I've been following the debate in Minnesota over so-called "rough fish\" and was pleased to hear Dan Gunderson's story on Minnesota Public Radio's Appleton station this morning.
Gunderson reports in DNR plans changes to protect native rough fish:
The Department of Natural Resources has outlined a long list of research needed to gather basic information about 23 fish species long labeled “rough fish” in state law.
“We’re going to pay more attention to some of these species that maybe we’ve not paid any attention to at all historically,” said Fisheries Populations Monitoring and Regulations Manager Shannon Fisher.
In the report to lawmakers, the agency recommends changing the definition from rough fish to native rough fish and removing invasive species such as carp from the definition.
The agency is also asking lawmakers for expedited rulemaking authority to place bag limits on species that need protection.
But the DNR has little data on most of the native rough fish species, making management decisions more of a challenge.
“We try to base it on what we feel the science says. But we also have to include stakeholder engagement, you know, what’s palatable for people,” said Fisher.
The agency will also consider if any of the fish need protection as endangered, threatened or species of concern.
Fisher said it might take years to accumulate the data necessary to understand the health of species such as gar, bowfin, red horse or bigmouth buffalo. . . .
Here's the report:
MN DNR Native Fish Conservation Report uploaded by Sally Jo Sorensen on Scribd
Gunderson notes the discussion of what language to use for the native fish:
Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul,supports the recommendations in the report. Hansen chairs the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee. He expects legislators to support a request for expedited rulemaking authority.
He also expects lawmakers to debate what the 23 fish species should be called.
“Do we accept the recommendation of native rough fish? Or do we drop the term rough fish,” he said of the proposed definition of the native species. “What do we call these unique species that have often been forgotten or ignored or viewed as disposable?”
Fisher said the DNR had lengthy discussions about how to define the species but felt native rough fish was the best fit.
The report also proposes the state consider changing the definition of wanton waste to include these rough fish species. Anglers now sometimes catch dozens of the fish species that have no regulatory limit, and leave them to rot in fields.
“It becomes an ethical question,” said Fisher. “Should we be allowing that and not allowing the same treatment of other protected animals, you know, deer, pheasants, turkeys?”
The DNR will bring that issue to the 2025 legislative session. . . .
I'm in the camp of ditching the word "rough" fish. It's a relic of commercial fisheries, not of the age of sound species management.
Image: A long-nosed gar. MN DNR>
Related posts
- No more junk fish so quit your carping about native fish, Minnesota; or, gars are the stars
- [Video] Omnibuzz markup: Becker-Finn acts to have DNR consider gar under gamefish status
- [VIDEO] MN House environment and natural resources committee passes omnibuzz bill
- Something fishy going on in Minnesota River
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments