NativeBrookie wrote on Feb 22nd, 2018 at 2:43pm:Jizzy, I recall “they” as being the DNR. Biologists I would assume, don’t remember exactly but it was most certainly said. In fact, the original plan was all of October but they compomised with landowning bowhunters, residing largely in the Driftless.
I, for one, am tired of the Driftless region getting special treatment and tired of the northern native brookie country being largely ignored in the grand trout plan. I know the vote is non binding of course, but let’s turn out in numbers and not give them anything new to consider.
Honestly, I think it’s high time we push to cut the state in half trout-wise, because clearly what’s in many of our and our fish and waters best interests is not regarded very highly.
I tend to agree. I'm glad that so many great things were done for the driftless, but it's worth remembering that a lot of that is a fishery of non-native species. It seems to be in good shape. I wish more energy would be spent on the north. I remember hearing about coaster brook trout when I was in my twenties, and thinking "maybe they'll be back when I'm in my thirties." I'm 57 now. Still no coasters. A lot of hard work was done on Whittlesey Creek, but not much else was done. On the bois Brule, brookies are still treated like the poor cousin. Years ago, fairly soon after the upper river regulations were set, I met a member of the Brule River Sportsmen's Club who told me that the (then) new regs on that river were designed to allow all browns and rainbows, and a majority of the brookies to spawn at least once. I understand that some people assume the Brule was never as great of a coaster river as some of the small streams around Washburn, because the lake is less rocky there. On the other hand, most people admit that the Brule had coasters, and the upper river has lots of spawning habitat. When the Feds turned down the request to list the coasters of the S/T river in Michigan as endangered, it was because there isn't enough evidence that they are genetically different from resident trout. There is a theory, with some science behind it (salters in E. Canada) that brookies leave the stream when a "critical mass" is created - i.e. when there are enough trout that they become crowded. There is also evidence that they usually don't leave until they are about 12" long. It makes me really upset that people can (and do) eat 8" and 10" brookies from lake superior tribs. I've heard people say that, before the regs can be restricted, it needs to be proven that will help. The irony is that, restricting the regs is the way to prove it. Michigan is finally trying it. Minnesota has been working at it. Ontario has done a lot. Wisconsin has done nearly nothing.
Also, why don't we have some regulations on inland northern streams that might help grow big brookies? Slot limits might work.
It's very frustrating.
p.s. This is not meant to be a bash on the DNR staff. They work very hard, under what are now almost impossible circumstances.
Home
Pages: 1 
2018 Conservation Congress spring hearings (Read 45126 times)
