Trout Program - News Release

The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is making changes to the way it raises, stocks and manages trout under its statewide trout program. The changes will have minimal effect on anglers but will result in an immediate savings of about $70,000 in electrical and feed expenses, and up to $200,000 annually when changes are fully implemented.

Effective this year, the DNR will close a portion of its French River Hatchery near Duluth, shift trout production among various hatcheries, and reduce or eliminate stocking in 60 lakes and streams. This will take place in areas where results have not met expectations or where self-sustaining trout populations have been established.

The new approach follows an in-depth assessment by DNR staff and implements various aspects of the DNR’s Lake Superior and southeast Minnesota trout plans. Last year, the DNR stocked 2.2 million trout at a cost of $2.4 million. In recent years the DNR’s trout program has included 615 designated trout streams, 163 designated trout lakes, 112 inland lake trout lakes, 2 two-story trout-and-warm water fishing lakes, and the 1.4 million-acre Lake Superior.

“We are reducing operating costs where they are high, and stocking efforts where the return on investment is low,” said Dirk Peterson, acting DNR fisheries chief. “We are doing this in a way that will minimize any effects on the majority of anglers.”

Anglers will not be significantly affected because stocking reductions will be in only those waters where fishing pressure was low, trout survival and growth was poor, or the stocking has resulted in a self-sustaining fishery that is no longer dependent upon stocking, Peterson added.

The upcoming changes are the result of a lengthy internal review of the DNR’s trout program. Managers revised traditional stocking recommendations based on angler use, the number of fish caught by anglers, and whether stocking still made sense based on competing warm water fish populations or other factors. This field assessment included reviewing the Lake Superior and southeast Minnesota trout plans.

Similarly, DNR staff took a hard look at the French River Hatchery, which is the agency’s most expensive hatchery to operate and the most susceptible to biosecurity issues because of its connection to Lake Superior and the entire Great Lakes system, which contains a growing number of invasive exotic species and fish diseases. To address these concerns, the agency will shift part of the French River Hatchery production to the DNR hatchery near Remer.

Specifics of the new trout plan include:
The Spire Valley Hatchery near Remer will produce 80,000 yearling rainbow trout Kamloops to be stocked in the Lester, Talmadge and French rivers. Previously, these fish had been reared at the French River Hatchery.
The French River Hatchery will produce up to 12,000 fingerlings and 25,000 yearling rainbow trout Kamloops in addition to 550,000 steelhead fry and 55,000 frylings for stocking in Lake Superior.

All brook trout production will be shifted from Spire Valley in central Minnesota to the Crystal Springs hatchery in southeastern Minnesota. The Peterson Fish Hatchery in southeastern Minnesota will continue to produce lake trout fingerlings and yearlings and rainbow trout yearlings.
More information on streams and lakes where stocking will be increased, reduced or eliminated is available on DNR Web site.


Thanks for your feedback. Our goal with this particular post was to provide some factual data that we received from the Minnesota Dept. of Natural resources. This really was not intended to be editorialized information, merely stating some valuable facts for our readers. We do hope to have more personal approaches to our posts in the future as more of our volunteers' find some creative time off the water. We appreciate your constructive feedback and encourage you to keep it coming.
Anonymous said…
None of these plans are good for the Lake Superior fishery. Results will equal smaller returns of hatchery fish, degradation of wild gene pool through increased straying, and monetary loss in the Duluth/North Shore area D/T fewer fisherman/trips. You fail in your leadership role as you do not support good fisheries practice and advocate purely economic decision making. The State of Minnesota is Failing the Steelhead/ Looper/trout fisherman.
Our Comment to the Anonymous who states: You fail in your leadership role as you do not support good fisheries practice and advocate purely economic decision making. Clearly is not aware that this new releases is simply that, A news release from the MN DNR. We invite yo to contact the Director of MN Steelheader to find out why the website and blog was created. You might be surprised at your findings.
NMF said…
Interesting comments regarding the fishery, and I think they warrant discussion.

"Results will equal smaller returns of hatchery fish"

The reductions in stocked Looper numbers are not significant with regards to return to creel. I believe the total reduction is roughly 12,000 over the current quota of 92,500. This translates to roughly only 120-500 less adult returns to tributary based on current known return rates.

The return to fry/fryling stocking of steelhead has been shown to actually increase survival over stocking of smolts, even though the speed at which smolt achieve sexual maturity is quicker by nature of them being older. Stocked steelhead fry have demonstrated that they have far better survival rates overall than stocked smolts. This has become abundantly clear despite having only 14 years of trap data at our disposal.

"Results will equal...degradation of wild gene pool through increased straying"

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that point. Kamloops have never demonstrated great stream fidelity, even in their native habitat. The purpose of limiting stocking of Kamloops to the Lester, French, Talmadge and McQuade Harbor has always been with the goal of limiting straying. It is true that loopers are reported annually in streams as far north as Grand Portage, but the bulk of the numbers return to streams south of Two Harbors. The other intent of stocking only the areas listed above is that they have very limited spawning/rearing habitat which also limits spawning success/recruitment as well as limiting genetic introgression of looper genes into naturalized steelhead stocks. Increasing looper stocking actually increases the possibility that you will degrade wild steelhead genetics. Kamloops/Steelhead cross-bred eggs have a very low survival to swim-up stage rate, and fry also have a reduced survival rate due to reduced startle reflex etc.

As for steelhead: MN admittedly lost much of our naturalized steelhead genetic stock when populations crashed in the 1970's. Until then, our steelhead had roughly 100 years of adaptations behind them and were well on the way to exploiting (as best as possible but still in a limited way) the unique characteristics of our tributaries. After the crash, the remaining naturalized steelhead populations were heavily supplemented by other stocks far less well adapted to the unique nature of the North Shore. That alone wiped out the best genetic stock as the genes present were overwhelmed by the wave of "foreign" genetic stock. While some of that original genetic adaptation undoubtedly exists, we are only 12-15 years back into re-aquiring those original adaptations; but it's going to take time.

This is precisely why now Knife River origin adults, and only Knife River origin adults, are the fish used to produce fry for stocking. MN is hoping to recapture/reproduce those specific adaptations which once made our steelhead so successful.

All of this of course ignores the other issues that plague MN's migratory species: Impassable barriers, limited spawning/rearing habitat, lack of soluble minerals which help regulate tributary Ph, lethal temperatures in summer, freeze-out in winter etc. It's a wonder we have any natural reproduction at all, but to simply stock for the sake of numbers doesn't necessarily solve the problem, as smolt stocking in the 1990's abundantly demonstrated.

Please keep the comments coming! Healthy debate is a good thing.
Anonymous said…
Empirically speaking, with regard to the Kamloops stocking program releasing them at a smaller size will increase straying to other rivers states and lakes thereby diluting the steelhead gene pool. The two best scenarios in my mind are completely stopping the Looper program for the sake of the Steelhead- Unfortunately this will direct all pressure onto the steelhead- with many people actively fishing for them on their redds in the actual act of spawning.The other option is to keep loopers at the French river and raise them to as large a size possible for the best all around bang for your buck- these fish so hard wire to the french that while some do stray (hey it's a species survival adaptation) the vast majority if not all come back to the french. Empirically speaking,the looper fishing has always been better at the french than anywhere else-period The consequence here is that raising them at the french costs approx $70,000 more a year. Is this a huge $ amount for the state? The other danger here is that these fish compete with the steelhead for redd space and may stress the steelhead even more so in their efforts to spawn not to mention their pollution of the gene pool.
As far as the steelhead go it seems as though the DNR is toying with the idea that keeping one may be okay... This will be the death of the north shore steelhead if allowed. As far as the steelhead's future goes if we want to have any future at all the catch and release status should remain.
A sad reality here is that the angler will suffer even more in all of this. That we have any of these fish in the great lakes is a blessing and it is a failure of our states DNR at a leadership level to manage our fish with dollars in mind instead of their own science. You do not seem to call them on this and you do not appear to be providing much advocacy for the fish that you love.
NMF said…
Once again, interesting points, it's going to take a minute to address your comments so bear with me...

As was stated previously, this was simply a posted news release and not necessarily Minnesota Steelheader giving a pass to any of the ideas or plans by the MN DNR. There is a danger in simply editorializing every item that comes out of any agency at face value. As such, I'll step out of my affiliation with Minnesota Steelheader and state categorically that the following comments are mine and mine alone, and do not represent the views held by MN Steelheader as an entity.

That said, your assumption is that everyone here simply thinks the looper program is a good idea independant of the steelhead program; and that's not necessarily the case.

We have to remember what the original intent was - The looper program was implemented to provide a put-grow-take fishery which would supplement the steelhead fishery WHILE steelhead populations recovered. At such time as steelhead recovered to viable populations, the looper program is slated to cease. You are correct that, absent the looper program, additional angling pressure would be put on naturalized steelhead. But there are other events of concern that dwarf angling mortality, even when you are talking about anglers fishing/walking through redds (which I don't advocate). High flow/flood events during the first year of a steelheads life are responsible for some of the highest mortality rates out there (Mortality Rates in Juvenile Steelhead - 1975, Mortality Rates in YOY Brule River Steelhead - WI DNR 1994 etc., etc.). And it goes further than that. Speaking as someone who has worked fisheries enforcement in the past, the illegal take of steelhead would certainly skyrocket absent the looper program which has always been a big concern, no question and any of the NS CO's will tell you that. Creeling of steelhead at this stage of recovery would be cause for serious concern.

So if you can't kill the looper program without ultimately harming a steelhead recovery, what do you do?

1. You provide an anadromous creel fishery which mitigates the risk of genetic introgression by limiting the geographic area in which you stock fish.

The strategy of stocking yearling kamloops south of Two Harbors, despite low stream fidelity demonstrated by kamloops, has largely worked. 6 streams from roughly Two Harbors south to Duluth have accounted for between 84-94% of ALL clipped rainbow trout catch from 2005-2009 (MN DNR Spring Creel Surveys - 2005-2009). Of those streams, the Stewart also accounted for some of the highest steelhead catch rates on ANY part of the North Shore as well which appears to contradict some of your competition arguments.

While loopers and steelhead are almost genetically identical, there are certain differences that naturally help to mitigate the potential of genetic introgression. Loopers tend to spawn at slightly lower temperatures and in lower stream reaches than steelhead. Steelhead also are better able to bypass barriers in the area in question such as the Three Step falls on the Sucker or the Falls at Superior street on the Lester. Loopers rarely if ever bypass barriers, even in their native habitat, and don't have access to the spawning/rearing areas above.

Also, there is no plan to stock loopers at younger stages. However, your point that stocking loopers at smaller sizes would lead to increased straying is erroneous. There are hundreds of studies out there which show that imprinting and stream fidelity is INCREASED in stocked anadromous fish the sooner in life-stage (read younger) they are introduced to a given tributary.

NMF said…
I'm curious to know what purpose would be served by holding loopers at the French longer prior to stocking? You state that it would only cost an additional 70K, but to what end and where does that number come from?

I also challenge your premise that, "the vast majority if not all come back to the french. Empirically speaking,the looper fishing has always been better at the french than anywhere else-period."

I'd welcome your empirical data, and I hope you'll provide a reference because I'm a data junky; but the MN Spring Creel Surveys state otherwise:
2005 creel: The highest catch of legal-sized clipped rainbow trout was at the Sucker River with 1,826 followed by the Lester, Stewart, Knife and French rivers at 795, 703, 536, and 324 respectively (Table 7). These five streams accounted for about 84% of the total catch of legal-sized clipped rainbow trout shore wide.

2006 Creel: The highest catch of legal-sized clipped rainbow trout was at the Sucker River with 605, followed by the Split Rock, Lester, Stewart, French, and Knife rivers at 313, 255, 236, 183, and 150 fish respectively (Table 7). These six streams accounted for about 94% of the total catch of legalsized clipped rainbow trout shorewide....

In only one out of the past 10 years (2007) did the French have the highest catch of loopers, and only by 101 fish. Even there the catch rates at the other rivers were actually higher. Note also that 84-94% of shorewide looper catches again come from roughly Two Harbors south.

As for the possibility of a creel season. I haven't seen enough of the recent population data to have an opinion on that issue. I would say that it would be wise to look to programs such as WI for some guidance. The 1 over 26" rule is no accident. If you look at trap data going back to the 80's, the vast majority of sexually mature adults return at between 24-25". Fish 26" and over are repeat spawners and don't necessarily have an edge on spawning success over first-timers. Something to bear in mind. But I agree, C&R for now...

As for science vs. dollars, I think you have the telescope the wrong way round. Much of the proposed changes are purely economic in nature, but you can't deride the science aspect of it either. The danger of moving fish (trout or otherwise) inland from the French Hatchery which are infected with VHS, BKD, Whirling Diseas; or water contaminated with invasive aquatic macrophytes, zebra/quagga mussels, spiny water flea, goby, ruffe etc. via stocking is something which cannot be ignored either.

Anonymous said…
I will respond once more as it seems to be developing an argumentative tone and that's no good for a couple of people with more in common than not. I don't like to assume anything- and I really haven't; the name of your nice site is "steelheader" not looperer. While I enjoy catching steelhead in minnesota the vast majority of my bag is loopers. In the last 15 years I can only remember ONE day where I had trouble catching a looper for all the steelhead-a great fall day with 12 fish landed.
I think that you are so enamored of or mesmerized by the steelhead that you forget the nuts and bolts of our fishery-the looper a fish which we can catch and EAT.
As far as the numbers that you quote on catch rates I really have my doubts about the validity of these numbers not to mention the reliability of the creel survey tool. If anybody out there thinks that there are more fish returning to a river other than the French they are completely missing the bigger picture. How many times does the same steelhead get counted, how many people lie out of embarrassment for having caught nothing or to inflate their own ego, how many people are there who are allowed to fish that don't have any idea what an adipose fin is let alone where it is,how long does the creel survey last and when does it start and stop? I think you probably get my point. The last creel survey clerk really seemed to present an air which suggested that he was above this menial task-I don't know how reliable this guy was; maybe he was just tired from covering such a LARGE territory.
70,000 dollars is actually the amount of money being bandied about by the DNR as the amount of money that would be saved by raising fish at Dire Valley.
The purpose of raising fish to a larger size is OBVIOUSLY better survival. Look at your data stocking date is directly related to returns. Go out in the lake and check for bug hatches... if you have been out there you know that they take place in late june and july-stocking before this key event is likely to make it a lot harder for the fish to survive. Dire Valley fish are slated top be stocked in the month of May. Smaller size less food = Lake trout bait regardless of stream fidelity.
I advocate that the fish raised at the French river should be solely for stocking in Lake Superior and no where else. Actually stocking them from some other place (i.e. Dire Valley) risks bringing new disease TO Lake Superior which as you know has it's own share of exotics.
One final thought is: Why are the walleye, muskie, bass seasons starting when they do? It's to protect spawning fish. Why don't we do the same for steelhead or at least limit where we can fish for them when they are obviously spawning.
P.S. Empirical data is defined as data collected through experience. It can also be defined as "Quackery"
Ross Pearson said…
The main reason cited by the DNR for shifting the majority of Kamloops production to Spire Valley is to save about $70,000 on the production costs. As anglers we are most concerned with having good returns on production costs. Spire Valley Kamloops will have different planting requirements than French River Kamloops because with French River plants we have had inherent French River imprinting allowing stocking the majority of the fish at 9-10 inch sizes in July. Under this situation, there is assessment information available that has shown 3% or better returns to the trap not counting the angler catch. This falls dramatically as stocking dates have been moved earlier into June. Spire Valley fish will have to be stocked in May and at pre-smolt size around 5.5 inches to facilitate imprinting. This change can be expected to diminish returns to less than .5% as has been seen with previous chinook and steelhead stocking programs under the same conditions. July stocking at a bigger size works because of more abundant food for the fish at that time and because lake trout predation is reduced by those predators going deeper in July and by the bigger-sized fish stocked being better at evading predators. Even though Spire Valley would be cheaper, those fish have a much lesser chance for survival and without inherent French River imprinting the few survivors which are probably going to come from fish that were the biggest and already imprinted to Spire Vally are going to stray looking for Spire Valley somewhere in Lake Superior. This whole scenario benefits no one. The cost of an angler/caught Kamloops will skyrocket. No other hatchery can be as effective in delivering better Kamloops returns than the French River Hatchery. Anglers should contact both their legislators and the top level of the DNR managers to keep all Kamloops production for Lake Superior at the French River Hatchery.

Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates Representative for the Lake Superior and Rainbow Trout Advisory Groups.
Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates said…
This is an update on the Kamloops production shift to the Spire Valley Hatchery. In December members of MN DNR fisheries met with some of the representatives of the Rainbow Trout Advisory Group to talk about changes for Lake Superior rainbow trout management. For 2011 and 2012, Fisheries has decided to bring the Spire Valley pre-smolt kamloops back to the French River Hatchery for imprinting and grow-out to smolts in the French River Hatchery prior to July planting in Lake Superior. This will be similar to the program of the past and much better for returns than planting them as pre-smolt sized fish (for the steelhead population Fisheries has consistently found adult returns from smolts to be 30 to 40 times better than returns from pre-smolts). Fisheries is not saying what will happen for the French River Hatchery and the dependent kamloops and steelhead programs beyond the 2012 production. Staffing and programs have already seen dramatic cuts in recent years and without license fee increases, the agency will have to make further reductions soon. If anglers value these programs, they should contact MN state legislators encouraging them to raise license fees to insure that present operations can continue in the future. Ross Pearson-Kamloops Advocates.

Published January 16 2011
Is it time to raise Minnesota’s fishing and hunting license fees?
Minnesotans love their fishing and hunting. The state ranks first nationally with 32 percent of its residents participating in the sports, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
By: Sam Cook, Duluth News Tribune.

Minnesotans love their fishing and hunting.

The state ranks first nationally with 32 percent of its residents participating in the sports, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
But the state’s Game and Fish Fund, used to pay for fisheries and wildlife management, is dwindling, so Department of Natural Resources officials are laying the groundwork for the possibility of raising license fees. They’re also considering new kinds of licenses that might appeal to more hunters and anglers.
License revenue is the primary way Minnesota pays for its fish and wildlife management. Tax dollars from the state’s general fund pay for only a tiny fraction of those operations.
The DNR's Game and Fish Fund pays for lake surveys, hatcheries, fish stocking, stream improvement and fisheries management. Wildlife revenue pays for managing 1,400 wildlife management areas, managing hunting seasons, prairie plantings, prescribed burns, wetland maintenance and more.
In the past, fishing and hunting license fees have been raised about every six years in Minnesota. But today’s hunting and fishing license fees have been in place for a decade. The funds haven’t kept up with inflation. As a result, the state’s Game and Fish Fund is projected to have a negative balance by 2014, said Dave Schad, deputy director of the DNR. By statute, the fund cannot operate in the red.
The $17 fee Minnesota charges for a basic fishing license is 36th-lowest in the nation.
“If we don’t generate some additional license revenue, we’re going to have to make significant cuts to our programs and services, and that will eventually impact the quality of our hunting and fishing experiences,” said Jason Moeckel, DNR fisheries operations manager.
Ross Pearson said…
Published February 27, 2011, 12:00 AM
Stocked Kamloops will taste local water
By: Sam Cook, Duluth News Tribune
Each spring, shorecasters gather at Lake Superior tributaries near Duluth to catch brawny Kamloops rainbow trout. The fish can run to 7 or 8 pounds. They’re gorgeous specimens, deep and thick, with an iridescent wash of rose down their flanks.Virtually all of them grew up in the French River Hatchery, just up the hill from the mouth of the French River east of Duluth.Until now.This year, because of Department of Natural Resources budget issues, about two-thirds of the popular Kamloops rainbows will be reared at the DNR’s Spire Valley Hatchery near Remer.It simply grew too costly to raise the fish at French River, DNR officials say, where the frigid Lake Superior water must be warmed several degrees. Heating the water is a significant cost at the hatchery.This year, the DNR is raising about 70,000 Kamloops rainbow trout at Spire Valley and about 20,000 at French River. Idling other tanks at French River is projected to save the DNR about $200,000 per year.But, after listening to the concerns of Kamloops anglers, the DNR has agreed to bring all of the Spire Valley Kamloops rainbows back to the French River Hatchery in April or May to finish their growth. About 92,500 of them will be stocked near the French River, Lester River and the McQuade Small Craft Harbor in July.That will mean an extra move for the young fish, but it should allow them to imprint, or form a homing attachment to, the French River water that also flows through the hatchery. The extra transportation step also will reduce to some degree the savings the DNR had hoped to realize at the French River Hatchery this year, said Don Schreiner, DNR Lake Superior area fisheries supervisor.“We’re compromising cost savings to address not only angler concerns but imprinting concerns,” Schreiner said. If fish don’t imprint to a river, they could stray to any other tributary when it’s time for them to spawn four years later. Although few of them spawn successfully, their return to home streams as adults is what makes them available to shorecasters. Most anglers fish for them at the Lester River, the Sucker River and at the mouth of the French River. About 1,000 to 2,000 shorecasters and stream anglers target Kamloops rainbows and steelhead (wild, naturally reproducing rainbow trout) on the North Shore, according to the DNR.The DNR plans to return the Kamloops rainbows from Spire Valley to the French River Hatchery in April or May and finish rearing them there until stocking in July. That will allow them to grow longer, which increases survival rates, according to the DNR. The fish also will go through a process called “smolting” at the hatchery, which strengthens their imprinting to a specific stream.Ross Pearson, a representative of Kamloops Advocates, pushed the DNR to finish rearing Kamloops rainbows at the French River Hatchery and to stock them in July rather than earlier.“In order to have a smolt Kamloops, you have to use the French River Hatchery,” said Pearson, a dedicated and respected Kamloops rainbow angler. “They have to be imprinted at French River and grown as long as they can be … and planted in July.”The DNR listened to those concerns, Schreiner said.“There was give and take,” he said. “It appears we’ve come to a pretty good solution.”The Kamloops rainbow trout program has been extremely successful and very popular with anglers, although returns in the past four years have been well below the long-term average. Several anglers, including Pearson, say Kamloops fishing has improved this winter.“There have been some 20-fish days,” Pearson said.Kamloops rainbow eggs are taken from adult Kamloops rainbows that enter the French River to spawn each spring. The eggs are now shipped directly to the Spire Valley Hatchery rather than being raised at French River.
Ross Pearson said…
Published February 13 2011
Local view: License fee increase needed to keep French River Hatchery open
By: Ross Pearson, Duluth News Tribune
The French River Hatchery, which is responsible for stocking steelhead and Kamloops on the North Shore, already has seen cuts to its staff and operations and probably will see further cuts or closure if the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ fisheries folks don’t soon see revenue increases.
The hatchery is critical to an effective Kamloops program, because only at this hatchery can the fish be both imprinted and grown out to a sufficient size that creates an effective return rate for the program.
Last year Kamloops Advocates gathered about 500 signatures asking legislators to find money to keep the program at the French River Hatchery. The Western Lake Superior Trollers Association, Lake Superior Steelhead Association, Arrowhead Fly Fishers and local businesses also supported the idea.
The Economic Impact and Social Benefits Study of Coldwater Angling in Minnesota, prepared for the Minnesota DNR, stated that, “Lake Superior shores and streams anglers were responsible for over $21 million in sales (and) over $12 million in income, supporting more than 435 jobs.”
A recent News Tribune article by Sam Cook about Minnesota’s fishing and hunting license fees noted the DNR’s Game and Fish Fund pays for lake surveys, hatcheries, fish stocking, stream improvement and fisheries management.
In the past, fishing and hunting license fees have been raised about every six years in Minnesota. But today’s hunting and fishing license fees have been in place for a decade. The funds haven’t kept up with inflation. As a result, the state’s Game and Fish Fund is projected to have a negative balance by 2014, said Dave Schad, deputy director of the DNR. By statute, the fund cannot operate in the red. The $17 fee Minnesota charges for a basic fishing license is 36th lowest in the nation.
“If we don’t generate some additional license revenue, we’re going to have to make significant cuts to our programs and services, and that will eventually impact the quality of our hunting and fishing experiences,” said Jason Moeckel, DNR fisheries operations manager.
Fishing license fees were last increased in 2001. Adjusted for inflation, that license today should cost about $22.50, Schad said. Hunting
license fees haven’t been raised significantly since 2000. The DNR already is operating at less than full strength, Schad said. Statewide, the DNR is down 100 full-time positions out of about 600, or about 17 percent of its work force, he said.
We need a license fee increase now to ensure that French River Hatchery operations can continue to provide steelhead and Kamloops rainbow fishing opportunities on the North Shore. Anglers enjoying these programs should contact their state legislators and the governor’s office, asking for license fee increases.
Ross Pearson of Duluth is the Kamloops Advocates representative for Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Lake Superior and Rainbow Trout Advisory Groups.

Popular posts from this blog

Sucker River Angler Access - NO MORE!?

Sunshine at Last!