this was in Sundays Saint Cloud Times.
Outdoors: Hatcheries on hook with bill
Aquaculture is a big business in Minnesota with more than 40 licensed fish hatchery operations across the state. They account for all of the golden shiner minnows and sucker minnows Minnesota's 1.4 million anglers fish with each year.
In addition, many of these facilities hatch and raise a certain percentage of walleyes that are distributed to, and eventually stocked by, various lake associations and the DNR annually.
Imagine losing those walleyes for stocking purposes. Or, no longer having the option of fishing for walleyes and northern pike with the aforementioned minnows.
Under a bill authored by Rep. Bev Scalze, DFL-Little Canada, many operators of private hatcheries believe those possibilities exist. Much of their concern has to do with the wording of the bill, which has the potential to put these private operations out of business.
The bill, HF 1188, calls for tighter licensing requirements of the state's aquaculture industry. While fish farm operators agree with some of the requirements and have adhered to them for years, Section C of the current bill is where many fear their businesses would be devastated.
Section C states that a person or entity requesting a license renewal for an aquatic farm in waters of the state must submit for each body of water a management plan that is designed to ensure that the ecological value for that water for supporting waterfowl and other native aquatic wildlife will be restored to its original condition.
The bill is part of a decade long debate aimed at improving duck numbers and duck habitat throughout the state. Supporters of the bill believe that raising minnows, particularly fathead minnows and suckers, and rearing walleyes in these natural ponds has affected their ecological balance, ultimately resulting in fewer ducks throughout Minnesota.
But the final few words of Section C, "restoring to its original condition" would be nearly impossible, according to Mike Lint of West Central Bait and Fisheries in New London.
Lint, whose grandfather started the business in 1952, has about 4,000 acres of licensed waters. His ponds range from 10- to 150- acres in size and many of them are the same ponds his grandfather raised suckers, shiners, and walleyes in 55 years ago.
"It would be nearly impossible to return those waters to their original start," Lint said. "How do you determine what that was 50 years ago and how could anyone no longer license us as a result."
Rep. Scalze says the wording of the bill is indeed intended to return those natural ponds to the state they were in before they were used for fish farming. She said other options exist, such as digging their own ponds and not utilizing natural impoundments.
She will be introducing an author amendment to the bill that would insert natural ponds into the wording. It would exempt those private operators that dig their own ponds.
"We'd like to see more ducks in the state using natural bodies of water to their benefit," Scalze said. "There are other states with similar or tighter control limits on fish farm operations."
Lint believes that in the southern part of the country developing a man-made pond system is an option. With longer growing seasons, soil that's conducive to it, and the ability to get water into them and then being able to drain them, it will work.
But in Minnesota, those options don't exist. Furthermore, the financial burden of such an undertaking would be so great that most current operators couldn't afford to do it.
"You can't raise walleyes and suckers in man-made ponds in this part of the country," Lint said. "It just isn't an option and that's why 99.9 percent of the ponds we use are natural."
As for the fathead minnow argument, it's important to point out that most aquatic operations don't have licensed water to raise them. The current bill will not affect fathead trapping because the fathead minnow is not hatched and raised within these ponds currently being scrutinized as privately operated.
"We don't raise fatheads — they're naturally raised like mosquitoes," Lint added. "To say minnows are the total reason for a duck decline is ludicrous."
Like Lint, Denny Fletcher of Sauk Centre believes his livelihood is at stake if the bill would pass as it's currently written. Fletcher is a wholesale and retail minnow dealer and an avid duck hunter.
He knows and fully agrees that the issue of fewer ducks and declining duck habitat has to be addressed. But he stands strong in his belief that it has nothing to do with the ponds and fish raised in them throughout the private sector.
There are other issues such as development, tiling, climatic changes, accelerated sedimentation and nutrient inputs, and the introduction of non-native/invasive species to consider when looking at the current degradation of wetlands and historic wetland loss, according to Fletcher.
"This has nothing to do with us because we didn't create the situation," Fletcher said. "It would be extremely difficult to point the finger at us, or for that matter, one particular cause."
The issue also has been difficult for DNR officials to address. For more than 10 years the agency has worked internally through various committees researching the problem trying to find a viable solution for all parties involved.
Consider that the DNR also relies on wetlands for rearing fish used for stocking purposes and that a quarter of the fish needed for stocking by the state comes from these private aquaculture operations each year.
So the possibility exists, if the bill passes and these ponds would have to be restored to their original state, DNR ponds would also be regulated. Since the private sector operators say restoring them to their original state is near impossible, their contributions to the state walleye stocking and other game fish stocking programs would be eliminated.
That's fewer fish going into a stocking program that has been a model for other states to follow, in addition to the fact that shiner minnows and sucker minnows will no longer exist anywhere in the state.
Ed Boggess, DNR Fish and Wildlife Division deputy director says the department is supportive "with the intent of the bill" but believes there are concerns with it as well. He knows it isn't going to be easy coming up with clear licensing criteria for the aquaculture industry.
"Defining 'original condition' is difficult, it would be tough to determine on our ponds as well," Boggess said. "The bill is a good starting point for discussion, and we don't anticipate an end to the aquaculture industry in Minnesota."
Boggess says there has to be some common ground with the bill and that it's not a quick fix. In his estimation the bill has to maintain the stocking of walleyes and other game fish, protect existing natural aquaculture habitat and wildlife, continue an adequate baitfish supply, and provide a sustainable aquaculture business in the state.
Lint, who possess his own walleye brood stock from which eggs are collected annually, hatched and then placed in about 20 ponds until distributed (15,000 to 20,000 pounds to lake associations and 50,000 pounds to the DNR annually) also believes there has to be a balance reached. Furthermore, he thinks it's a possibility.
"If the bill, as its written passes, we'd be out of business," Lint said. "There's a strong argument on the duck side, but only one-half of one percent of all wetlands are licensed to the private sector so there are definitely other issues worth looking at."
Fletcher said it's important to note that it's illegal to transport or haul aquatic life, i.e. minnows, into the state. So if the bill passes as it's written, there's no question the 1.4 million anglers in Minnesota would no longer have sucker minnows or golden shiner minnows available for use.
He stresses the fact that it would be impossible to go back and undue what's already been done in these ponds. He believes, without hesitation, the aquaculture business will cease to exist in Minnesota if the current wording of HF 1188 remains and passes.
"That's a definite possibility the way the bill is written," Fletcher said. "If anglers in Minnesota want to continue using minnows the bill has to be defeated — end of story."
"Imagine fishing for walleyes on opening day without shiner minnows or not having sucker minnows during the winter months — because that will happen," he added.
Currently, the bill has not gone through any committees and no hearing date has been established, according to Scalze. It has been referred to the Game, Fish, and Forestry Committee for review.
"I know I'm taking on a can of worms and they're may be some middle ground," Scalze said. "But we need a reality check."
It looks like the initial bill needs some work... but i agree with the comment made in the story,
but only one-half of one percent of all wetlands are licensed to the private sector so there are definitely other issues worth looking at.
if this is true... they for sure have other problems.
I am torn here because I love duck hunting and I love to fish too. so I want the best for both. this bill looks like a feeble attempt to help out the ducks... i don't think it will, but as it is written, it will most definitely impact the bait market in the state.
$15 dollars a dozen for my minnows please...
Check Out Our Forum Tab!
Topic: Ducks Or Fish? (Read 1673 times)
