Recent

Check Out Our Forum Tab!

Click On The "Forum" Tab Under The Logo For More Content!
If you are using your phone, click on the menu, then select forum. Make sure you refresh the page!

The views of the poster, may not be the views of the website of "Minnesota Outdoorsman" therefore we are not liable for what our members post, they are solely responsible for what they post. They agreed to a user agreement when signing up to MNO.

Author Topic: Slip-up by the Minnesota DNR  (Read 5795 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline sandmannd

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Chasin' Tail Fishin
Slip-up by the Minnesota DNR allowed fish virus into state
The Minnesota DNR allowed 2,000 trout to be imported from Wisconsin to stock a rural Cloquet man's private pond. But the source hatchery had a contagious fish virus not found in Minnesota. The DNR had made a potentially devastating error.
By Chris Niskanen
cniskanen@pioneerpress.com
Posted: 02/08/2009 12:01:00 AM CST



RelatedFish virus
THE DNR AND A FISH VIRUS: A TIMELINEThe state agency charged with protecting Minnesota's multibillion-dollar fishing industry from diseases allowed a virus potentially dangerous to fish into the state last year.

Last May, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources mistakenly approved a shipment of 2,000 rainbow trout from Wisconsin to a rural Cloquet man, who legally purchased them and put them into his private pond.

The pond owner, Curt Teberg, paid $3,600 for the trout and never expected they would cause him months of headache.

A mutual fund manager, Teberg said he stocked the fish into his elaborately designed fishing pond, which he uses to entertain stockholders and hold charitable fishing events.

But soon after the stocking, DNR officials told Teberg his trout came from a Wisconsin fish hatchery that had tested positive for a contagious fish virus called infectious pancreatic necrosis (IPN), which had never been found in Minnesota.

The virus isn't dangerous to humans, but it can be fatal to trout and salmon.

Realizing their mistake, DNR officials told Teberg they would net and kill every trout in his pond. The agency spent $11,000 in taxpayer money to "depopulate" the pond, test the fish and bury many of them in Teberg's pasture.

Tests showed at least one trout carried the IPN virus, though none showed signs of illness. DNR officials said they hope they prevented the virus from escaping into the wild.

The DNR has promised to replace Teberg's trout this spring with state-owned hatchery trout, including trophy specimens.
"It was surreal," Teberg said. "How could this happen when the government has such tight rules and regulations?"

The answer: Top fisheries managers failed to heed warnings from the DNR's own fish-disease expert and misunderstood state laws written to keep fish diseases out of Minnesota, according to records reviewed by the Pioneer Press.

PROTECTING STATE'S WATERS

Fish can get viral, bacterial and parasitic diseases, and the DNR takes the threat of those diseases seriously. To keep wild and hatchery fish from getting sick, Minnesota has some of the nation's strictest regulations for importing bait and commercial fish, said Roy Johannes, the DNR's aquaculture specialist.

Some of the laws go back to the 1960s, but some were updated in 1992 and 2008.

"From our standpoint, we have to protect a tremendous fishery," Johannes said. "We probably have among the top 10 walleye lakes in the nation. We have tremendous trout fishing in the southeast and on the North Shore."

Fish viruses can be difficult to prevent because they can spread through water and fish feces and through fish-feeding animals, Johannes said.

In recent years, a virus called viral hemorrhagic septicemia has caused major fish kills across the Great Lakes. It has been found in Wisconsin and caused serious concern in Minnesota and other Great Lakes states.

Since 2007, the DNR has spent $231,000 on a testing and prevention program to keep VHS out of state waters, and new VHS laws are clamping down on fish importation.

At risk, said Johannes, is a $2.6 billion Minnesota fishing industry enjoyed by about 1.4 million resident and nonresident anglers.

AN EXTRAORDINARY TROUT POND

Curt Teberg is one of those Minnesotans who enjoy fishing — so much so that he has spent the past seven years building a backyard trout pond. Until last spring, he had never heard of the IPN fish virus.

His fishing pond is an angler's paradise. It is fed by a man-made creek and has adjoining waterfalls and a fountain. A well and aerator keep water fresh. The shoreline is extensively landscaped.

Teberg couldn't put a price on the pond's construction, but when asked if it was near $100,000, he said, "We're getting close to it."

Teberg is best known as the manager of the $27 million Teberg Fund, a mutual fund based in Duluth.

He said his trout pond has become part of his business life. He said he allows shareholders and their families to fish in the pond, and he has an ongoing charity fishing tournament with tagged trout.

"It's a fun event, and next year the pot will be $10,000," said Teberg, 60. "Any one of my shareholders who catches one of the tagged fish has to write a check for that amount to their favorite charity.

"It's my entertainment," he said of the pond. "This is who I am. I hunt, fish and manage my fund. And I like to share things."

A PERMIT REQUEST ... AND A SLIP-UP

Teberg's trouble began in late May, when he decided to buy 2,000 rainbow trout from Silver Moon Springs Fish Hatchery in Elton, Wis., for his pond.

Minnesota law requires that the DNR issue a transportation permit for fish moved across state lines; the permit allows the agency's fish-disease experts to ensure fish have been tested and are disease-free before entering the state.

A 1992 state law also requires that trout and salmon come from hatcheries that are disease-free for at least three years. The law also doesn't allow fish to be imported from hatcheries with IPN or other "emergency" diseases that have never been found in Minnesota and pose the greatest risks, Johannes said.

When it came time for Silver Moon Springs to ship its fish to Teberg, the hatchery manager submitted a transportation permit to Tim Goeman, the DNR's regional fisheries manager in Grand Rapids.

On May 27, Goeman forwarded the permit to the agency's disease specialist, Ling Shen, in St. Paul. Shen works in the DNR's three-person pathology lab, which approves transportation permits and investigates fish diseases.

The pathology lab is the DNR's primary defense in keeping fish diseases out of the state, Johannes said.

Shen said she looked at the Teberg paperwork and accompanying health certificate for the 2,000 trout. She noticed the hatchery had tested positive for IPN earlier in the year, and she telephoned a Wisconsin veterinarian to confirm the test.

"When I had confirmation the hatchery had IPN, I denied the permit," she said.

DNR e-mails from May 27 to June 6 reviewed by the Pioneer Press show a string of misunderstandings and failures to heed Shen's warnings. Those failures would lead DNR officials to allow the fish into the state.

After Shen turned down the permit May 27, Goeman e-mailed her again, saying the hatchery manager was "arguing that only the fish going out of state needed the disease certification," not all the fish in the hatchery.

In her reply, Shen warned Goeman again that state law requires inspection and a clean bill of health for all the fish in the hatchery.

The same day, Goeman telephoned his supervisor in St. Paul, Linda EricksonEastwood, to ask her opinion.

Erickson-Eastwood is the DNR fisheries program manager. In a recent interview, she recalled that she misunderstood the disease in question and advised Goeman that she thought the shipment could occur.

"We had a misunderstanding about what disease we were talking about," she said.

The next day, May 28, Goeman approved the permit, and Silver Moon Springs transported the fish to Teberg's pond and stocked it.

E-mails show that, more than a week later, Erickson-Eastwood acknowledged the mistake with staff, and she and others decided to contact Teberg and make plans to quarantine his pond and fish.

The DNR's biggest fear?

That the virus could escape from the pond into adjoining waters that connect to Lake Superior, endangering the lake's trout and salmon population.

In June, the DNR drew up plans to kill all the trout and possibly drain the pond.

"I was totally blindsided," Teberg said.

KILL THE FISH, DRAIN THE POND

Tim Winkel, manager of Silver Moon Springs Hatchery, said his hatchery has never lost any of its trout to IPN.

"We have the disease in our brook trout, but it has never killed any of our fish," he said.

In fact, Wisconsin authorities said, it is legal for Winkel to sell his fish within Wisconsin borders, because fish-health authorities there don't list IPN as a serious disease.

"It has been found in private and state hatcheries," said Myron Kebus, Wisconsin's fish-health veterinarian. "In the last 10 years, we haven't had any significant fish kills in the wild or in hatcheries (from IPN)."

But Minnesota DNR officials viewed the introduction of IPN into the state much differently.

"It's a very bad one and on our list of emergency diseases," Johannes said.

But when DNR officials informed Teberg the fish would be killed and the pond would be drained, "I was ready to go to court," he said.

The DNR agreed to wait to kill the fish. While Teberg's pond has a connection to Lake Superior through nearby Grand Lake and the St. Louis River, the pond wasn't flowing last summer, giving both parties time to agree on an action plan.

After negotiations during the summer, the DNR and Teberg agreed in August that the pond wouldn't be drained, but the fish would be killed and buried in his horse pasture.

The parties also agreed that Teberg could keep and eat any fish still fresh enough to consume and that the DNR would replace all the fish it netted.

The DNR spent September netting the pond and shocking it with electricity, eventually capturing 374 trout.

While many more trout were stocked in the pond, DNR officials concluded the rest were either caught by anglers or died in the pond.

About half the fish were buried in a 10-foot-deep trench and coated with lime to speed decomposition and keep animals from the fish, said Dan Dexter, a DNR fisheries specialist who headed the project to eliminate the trout.

Teberg was allowed to keep and eat the rest, which Dexter filleted for him.

"Dexter was a real gentleman," Teberg said. "I liked him and his co-workers real well. I ended up grilling elk steaks for them one afternoon."

NEW FISH ... AND NEW RULES

At the DNR's request, the pond's aerator has been turned off for the winter, and the pond won't be stocked until spring. The DNR will test the pond for the disease for the next three years.

Shen said the odds were "very high" the DNR caught the virus before it escaped into the wild.

Although the incident caused him trouble and he missed ice fishing for trout this winter, Teberg said he has been satisfied with his treatment by DNR field staff, but not by DNR management.

This spring, the DNR will replace Teberg's 374 trout with trout from a state hatchery, which are valued at $500 to $1,000 total, according to John Huber, the DNR's Crystal Springs Hatchery supervisor in Lanesboro.

Giving Teberg the trout "will have no effect on our stocking goals," Huber said. "These are surplus fish from the trout program. The important thing is we clear this up with him."

Goeman, the fish manager who mistakenly approved the permit, said he regrets his decision.

"Obviously, the permit shouldn't have been issued," he said. "There was at the least confusion or misinterpretation and some miscommunication between myself and others at the DNR."

When the permit mistake was discovered, Erickson-Eastwood suggested in an e-mail to staffers that special disease training for managers and new protocols be instituted to avoid errors.

To date, those proposals have not been implemented, she said.

But Erickson-Eastwood said the DNR's response to its error showed a system of "checks and balances" worked to keep the virus from spreading.

"We should have never brought those fish into the state based on the information that there was IPN," she said. "I think we have it (the disease) under control. I think we've learned from the situation."
Friends are like buttcheeks..........crap might separate them, but they come together in the end.

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
 When are some of these people going to face charges and loss of job for this kind of screw up?

 Since when is our DNR in the business of stocking wealthy individuals private ponds for profit?

 Then using tax payer dollars to clean up this mess

There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline JohnWester

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 2294
  • Karma: +9/-8
  • Kabetogama, MN
oops...
don't worry, we can resupply this guys private pond with tax money from the new tax thanks to those who voted for the constitutional amendment.  :happy1:
If a gun kills people then I can blame a pen for my misspells?

IBOT# 286 big_fish_guy

Offline beeker

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1933
  • Karma: +0/-0
the state didn't buy them the first time.. the overindulgent a-hole who is afraid to share the shoreline with the common folks did, but the tax payers get to buy em the second time around. DNR= does nothing right?
If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that you can never have enough guns and ammo when the zombies come back to life... "WS"

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
grilling steaks and chumming it up as a Payed Mn DNR official. Filleting his fish for him...Something stinks to high Heaven here.
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline sandmannd

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Chasin' Tail Fishin
I don't blame the guy with the private pond at all. He went through it the right way. He built a pond and wanted it stocked. He checked with the DNR and bought the fish to begin with and DNR approved it. Now it's taking our tax dollars to fix it. Yea, it's only 11k and then some fish to put in there, but come on!! Just a shining example of what it costs us when our officials mess up and this is one we actually heard about. The money isn't all that much int he grand scheme of it, to me, it's the principle of it.
Friends are like buttcheeks..........crap might separate them, but they come together in the end.

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't blame the guy with the private pond at all. He went through it the right way. He built a pond and wanted it stocked. He checked with the DNR and bought the fish to begin with and DNR approved it. Now it's taking our tax dollars to fix it. Yea, it's only 11k and then some fish to put in there, but come on!! Just a shining example of what it costs us when our officials mess up and this is one we actually heard about. The money isn't all that much int he grand scheme of it, to me, it's the principle of it.

 :bonk: I'll just have to respectively disagree. 
« Last Edit: February 02/08/09, 08:23:57 PM by Bufflehead »
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
I don't blame the guy with the private pond at all. He went through it the right way. He built a pond and wanted it stocked. He checked with the DNR and bought the fish to begin with and DNR approved it. Now it's taking our tax dollars to fix it. Yea, it's only 11k and then some fish to put in there, but come on!! Just a shining example of what it costs us when our officials mess up and this is one we actually heard about. The money isn't all that much int he grand scheme of it, to me, it's the principle of it.

 :bonk: I'll just have to respectively disagree. 
I bet you wouldn't disagree if it was your BEEF that just tested positive to TB. Then the BAH and DNR say why don't we quarantine his herd and slaughter them all. Would you want to get reimbursed? I bet you wouldn't roll over and enjoy that. Sandmannd is right. He went through proper channels. Wasn't like he just hauled in a truck load of fish from out of state with out the proper permits. The DNR screwed up and should pay for it.
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
I don't blame the guy with the private pond at all. He went through it the right way. He built a pond and wanted it stocked. He checked with the DNR and bought the fish to begin with and DNR approved it. Now it's taking our tax dollars to fix it. Yea, it's only 11k and then some fish to put in there, but come on!! Just a shining example of what it costs us when our officials mess up and this is one we actually heard about. The money isn't all that much int he grand scheme of it, to me, it's the principle of it.

 :bonk: I'll just have to respectively disagree. 
I bet you wouldn't disagree if it was your BEEF that just tested positive to TB. Then the BAH and DNR say why don't we quarantine his herd and slaughter them all. Would you want to get reimbursed? I bet you wouldn't roll over and enjoy that. Sandmannd is right. He went through proper channels. Wasn't like he just hauled in a truck load of fish from out of state with out the proper permits. The DNR screwed up and should pay for it.

 Please try and stay on the topic at hand. My cattle have nothing to do with this topic.

 I'm just not a supporter of using game fish or game for that matter as currency or toys for the well to do. It isn't a direction I would like to see our sport taking. The real problem for me is, our DNR employee's BBQing and filleting fish for him, I don't see that in their job description. That and 11,000 dollars for this falls depopulating and the cost of new fish come spring. Our DNR is facing one of the biggest budget crunches ever in it's history. Even talk of selling state lands and WMA's. Then we have this ordeal going on...I think the DNR needs to look at who has made some of it's poor internal decisions and take action to weed out those with poor performance/decision issues. As of now, we the tax payer are picking up the tab for this mistake along with many other things, including the infamous "Conservation officer party"   
« Last Edit: February 02/09/09, 06:49:31 AM by Bufflehead »
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
    You are DEAD WRONG. Your cattle have everything to do with it. Along with every other persons livestock in the state. If this guy went through the proper channels to get these fish, which were farm raised fish (not wild game fish or game) from a private producer such as yourself (just a different kind of producer), he should not be responsible for the actions of the DNR. Nor should you, me, or anybody else as a producer of a farm raised animal. And please don't comeback with some crap about the fish once being a wild animal. At some point in time cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys, and sheep along with a whole bunch of other critters were domesticated by man. This is absolutely no different! Whether he has money coming out of his ass or not, it makes no difference. The DNR should not have given the permit. Fact is they did, and they need to take care of the situation and not at the owners expense.
    The budget crunch is not just on the DNR. It is on everyone. It is on every form of government. Just like any private sector business they need to adjust. I completely agree with your notion that the DNR needs to identify and weed out the people who are not performing.
 :offtopic: Now to address an off topic issue you brought up. The selling of state land and WMA's might be a good thing. The parcels I have seen discussed have poor access, zero access unless reached by boat, and/or land locked chunks that couldn't be reached legally unless you were dropped in by parachute. Sell them back to the private citizen and get them back on the tax role. They currently are doing the public as a whole absolutely no good anyway.
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337

Offline beeker

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1933
  • Karma: +0/-0
I can see the DNR made the mistake and in the sense of fairness need to fix what they broke. but the irritatent here for me is the making of ones own pond for no reason? there are miles and miles of shore line in this state and thats not good enough so the issue is complicated by digging ones own pond, which has been the cause of many invasive species being introduced into the wild.. just look at those flying carp that are coming up the river. these acts for ones own personal use have caused agencies to lose focus on why they were started in the first place. now the DNR has to set up departments to look at permits for crap like this. this guy isn't doing this as a way to make a living or feed his family like someone would do with cattle or deer (in your case) it's his own little play place that is connected to public water ways.
If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that you can never have enough guns and ammo when the zombies come back to life... "WS"

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
    You are DEAD WRONG. Your cattle have everything to do with it. Along with every other persons livestock in the state. If this guy went through the proper channels to get these fish, which were farm raised fish (not wild game fish or game) from a private producer such as yourself (just a different kind of producer), he should not be responsible for the actions of the DNR. Nor should you, me, or anybody else as a producer of a farm raised animal. And please don't comeback with some crap about the fish once being a wild animal. At some point in time cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys, and sheep along with a whole bunch of other critters were domesticated by man. This is absolutely no different! Whether he has money coming out of his ass or not, it makes no difference. The DNR should not have given the permit. Fact is they did, and they need to take care of the situation and not at the owners expense.
    The budget crunch is not just on the DNR. It is on everyone. It is on every form of government. Just like any private sector business they need to adjust. I completely agree with your notion that the DNR needs to identify and weed out the people who are not performing.
 :offtopic: Now to address an off topic issue you brought up. The selling of state land and WMA's might be a good thing. The parcels I have seen discussed have poor access, zero access unless reached by boat, and/or land locked chunks that couldn't be reached legally unless you were dropped in by parachute. Sell them back to the private citizen and get them back on the tax role. They currently are doing the public as a whole absolutely no good anyway.


 I have no yen to turn this into a wizzing match...have a great day
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
I can see the DNR made the mistake and in the sense of fairness need to fix what they broke. but the irritatent here for me is the making of ones own pond for no reason? there are miles and miles of shore line in this state and thats not good enough so the issue is complicated by digging ones own pond, which has been the cause of many invasive species being introduced into the wild.. just look at those flying carp that are coming up the river. these acts for ones own personal use have caused agencies to lose focus on why they were started in the first place. now the DNR has to set up departments to look at permits for crap like this. this guy isn't doing this as a way to make a living or feed his family like someone would do with cattle or deer (in your case) it's his own little play place that is connected to public water ways.
Beeker,
    I understand your point. But last time I checked this was still a free country. Although we are heading in a socialist direction faster than I care to believe! So if he has the resources to dig it, and jumped the proper hoops to do it, so be it. Now in order to dig a pond he would also have had to get permits from the DNR. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Now I didn't see where his was connected to a public water way, but if it is that too is another oversight by the DNR and permitting for the pond should have also been denied.
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
    You are DEAD WRONG. Your cattle have everything to do with it. Along with every other persons livestock in the state. If this guy went through the proper channels to get these fish, which were farm raised fish (not wild game fish or game) from a private producer such as yourself (just a different kind of producer), he should not be responsible for the actions of the DNR. Nor should you, me, or anybody else as a producer of a farm raised animal. And please don't comeback with some crap about the fish once being a wild animal. At some point in time cattle, hogs, chickens, turkeys, and sheep along with a whole bunch of other critters were domesticated by man. This is absolutely no different! Whether he has money coming out of his ass or not, it makes no difference. The DNR should not have given the permit. Fact is they did, and they need to take care of the situation and not at the owners expense.
    The budget crunch is not just on the DNR. It is on everyone. It is on every form of government. Just like any private sector business they need to adjust. I completely agree with your notion that the DNR needs to identify and weed out the people who are not performing.
 :offtopic: Now to address an off topic issue you brought up. The selling of state land and WMA's might be a good thing. The parcels I have seen discussed have poor access, zero access unless reached by boat, and/or land locked chunks that couldn't be reached legally unless you were dropped in by parachute. Sell them back to the private citizen and get them back on the tax role. They currently are doing the public as a whole absolutely no good anyway.


 I have no yen to turn this into a wizzing match...have a great day
You are no fun! ;)
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
Why is it wrong for someone to dig a pond if they so choose and get the proper permits?  Yes the state has many bodies of water, but if you have the means and the money to blow, what's wrong with doing it as long as all the steps are followed correctly?  Why shouldn't this guy have been given permits to build a pond if he chose to?  Yes, I agree that they shouldn't have given him a permit to ship the trout in from THAT fish farm, but I don't see a problem with him having a permit to transplant fish as long as protocol is followed.  As long as no viruses are found at the fish farm, I don't see a problem with recieving a permit to get fish from it. 

Auggie, you talk about too much gov't control, yet it seems you want to stop the ability for someone to build a personal pond and/or stock thier pond even when following the steps.  Kind of goes against less gov't control.
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
Why is it wrong for someone to dig a pond if they so choose and get the proper permits?  Yes the state has many bodies of water, but if you have the means and the money to blow, what's wrong with doing it as long as all the steps are followed correctly?  Why shouldn't this guy have been given permits to build a pond if he chose to?  Yes, I agree that they shouldn't have given him a permit to ship the trout in from THAT fish farm, but I don't see a problem with him having a permit to transplant fish as long as protocol is followed.  As long as no viruses are found at the fish farm, I don't see a problem with recieving a permit to get fish from it. 

Auggie, you talk about too much gov't control, yet it seems you want to stop the ability for someone to build a personal pond and/or stock thier pond even when following the steps.  Kind of goes against less gov't control.
Its not wrong. If you would read my post(s) and understand what I said you would realize I agree with every word you said! :bonk: What I said was if the pond in question was some how connected to a public water the permit should not have been issued in the first place.
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337

Offline beeker

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1933
  • Karma: +0/-0
here's the quote from the article about the connection to the pond.
While Teberg's pond has a connection to Lake Superior through nearby Grand Lake and the St. Louis River, the pond wasn't flowing last summer, giving both parties time to agree on an action plan.

just because you have the means doesn't make it right, I don't see the point in altering the natural terrain just to satisfy one persons inability to share the shore line. if he wants his own private spot buy some lake shore. you want to entertain your clients, fill up a wadding pool and toss in some fish sticks and give em little nets to catch em.
If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that you can never have enough guns and ammo when the zombies come back to life... "WS"

Offline stevejedlenski

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 614
  • Karma: +0/-0
well as a side note everyone that dosnt like this guy can just come up here to cloquet and follow his stream right to his pond and fish it. if it is connected to a public water you can leagally walk the stream and his "pond" is not private
my wife said it.... im OFFICIALLY ADDICTED to MNO!!

Offline JohnWester

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 2294
  • Karma: +9/-8
  • Kabetogama, MN
well as a side note everyone that dosnt like this guy can just come up here to cloquet and follow his stream right to his pond and fish it. if it is connected to a public water you can leagally walk the stream and his "pond" is not private
Ooooo... MNO get-together!!! :toast: :fishing2:
If a gun kills people then I can blame a pen for my misspells?

IBOT# 286 big_fish_guy

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
well as a side note everyone that dosnt like this guy can just come up here to cloquet and follow his stream right to his pond and fish it. if it is connected to a public water you can leagally walk the stream and his "pond" is not private
Ooooo... MNO get-together!!! :toast: :fishing2:

 :toast: :fishing2:..ya Steve & John..I have new waders and I'm less than a hour from his place...LOL
« Last Edit: February 02/09/09, 02:04:24 PM by Bufflehead »
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
well as a side note everyone that dosnt like this guy can just come up here to cloquet and follow his stream right to his pond and fish it. if it is connected to a public water you can leagally walk the stream and his "pond" is not private
Ooooo... MNO get-together!!! :toast: :fishing2:

 :toast: :fishing2:..ya Steve & John..I have new waders and I'm less than a hour from his place...LOL

count me in!
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!

Offline Bobby Bass

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 5203
  • Karma: +8/-28
here's the quote from the article about the connection to the pond.
While Teberg's pond has a connection to Lake Superior through nearby Grand Lake and the St. Louis River, the pond wasn't flowing last summer, giving both parties time to agree on an action plan.

just because you have the means doesn't make it right, I don't see the point in altering the natural terrain just to satisfy one persons inability to share the shore line. if he wants his own private spot buy some lake shore. you want to entertain your clients, fill up a wadding pool and toss in some fish sticks and give em little nets to catch em.
There are many ponds that property owners have spent their own money and a lot of time putting in. This one here has stocked trout in it but speaking from personal experience I had a friend put a pond in and after having to jump through several hurdles and planning it finally got done. A little wild live haven with ducks, geese, deer, raccoons, turtles and of course the fish that were bought and planted. With the demising marshland any little pot hole is valuable. I don't understand why the land owner is getting bashed over building a pond. As for the DNR I see no comments on the fact that they caught their mistake and are working to resolve it. Ya it's going to cost money but better to fix a mistake then suffer from it later.
Bobby Bass


Bud and now Barney working the trail again in front of me.

It is not how many years you live, it is how you lived your years!

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
Bobby-
I don't think that the landowner is getting bashed for putting in a pond.  I think that the dicussion and the problem is with the trout coming from a place where the fish were found to have a virus.  Yes, the DNR caught it and are fixing thier mistake and should ba applauded for it.
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!

Offline beeker

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1933
  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm coming from the stand point that the dnr shouldn't have to deal with this kind of stuff in the first place. he lives in the duluth area close to major trout waters. but that isn't good enough, he has to tear up and mess with the flow of things. these mistakes don't need to happen in the first place.. this is one way in which all those exotic species are getting into the water ways messing with the natural inhabitants. you got an isolated pond that won't flow into any public waters and want to toss in some native species, have a good time, you want a livestock pond go to it. but this could have tainted the entire area for the all the people who can't afford a private trout pond and for what?
If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that you can never have enough guns and ammo when the zombies come back to life... "WS"

Offline jd mn/nd

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 102
  • Karma: +0/-0
Well folks if he has  a fence or some other barrier to stop you from coming onto his property wether it be a gate or a fence or some other means you are not allowed to go over, under or around that barrier to access his pond. If you do it then becomes trespassing, same as if it was a farmer who fenced his land to keep live stock in or just to show where his property border is. You as a landowner do not need a reason to run a fence or what have to block off your property, you can do so just because and there is not one thing anyone can do about it. So yes travel as far down the stream as you like till you hit a legal obstical.

Offline GRIZ

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1793
  • Karma: +0/-0
Well folks if he has  a fence or some other barrier to stop you from coming onto his property wether it be a gate or a fence or some other means you are not allowed to go over, under or around that barrier to access his pond. If you do it then becomes trespassing, same as if it was a farmer who fenced his land to keep live stock in or just to show where his property border is. You as a landowner do not need a reason to run a fence or what have to block off your property, you can do so just because and there is not one thing anyone can do about it. So yes travel as far down the stream as you like till you hit a legal obstical.

I didn't even want to get into this as I just don't agree with many things the DNR does and therefore like to stay out of DNR discussions.
OK Fact #1 nobody is allowed to run a fence into or acrossed any waterway. Yes it is done all the time and I'm not going to complain about it. When I float my canoe down the river and run into a fence stretched across it I just go under. There are numerous state and federal regs pertaining to that, not to mention the PCA.

#2 If you want to block off your property, you do have that right. As long as you don't obstruct public access to public property in the process.

#3 I'm not possitive on how it is now it may have changed. It used to be to dig a pond you needed a DNR permit. If it involved any flowing water the corp of engineers also got involved. The flowing water could be either natural or manmade(pumped).

The corp really don't give a rip about the wildlife. They mostly concerned about the water levels. So if the DNR OK's it so will the corp unless flooding of unwanted property or proper drainage is shown.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
~Thomas Jefferson

Offline guythathunts

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 836
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • The brothers with my 2006 buck.
You are all crazy. I wish I had my own trout pond!........ and a pet gorilla!!!!!!!!!!
Find a bird Duke... find a bird... ROOSTER!!! BANG! Bring it here boy. GOOD BOY DUKE, GOOD BOY!!!

Offline sandmannd

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1218
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • Chasin' Tail Fishin
Why is it wrong for someone to dig a pond if they so choose and get the proper permits?  Yes the state has many bodies of water, but if you have the means and the money to blow, what's wrong with doing it as long as all the steps are followed correctly?  Why shouldn't this guy have been given permits to build a pond if he chose to?  Yes, I agree that they shouldn't have given him a permit to ship the trout in from THAT fish farm, but I don't see a problem with him having a permit to transplant fish as long as protocol is followed.  As long as no viruses are found at the fish farm, I don't see a problem with recieving a permit to get fish from it. 

Auggie, you talk about too much gov't control, yet it seems you want to stop the ability for someone to build a personal pond and/or stock thier pond even when following the steps.  Kind of goes against less gov't control.
Its not wrong. If you would read my post(s) and understand what I said you would realize I agree with every word you said! :bonk: What I said was if the pond in question was some how connected to a public water the permit should not have been issued in the first place.

 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Not sure how you got put on the side of being against this guy Auggie, you stood up for him on all your posts.

Look folks, the fact is this guy did everything he legally needed to do. If you have a problem with how he spends his money, that's on you. I have known several folks who have put ponds like this in and, as stated in another post, they are great for wildlife. They are awesome to look at as well. If I had the cash and the land, I would build one in a heartbeat and stock the hell out of it.
Friends are like buttcheeks..........crap might separate them, but they come together in the end.

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
Why is it wrong for someone to dig a pond if they so choose and get the proper permits?  Yes the state has many bodies of water, but if you have the means and the money to blow, what's wrong with doing it as long as all the steps are followed correctly?  Why shouldn't this guy have been given permits to build a pond if he chose to?  Yes, I agree that they shouldn't have given him a permit to ship the trout in from THAT fish farm, but I don't see a problem with him having a permit to transplant fish as long as protocol is followed.  As long as no viruses are found at the fish farm, I don't see a problem with recieving a permit to get fish from it. 

Auggie, you talk about too much gov't control, yet it seems you want to stop the ability for someone to build a personal pond and/or stock thier pond even when following the steps.  Kind of goes against less gov't control.
Its not wrong. If you would read my post(s) and understand what I said you would realize I agree with every word you said! :bonk: What I said was if the pond in question was some how connected to a public water the permit should not have been issued in the first place.

 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Not sure how you got put on the side of being against this guy Auggie, you stood up for him on all your posts.

Look folks, the fact is this guy did everything he legally needed to do. If you have a problem with how he spends his money, that's on you. I have known several folks who have put ponds like this in and, as stated in another post, they are great for wildlife. They are awesome to look at as well. If I had the cash and the land, I would build one in a heartbeat and stock the hell out of it.
:scratch: Not sure myself......
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337