapers between 60 and 90 days before a public meeting (during the open water angling season). Signs posted at public accesses for a minimum of 90 days. Date(s) of public meetings will be posted on the DNR website. Interested stakeholders should contact the area fisheries office for information on the proposed change. 5) Notice of proposed management change published in local and statewide newspapers within 30 and 7 days of public meeting. 65 of 82 6) A public meeting is held in county where largest portion of water is located and in St. Paul Central Office if the proposed water is 1,500 acres or larger. 7) Summary of public input and Area Managers recommendation submitted with final proposal by October/November. 8) Section of Fisheries Management submits recommendation to Division Management Team and Commissioners office for approval in November. 9) Decision to proceed incorporated into fisheries synopsis by December. _________________________________________________________________________
New Minnesota law allowing angling in a spear house... The new law was passed in the last legislative session as part of the Fish and Game Omnibus bill. It went in effect August 1, 2006.
Minnesota anglers can spear and angle in the fish house at the same time, while using one spear and only ONE angling line. The spear and angling line combined are two lines. If someone is using a two hole house and two people are spearing in different holes, then each person could have one spear and one line. When a fish is caught, it must either be immediately released, or placed outside the spearing house. This is to prevent using a live game fish as a decoy. I hope this clears up any questions you might have... Roger Goeschel
Here is the News Release from the Minnesota DNR on 12/12/2006... Important rule changes for Minnesota anglers who spear fish (2006-12-12)December 1, 2006, brought
some important rule changes for Minnesota anglers who spear fish. GOOD LUCK! & BE SAFE! |
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
