Is there any historical data on this? Would allowing bait increase this number? There are many reasons why kids aren't involved in hunting and fishing. I'm guessing that the inability to fish with a worm on a special reg stream isn't one of them.

No chance it will pass.

I am one of the people who has floated this idea around here in MN. Tome it seems like a good idea, but I've received little support.

I wrote a friend on the Grant Cty WCC who knows Dave Ladd and was familiar with his proposal. The reason the proposal died was because the wardens didn't support the idea and would be too hard to enforce. In their opinion it would be too hard to determine "How much help is too much help?" Is it OK for Dad to cast the line? Is it OK for Dad to set the hook and hand the rod to the kid? Is it OK for Dad to reel in the fish if the kid gets tired or tangled?

Also, there were only 433 total votes cast in these 7 counties. Not exactly a plethora of people voting either way on this. 71% (309) voted for, and 29% (125) voted against. I don't know if the State WCC really wants to push a measure that had so few votes.

So, while I still think it is a good idea for us here in MN, I can see where there would be problems enforcing the regulation when there are parents who would abuse the system.

In what way? Do you think it would get more kids fishing? I can't imagine where a Dad would take a kid to a location where he wasn't able to fish. They could drive another mile and they could both fish.

To me would make even more sense to remove the "artificial bait or flies only rule" completely on streams with healthy populations of wild trout. To me "healthy" could be defined as 2500/mile or greater.

Any of these have a low population of trout?

1.      Canfield Creek

2.      Garvin Brook

3.      Gribben Creek

4.      Hay Creek

5.      Logan Creek

6.      Trout Run Creek

7.      Whitewater River, North Branch

8.      Camp Creek

9.      Kedron Creek

10.  Root River, South Fork

11.  Whitewater River, Middle Branch

12.  Trout Valley Creek

A healthy stream should be open to ALL means of fishing.

I'm thinking more in terms of kids who live on or near a stream that would fish after school or on weekends. When I was a kid we rode our bikes to a spring pond and fished, so I was imagining something similar. You're right, if a parent had to drive the kid somewhere, they could just as easily drive to another stream.

What is preventing anyone from fishing these streams under the current regulations? Most are open to harvest too.

Any of these have a low population of trout?

1. Canfield Creek

2. Garvin Brook

3. Gribben Creek

4. Hay Creek

5. Logan Creek

6. Trout Run Creek

7. Whitewater River, North Branch

8. Camp Creek

9. Kedron Creek

10. Root River, South Fork

11. Whitewater River, Middle Branch

12. Trout Valley Creek

It's not that they have low populations of trout (although a few on here are not exactly loaded with trout, and several others are what I would call "fragile"), but it's the point that the streams you have listed are special regs. streams. There are several ways you can look at regs. based streams: protection of the resource, the potential to grow large fish, the potential to grow more fish, or the potential to offer a regulation where people can go to stream X and know that it's a no-kill stream or a slot stream and that the potential to catch lots of nice fish is there.

Having a six year old, I don't buy any argument that regs are the reasons why kids (or persons under 20) aren't trout fishing. If you know persons 20 and younger, they are into a lot more than just trout fishing. Being a high school teacher and former coach, I see every day all of the things that encompass the lives of these kids. Modifying trout regs to allow more variety in methods won't increase the number of 20 year olds and younger who trout fish. Like most things, it starts at home.

Just sayin'
D.A.

Blackdog, I see your point.

Give kids more opportunities to trout fish and they will and they will do it with worms.



Here is Table 13 on page 54:


Source: A Roving Creel Survey of Selected Southeast Minnesota Trout Streams - 2005 pages 23, 54

Vaughn A. Snook
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Division of Fish and Wildlife – Fisheries Management
Lanesboro Area Fisheries Office
23785 Grosbeak Rd.
Lanesboro, MN 55990


I tell ya what, I think the HI project areas are a perfect place to introduce a kid to trout fishing. Allowing kids to worm fish on all streams in essence gives them more opportunities. Not only that, hopefully if kids worm fish enough they will appreciate the resource and the odds of gaining an interest in fly fishing will be higher.

Kids and worms and trout go together like beer and brats and football. .....I love Brett Favre!

tell you right now this worm thang ain't gonna happen.
worms are seen with disdain too widely by the c/r crowd.

Back to the topic at heart, what specific changes might TU propose to simplify the regulations? You mention extending the season, opening all streams to pre-season. Any other ideas kicked around?

I can't speak for TU but, TU isn't a fishing club. TU is a conservation group. Their goal is to conserve, protect and restore North Americas cold water fisheries and watersheds. That said; TU's goal isn't to simplify the regulations.

simplify the regulations?

not gonna happen.

Will get even more complicated guaranteed.