| top |
Welcome to Minnesota DNR Documents.org! |
|
|
|
Updated slightly on Sept. 22, 2007 This is still mostly an older version of my home page. The more recent one was lost. What's on this site? This site documents the DNR Fisheries attempts to cripple my farm because I filed an ethics complaint against one of the top Fisheries officials for giving false testimony to the legislature. It shows some of the unprofessional and unethical tactics that the MN DNR Fisheries uses to beat fish farmers into silence and to cripple aquaculture in Minnesota. There seems to be a strategy to prevent aquaculture from developing by practicing what is known as "a death by a thousand cuts". No single cut is fatal but the end result is the same. Nearly every Minnesota fish farmer I've ever spoken with has told me of how the MN DNR Fisheries has issued illegal decrees that have damaged their farm. Some have even told me that have given up on trying to comply. This puts our natural resources at risk and the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the top Fisheries staff for "beating the honesty" out of those farmers. There also seems to be a strategy of "divide and conquer" by favoring some farmers with overpriced lake sturgeon contracts. That seems to be enough to get them to undermine the industry. This site also has information on other DNR issues. The DNR recently had a game of musical chairs and the job titles changed but unfortunately the people who have caused so much harm to farmers still have high level positions. Equally unfortunate is that they will still be employed when the current leadership has left. I have not changed the job titles so they may not be current in all cases. I provided undeniable evidence that fisheries staff violated the MN Data Practices Act and violated the MN DNR manual to the Deputy Commissioner but to my knowledge Mr. Payer etal. were never held accountable for violating state law and the DNR's own manual. I contacted IPAD with the information but was told that since I had used Governor Pawlenty's office to verify the violation IPAD would not document the violation because the Governor's office was mentioned. Let me be clear, the Governor's office had done nothing wrong but simply because I used the Governor's office to verify the violation no report could be written. I "crashed" a closed door DNR/fish farmer/legislator meeting this summer. I received an email saying invitations had been sent to the list and I wasn't on the list. With a warm welcome like that how could I not go? A Mr. Bob Meier came over to see if I was there to disrupt the meeting or something. What he said to me prompted me to write him a letter issues. DNR Deputy Commissioner Martinson looks the other way when staff violates MN laws. MN DNR Fisheries staff violated the MN Data Practices Act. I gave the information to DNR Deputy Commissioner Martinson but she refuses to take action even though it violates the DNR's own policy and criminal and civil laws. Topic Links (click on link to reach topic) ****************** Minnesota Walleyes ******************************** DNR Retaliation **************************** Accelerated walleye stocking (DNR sets it up for failure) False testimony by top fisheries official leads to ethics complaint Walleye stocking lies DNR begins retaliation Wasted walleye fingerlings ** first phony excuse Walleyes aren't for kids ** second phony excuse Is the DNR stocking toxic fish in your lake? Second illegal arbitrary decision A safe alternative to toxic fish Third illegal arbitrary decision Is Voodo Science used in DNR decision making? Fourth illegal arbitrary decision DNR continues to violate my license in 2004 ********************************** Ethics complaints against Top Fisheries staff ********************************** Ron Payer Jack Wingate Steve Hirsch Tim Goeman Roy Johannes Payer's first Wingate's first Hirsch's first Goeman's first Johannes first Payer's second Wingate's second Hirsch's second Goeman's second Johannes second Payer's third Wingate's third Goeman's third ************************************************* General Topics ******************************************************** No support for aquaculture No Accountability in Fisheries DNR violates MS 15.992 DNR attempts to confiscate semi over free permit Fisheries wastes tax dollars while asking for more Rules of engagement State monitoring of this site Typical response from Mr. Payer My Introduction to the MN DNR Fisheries Legislative claim against Fisheries for retaliation DNR Doubletalk More DNR Doubletalk How this all began This all began shortly after I filed an ethics complaint against one of the top Fisheries staff. Prior to that my relationship with the Fisheries was fine. Then just 6 weeks after filing the complaint the Fisheries removed 95% of the fish species from my license. I had been licensed for those species for 5 years. The reason given was that my farm was within the 25-year floodplain and could flood. When my farm was licensed the Fisheries said that my farm was out of the 100-year floodplain which is even higher than the 25-year floodplain and in no danger of flooding. The city of Brainerd would be 20 feet under water before my farm would flood. I explain this in more detail in the following paragraphs. Links within the paragraphs will take you to actual supporting documents. This retaliation has the full support of the top MN DNR Fisheries staff members Mr. Ron Payer, Mr. Steve Hirsch, Mr. Jack Wingate, Mr. Roy Johannes and Mr. Tim Goeman of the MN DNR Fisheries division. This site also contains the ethics complaints that I filed so far against top Fisheries staff. Just use the links above to move around on this homepage. No support or protection from the Minnesota Government Investors interested in aquaculture should avoid the state of Minnesota. Despite all the happy talk about how much support for aquaculture the Minnesota legislature and Governor Pawlenty sit back and allows the Fisheries to act like state sponsored thugs. Complaints about the behavior of the Fisheries get sent to the Fisheries for resolution. Then when you get an answer IF you get an answer Fisheries simply says we aren't doing anything wrong. My complaints to Governor Pawlenty, Commissioner of Natural Resources Garber, Deputy Commissioners of Natural Resources Morse 6 3 02; Holsten 4 6 03.; Director of Fisheries and Assistant Director of Fisheries Payer and Hirsch have gone unanswered. Complaints to my legislators have also been futile. I'm told that even though the harassment is obvious there is nothing that can be done short of a costly court fight. I believe that Sunlight is the best disinfectant for bad government and that is the reason for this web. The complaint to Governor Tim Pawlenty went unanswered Pawlenty 6 5 03. I now tell potential investors in aquaculture that they should take their investment dollars to other states Pawlenty 7 9 03. Most letters I've sent to the DNR were given to the person who caused the problem in the first place. Even letters sent to Governor Ventura Ventura 11 19 2000; Ventura 2 3 02; were forwarded to the DNR. The person causing the problem would then simply restate their original letter. Governor Pawlenty said on KKIN radio that he would have his staff look into the retaliation so at the Governors suggestion I called his office on October 10 2003 to speak with the staff person that works with the DNR. She told me that she was going to forward my complaint to the DNR to see what if anything the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner of the DNR wanted to do about the MN DNR Fisheries violating my license. She also suggested that I sue the DNR if they were violating my license. I asked her why I should have to mortgage my home to get a state agency to obey the law but she had no answer. As of July 23, 2004 no one from Governor Pawlenty's office or the DNR has contacted me to report the outcome of this so-called "investigation". I do not expect one. A wise person once said that "absolute power corrupts absolutely" and the actions of the MN DNR Fisheries are proof of the truth in that quote. This Fisheries is in desperate need of adult supervision. No Accountability results in bad government The one thing the Fisheries Division lacks the most is accountability and this has created a division that shows little respect for the law or the public. That is evident in the endless series of illegal arbitrary and capricious decisions issued by Fisheries that violate the 14.69 Arbitrary statute. I've met with the Speaker of the House Steve Sviggum but he said that the legislature is powerless to make the DNR comply with the law. Many other legislators have told me the same thing. It's no wonder that this agency believes it has absolute power and that some top officials think they have a "license to lie". I have filed Data Practices Act requests (Minnesota's version of the Freedom of Information Act) Garber 7 24 02. but the DNR allows the person being investigated to retrieve the files 8 13 02 Gebhard . You can imagine how ineffective that is at uncovering information. Sometimes when the DNR stonewalls that is the only option however Gebhard 3 1 03. One request cost me $38.69 per hour (1 persons wage plus 20% benefits). False testimony given to the legislature by high ranking Fisheries official As hard as it is to believe, the fisheries started retaliating against my farm because I attempted to get legislation that would let me use a safe alternative to toxic herbicides in my ponds. On March 15, 2001 the Fisheries Research Manager gave false testimony against the bill Wingate brief. I didn't understand how the system worked and was not given a chance to refute his false testimony even though I had the facts at my fingertips. His false testimony effectively killed the bill. I sent a letter of complaint to Commissioner Allen Garber complaint to Garber. After waiting a month and receiving no response I filed a formal ethics complaint Wingate ethics. Soon after filing I received a letter signed by Commissioner Allen Garber but written by the Director of Fisheries Mr. Ron Payer. The letter contained some of the same false statements used in the Research Manager's testimony. I responded with Garber 5 20 2001; and Garber 5 22 01 but received no further response. One critical point in Mr. Wingates false testimony was that there is a 2.5% error rate in the test used to determine ploidy (chromosome number). Mr. Payer's May 18 2001 letter that he drafted for Commissioner Garber contained the same misleading statement. I contacted a co-author of the peer reviewed journal paper that Mr. Wingate claimed was the source of this crucial part of his testimony. The co-author stated that "The 2.5% doesn't have anything to do with "error rate" of detection by Coulter Counter or Flow Cyt[ometer].". In typical Fisheries fashion Mr. Payer said "You were appraised of the department's review of the ethical allegations and that there was no substantiation of your accusations." in his July 12 01 email. This is false. The ethics complaint was dismissed not because the testimony wasn't false but because the Minnesota ethics statute does not prohibit state employees from giving false and misleading testimony to the Minnesota legislature Ethics statute. This doubletalk is typical of Fisheries. It took until June 6 2001 and 4 requests to learn that the complaint had been dismissed "shortly after" April 20 2001. The Fisheries Division began retaliating against my farm before I was told the ethics complaint had been dismissed. I thought they would wait a year or so but I misjudged their unbridled arrogance. In his July 12 01 email Mr. Payer also said "There is absolutely no correlation between your charges and any subsequent action by the department." Orangespotted sunfish had been on my license for 5 years prior to filing the ethics complaint and a 1996 DNR document stated my farm was no where near the 100-year flood plain. Six weeks after the ethics complaint was filed orangespotted sunfish and 95% of the other species on my license were gone. The reason given was that my farm was in danger of flooding. This shows how little professional ethics there is in the MN DNR Fisheries division management. Fisheries retaliation begins with an illegal arbitrary and capricious decision The retaliation began with the Region Fisheries Manager (Mr. Tim Goeman) arbitrarily denying a permit to import and stock a Minnesota fish species called Orangespotted Sunfish (OSS) 6 1 01 Goeman. This cost my small farm a $10,000 sale. My farm had been licensed for that species since 1996. 1996 license; 1997 license; 1998 license; 1999 license; 2000 license; 2001 license. In effect Mr. Goeman was not allowing me to raise non-indigenous fish in ponds licensed for non-indigenous species because they were non-indigenous! In this case "non-indigenous" just means a Minnesota species not found in my watershed. In one arrogant gesture Mr. Goeman arbitrarily revoked 95% of my license even though he personally approved most of my ponds for all species 1998 pond approval; 2001 pond approval. I pointed out that my farm was licensed for orangespotted sunfish to both Mr. Goeman and Mr. Payer but it fell on deaf ears Goeman 5 31 01; Payer 7 4 01; Payer 1 28 02. I reported buying OSS in 1995. I also reported raising and selling orangespotted sunfish on my 2000 annual report 2000 report form. They still refused to approve the permit. Mr. Goeman stated the permit was denied because my farm was within the 25-year floodplain. My farm is actually out of the 100-year floodplain. Facts mean nothing to the Minnow Mafia. The Director of Fisheries later admitted that some ponds were licensed for Orangespotted Sunfish 7 12 01Payer but still did not instruct Mr. Goeman to issue the permit. The Region Fisheries Manager simply denied the entire facility 5 30 01Goeman; 6 1 01 Goeman despite the fact that my facility was clearly licensed for OSS. Mr. Payer's refusal to stop his staff from harassing my farm led to the first ethics complaint I filed against him Ethics charge against Payer. I have repeatedly asked for a status report on the ethics complaint but have never received so much as a courtesy reply. After reading and re-reading Mr. Goemans responses in order to try to find some resolution I asked Mr. Goeman if he thought I was going to stock the sunfish into my largest ponds 6 25 01 Goeman but he never responded. That is typical of Mr. Goeman and some other Fisheries staff whenever I ask a question that they don't want to answer. Second illegal arbitrary and capricious decision When I received the amended 2001 license in January of 2002 I noticed that Mr. Goeman arbitrarily stated on the last page that I needed his permission to sell any of my fish raised in ponds licensed for non-indigenous species anywhere in Minnesota Another Arbitrary statement from Goeman. This is incorrect on at least two counts and he should know better. 1. Minnesota statute says the person transporting/stocking needs the transportation/stocking permit not the person selling. 2. Minnesota statute also says nothing about whether the fish are raised in a non-indigenous pond or not. This type of arbitrary and capricious statement is typical of Fisheries. It's like saying "we say 2 and 2 equals 5, what are YOU going to do about it". This shows either complete ignorance and/or an arrogant disregard of Minnesota statute by the people making decisions affecting our livelihood. I believe it also shows a complete lack of respect towards the legislature who made the law and the public who pays their salary. It also shows the anti-aquaculture attitude that many of the top Fisheries staff hold and display. Third illegal arbitrary and capricious decision On June 10, 2003 I sent in a new pond approval request 2003 new pond approval for a new pond that is designed to maintain at least 24" of freeboard at all times. It is out of the 100-year floodplain, the base of the dike is 17 feet above Brainerd and has no outlet. According to state statute it can be licensed for all Minnesota species. The pond was arbitrarily licensed for only some local species in direct violation of the law despite my specific request for all Minnesota species. The reason given was that we might have a rainfall of more than 24" causing the pond to overfill and connect to public water 7 7 03 Goeman. The official state record rainfall set in 1972 is 11". Fourth illegal arbitrary and capricious decision On August 12, 2003 I applied for a permit to import more Longear Sunfish breeders from a previous source permits LES approval-OSS denial 2001; permits Longear permit 2003. When I got the approved permit back I noticed that the permit was approved for the only remaining pond licensed for non-local Minnesota fish. Longear Sunfish are found locally. I have purchased Longear Sunfish from the MN DNR Fisheries Longear receipt - DNR.doc. They were captured locally by the DNR in a nearby lake. Also, I have personally seen them spawning in the Pine River near the canoe access below the Crosslake dam. This means they have unrestricted access to within 2,000 feet of my farm. Fisheries is continuing to violate my license in 2004 Recently I received a 2004 license renewal. As expected it contained numerous errors and clear violations of state statute. It is also still missing species that were approved for my farm. I sent this letter the person in charge of license applications. The letter specifically points out the laws that the MN DNR Fisheries is violating. I copied the letter to Mr. Payer and Mr. Hirsch so they would be responsible for ensuring that Minnesota statutes were not violated. I am confident I will be filing more ethics complaints against those two officials because I doubt they will instruct their staff to follow Minnesota law. I formally requested that he ask the Minnesota Attorney General to review the license corrections to ensure they comply with Minnesota statute. He replied that I had to ask the new Director of Fish and Wildlife myself. This seems odd since typically requests are sent up the chain of command. In order to speed things up I explained the statutes the DNR is violating in a second email. If I had not done that it's likely the response they would send would not acknowledge the statutes. On March 1 2004 Mr. Johannes sent an email reply. Incredibly the Fisheries is still saying they were confused about the license they approved or even which ponds they were approving. At the legislative hearing Mr. Goeman told the committee that we were both confused about which ponds were licensed. The simple map I provided with my new pond approval could be understood by any 4th grader yet they continue to claim there was confusion. The Regional Fisheries Manager, who makes $102,000 a year, did claim to be confused by the word "all" at our December 2001 meeting so possibly they are telling the truth on this one. I sent an initial response to Mr. Johannes. My responses are in the body of his response. They are indicated by ***. On March 3 2004 Mr. Goeman sent a letter regarding the incorrect species codes that were on my license. I sent an email on March 6 2004 reminding Mr. Goeman that he personally approved my levee ponds for all species unconditionally. Here are the new pond approvals with Mr. Goeman's signature. 1998. 2001. Here is the May 30 2001 document from Mr. Goeman stating that "Additionally, the three new ponds you have applied for have been approved and sent to St. Paul for addition to your license". In this document he is approving my new ponds for all species at the same time he denying the permit for one of those species. It's no wonder the Minnesota public no longer trusts this agency. License review by Minnesota Attorney General's office I asked Mr. Payer to have the Minnesota Attorney General's (AG) office review my license. He refused. I asked Mr. Johannes to have the Minnesota AG's office review my license. He refused. Now Mr. Johannes suddenly informs me that the Minnesota AG's office will review my license but ONLY a small portion and it will NOT review the part where the MN DNR violated M.S. 15.992. It's understandable that Mr. Payer would not want anyone beyond his control to look at the retaliation that has occurred with his permission while he was Fisheries Director. I included a request to have my entire license (1996-2004) and permits/pond approvals reviewed by the MN AG office in the ethics complaint I filed against Messrs Payer, Hirsch, Wingate, Johannes and Goeman on April 30, 2004. Legislative claim against Fisheries for the illegal 2001 arbitrary permit denial In 2002 I filed a legislative claim to recover a portion of the damages Legislative complaint commission caused by Mr. Goeman's arbitrary decision to deny the OSS permit. The DNR response is hard to believe DNR Response. They attempted to blame me for them not filling out the paperwork within 3 years and as expected ignored the 60-day statute that says an agency must approve, deny or ask for more information on permits within 60 days otherwise the permit is automatically granted. The Fisheries is a repeat offender when it comes to violating the 60-day statute. Their normal response is to try to cover it up by saying the application was incomplete. I testified before the committee but the claim was "laid over" until the next legislative session because of the fear that a decision would "open the floodgates" against this out-of-control agency. I will now have to drive another 300 miles to spend another day at the Capitol and lose another days pay. Mr. Goeman will get paid and enjoy a nice meal or two at taxpayer expense. The Fisheries division will also send at least 1-2 high $$ staff to "hang out" at the hearing at taxpayer expense. It's rare to see just one staff at the Capitol at a time. This reminds me of the old Soviet Union where one person watches another to make sure they don't say anything that isn't the party line. I filed a second legislative claim on October 6 2003 to cover my expenses for the 2 days of testifying. I will also be filing a third legislative claim to recover damages caused by Mr. Goemans arbitrary decision to reclassify longear sunfish as non-local. The claim was heard a second time on October 14, 2003. It was obvious by the pointed questions directed at Mr. Goeman the committee knew that he had violated my license but the claim was dismissed because I did not have a signed contract. I explained to the committee that I have always done business with a verbal handshake over the phone and the only time I have run into dishonesty is when dealing with the MN DNR Fisheries. Deputy Commissioner Holsten was in the audience for at least the last part of Mr. Goemans testimony. He doesn't seem to have taken any action against Mr. Goeman for giving false testimony to the legislative committee. I have filed a second ethics complaint against Mr. Goeman based on his false testimony. In two days of defending Mr. Goeman's illegal arbitrary and capricious decision taxpayers have spent over $1,200 just for Mr. Goemans time ($48.87 per hour times 24 hours). That does not include the cost of the 2 other staffers "hanging out" at the first hearing or the staff at the second hearing. First excuse for the arbitrary denial Mr. Goeman's first tried defending his arbitrary denial of the OSS permit by saying my ponds were within the 25-year flood plain. 6 1 01 Goeman. In 1996, five years before Mr. Goeman arbitrarily denied the permit the MN DNR Fisheries had already determined that my ponds are nowhere near the 100-year flood plain Hirsch 8 30 1996. He arbitrarily and capriciously denied the permit and when pressed searched for an excuse. This violates the Minnesota statute arbitrary statute 14.69 Arbitrary Statute. An arbitrary denial followed by a search for justification when challenged is typical of the MN DNR Fisheries. My ponds are actually outside of the 500-year flood plain according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain map panel 200 of 375 and 17 feet above the city of Brainerd. This means that the city of Brainerd would be 20 feet underwater before the floodwater would reach the top of my dikes. According to Minnesota statute ponds that are out of the 25-year flood plain and have no outlet may be licensed for all Minnesota species statutes\17.4984 aquatic farm license. Ironically the dug ponds that the DNR continues to insist are the only ones that can be licensed as non-indigenous would flood before the levee ponds and in fact have overflowed in the recent past during heavy rainfalls. They overflow because they have no dike above the ground. When the ground is saturated by repeated heavy rains the water reaches the top of the pond so any additional heavy rains floods the area with an inch or two of water. I explained that to the DNR at the December 20, 2001 meeting but DNR's response was a snicker. Second excuse for the illegal arbitrary denial two years later Two years later after his arbitrary permit denial Mr. Goeman realized his original reason (excuse) sounded ridiculous so he just changed the reason (excuse) to the threat of rainfall overfilling levee type ponds 7 7 03 Goeman. This is ridiculous. Levee ponds have no watershed to capture additional water so 1" of rain means a 1" increase in pond water level. I normally keep between 24" of freeboard (dike above the water level) in my production ponds so it would take a rainfall in excess of 24" to cause the ponds to overfill those ponds. In our area a 5.5" rainfall is considered to be a 100-year rainfall. My largest ponds have at least 36" freeboard and would hold a 36" rainfall. The official state record of 11" was set in 1972. What species will you let me raise? Since Mr. Goeman was arbitrarily refusing to allow me to raise a non-indigenous species in ponds licensed for non-indigenous species I asked him just what species he would allow me to raise. He refused to answer my question and instead gave the typical Fisheries doubletalk 6 25 01 Goeman. What the DNR means when they say things will be decided on a case-specific basis is that they will issue arbitrary and capricious decisions with no regard for Minnesota statute. The decision will depend on the mood of the manager at the time of the request and the relationship they have with the farmer. This might be acceptable in some third world country but it is no way for a Minnesota state agency to conduct business. We meet the standards set by law and get our ponds licensed for each fish species. Then we have to ask the DNR a second time if we can actually raise those species. If the DNR wants to punish us for filing an ethics complaint they issue an arbitrary "case-specific" denial or outright lie to us about the threat of a 37" rainfall. At a meeting I had with Fisheries staff in December of 2001 Mr. Goeman claimed to be confused by "all" species. I'm not surprised. Orangespotted Sunfish is a Minnesota species naturally found in about 1/3 of our state. However, they are not found in my watershed as far as the MN DNR knows and are therefore considered a non-indigenous Minnesota species. I have seen Orangespotted Sunfish mixed in with bait minnows being sold in my area so it is likely they are established here too. When I said that I had seen OSS in bait minnows to the staff at a meeting the DNR's response was another snicker. DNR re-writes history while attempting cover-up of arbitrary decision On January 8, 2002, a full seven months after Mr. Goeman's illegal arbitrary and capricious decision to deny the permit to stock fish into a pond that he personally approved for that species he added amendments to my 2001 license designed to validate his arbitrary permit denial. He did this despite my reminder to his supervisor that I did not agree to change the existing license Johannes 12 27 01. Sometimes it seems that when I ask them not to do something they do it just to prove they can. Another attempt to re-write history I requested that Mr. Goeman correct the overly restrictive 2003 Longear Sunfish (LES) permit and restore LES to the ponds licensed for local fish. I provided a contact person within the DNR to verify that Longears are local Goeman 8 16 03. As expected he did not respond so I sent another request Goeman 8 22 03. Mr. Goeman still refused to respond so Mr. Payer responded that he supports Mr. Goeman's handling of my permits and licenses 8 28 03 Payer . Once again with the support of Mr. Payer the Fisheries is attempting to re-write history to cover-up an illegal arbitrary and capricious decision. Mr. Goeman approved LES with no conditions in 2001 on the same permit that he denied OSS solely because OSS were non-indigenous 5 30 01 Goeman. That tells me that he considered longear sunfish as indigenous otherwise he would have arbitrarily denied them too. It appears that the DNR intends on slowly strangling the life out of my dream by arbitrarily removing species with no regard to the law and no one in the Minnesota government is willing or able to stop them. It would not surprise me if they suddenly decreed that bluegill sunfish were non-indigenous. I will continue to fight them every inch of the way. Should they succeed in killing the dream I have spent 18 years building I am considering returning to school one more time for a law degree. If I do I will specialize in environmental law and focus on the DNR's many politically motivated arbitrary and capricious decisions that damage our environment and small businesses. One more attempt to re-write history In the package of Data Practices Act request documents was one written by an unnamed DNR author. It contained another attempt to re-write history. The author claimed that my koi importation permit was only approved for the ponds on the west side of the road. This would make it appear that only ponds on the west side of the road were approved for all species. The permit said no such thing and was in fact for the entire facility. When I asked the Mr. Payer about this he said that Koi are unregulated and do not even require a permit or license. Another farmer attempted to raise Koi but Mr. Johannes arbitrarily refused to allow it. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Payer would support the decision that his staff made to deny that farmers request to raise Koi. That is not leadership and it's no way to treat farmers who have worked hard and risked much for their farms. Typical response from the Director of Fisheries I sent an email complaining of Mr. Goemans conduct to the Director of Fisheries Ron Payer and Assistant Director of Fisheries Steve Hirsch. It was copied to DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam, Deputy DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten, and my legislators Payer 8 19 03. The response from Mr. Payer was as expected 8 28 03 Payer. My responses to Mr. Payer were Payer 8 30 03; Payer 8 30 03 2. Mr. Payer responded with more baseless arguments 9 12 03 Payer. I pointed out the flaws in his response with Payer 9 12 03. Since he failed to respond in a timely manner I repeated my request Payer 9 28 03 1. He responded but continued to avoid the question by claiming the questions had been answered which was untrue 10 01 03 Payer. I asked him once again to answer the questions and explained there was a difference between a response and an answer Payer 10 02 03. Here's the complete exchange in proper order. You can see how difficult it is to get a straight answer from Fisheries. A second ethics complaint against Mr. Payer and the first for Mr. Goeman Since Mr. Payer stated that he supports the actions of Mr. Goeman even after I pointed out the facts I saw no other option but to file another ethics complaint against him. On September 4 2003 I mailed a second formal complaint against Director of Fisheries Ron Payer for failing to stop (directing?) the retaliation. I combined it with the formal complaint against Region Fisheries Manager Tim Goeman. It was mailed to DNR Commissioner Gene Merriam and Deputy Commissioner Mark Holsten Goeman-Payer ethic complaint. Copies were emailed to my legislators. A third ethics complaint against Mr. Payer Despite the clear evidence I provided the Mr. Payer that Mr. Goeman's decision was arbitrary and capricious he stated that he supports that decision. Mr. Goeman's decision even contradicted the Directors email. Also, Mr. Payer stated that he continues to support Mr. Goeman's arbitrary statement that I needed his permission to sell any of my fish anywhere in Minnesota (see Second illegal arbitrary and capricious decision). Since Mr. Payer stated that he supports the illegal decision and Mr. Goeman's arbitrary statement I filed a third ethics complaint. It's almost as Fisheries is afraid to change it's position even when an obvious mistake has been made. More ethics complaints filed The damaged caused to my farm when the DNR arbitrarily revoked most of my license after filing the first ethics complaint continues to mount. On April 30 2004 I filed an ethics complaint against Mr. Ron Payer, Mr. Steve Hirsch, Mr. Jack Wingate, Mr. Roy Johannes and Mr. Tim Goeman. It was filed because they continue to violate M.S. 15.992. On May 3 2004 I filed another ethics complaint against Mr. Roy Johannes for his unethical attempt to invent barriers to stop me from adding turtles to my license. I have heard that he did a similar thing to another person who wanted to start farming turtles. Hiding behind "The Commissioner" It is very typical for DNR Fisheries staff to attempt to try to hide their unethical decisions behind the agency so I asked Mr. Payer who he meant when he said that "....we support Mr. Goeman's decisions regarding licensing and permits related to your operation." Payer 9 28 03 2 After several emails he finally answered my question 10 03 03 Payer. Armed with that information I sent 2 very specific questions to the members of the Fisheries Division Management Team that Mr. Payer said supported Mr. Goemans decisions to deny the OSS permit even though it violated state law and Mr. Goemans denial of a pond license because we might get a 24" rainfall Hirsch 10 07 03; Wingate 10 07 03; Eastwood 10 07 03. The brothers Daryl and Daryl replied Reply. Since they admitted that they are aware of the facts and continue to support Mr. Goemans arbitrary and capricious decision that violated state law I filed complaints against them Wingate and Hirsch. The record length of time for the DNR violating the 60-day statute is 36 months so far The record length of time I have documented the DNR violating the 60-statute was when Mr. Goeman tried to claim in 2001 that the ponds he personally approved for all species in 1998 1998 pond approval were not licensed for those species. The second longest length of time was when the DNR Waters division attempted to deny that my water appropriation permit had been amended at least 20 months before when they accepted and cashed my $75 amendment fee check. I explained that they had cashed my check and exceeded the 60 days allowed but Waters supervisor Mr. Jim Japs said that was debatable. I received an incorrect permit shortly thereafter. Rather than continue to try to "talk to my shoe" I spoke with my representative and a week later I received a correct permit. The requested amount was still less than the minimum. The thing that concerned me most was that the Waters division staff said that "fisheries had questions" on my permit. That would be just one more opportunity for Fisheries to issue another damaging "case-by-case" arbitrary and capricious decision. They could limit the growth of my farm by limiting the amount of water I could buy. Fisheries continues to waste tax dollars even while asking for more money Last spring at the Capitol I watched a staffer who makes $80,000 per year wait 2 1/2 hours to deliver a report on aquaculture licensing. In the audience and clearly not there to testify judging by their remote seating position sat 2 of his supervisors. I questioned Mr. Payer why the Fisheries was raising my license 214% even while they continued to waste tax dollars. He replied 3 17 03 Payer but that made me wonder why someone making $80,000 per year isn't capable of answering any question concerning aquaculture since aquaculture licensing is his full time position. I think it had more to do with making sure the party line was spoken. My first experiences with MN DNR Fisheries Managers I had heard so many stories of the unprofessional behavior of MN DNR Fisheries Managers that while I was still in college I decided to introduce myself to the Area Fisheries Manager. I just wanted him know that I was going to do everything I could to protect the environment. He called me stupid. He didn't actually use the word but there is no doubt in my mind that is what he was telling me to my face. Later on another trip back to Minnesota I went to the Region Fisheries Manager's office to introduce myself. Out of the blue he said "I don't have to help you and I won't". I was only trying to introduce myself. Years later after I graduated and had started raising fish I was in his office dropping off a request form for broodfish when he told me "I won't go two feet out of my way to help you". Again I was only submitting a request and not asking for any help. When I told that to then MN DNR Aquaculture Program Director Steve Hirsch at a MN Aquaculture Assn. board meeting he laughed. Walleyes aren't for kids One MN DNR Fisheries manager who is in direct control of stocking walleyes was heard to say that kids should not expect to catch walleyes. It should come as no surprise that this region manager actually reduced his stocking rate when the accelerated walleye stocking program started. It should also come as no surprise that Fisheries seems satisfied with mediocre walleye fishing. They explain it away by saying low sampling rates are typical for that type of lake. In other words low sampling rates are typical of lakes with poor quality fishing. Fisheries seems satisfied with that. They continue to fight efforts to increase walleye fingerling stocking. Fisheries deliberately misleads the public on walleye stocking You will notice that in the past the DNR Fisheries used to tell the public the number of walleyes stocked. Then they switched to reporting stocking in pounds. There is no scientific basis for the switch. There is however a political basis for the switch. By reporting stocking rates in pounds it confuses anyone who is trying to follow the stocking issue. Walleye fingerlings can range in size from 1/3 pound to 1/50 pound. Thus the Fisheries can actually reduce the number of fish stocked even while claiming an increase. It is true that the survival of a 10" 1/3 pound fingerling is much better than a 1/50 pound fingerling. A 6" fingerling runs 15 per pound. The survival rate for that fish should be very good. Stocking fifteen 6" fingerlings would result in many more walleyes than stocking three 10" fingerlings. Another way the Fisheries is misleading the public is by claiming that the state produces fish for less than it costs to buy privately produced fish. Recently Fisheries said they produce fish for nearly $15 per pound. Private producers typically wholesale 6" walleyes for about $.60 each. Even when you include sales tax that brings the cost of privately produced 6" walleyes to only $9.60 per pound. I can see another attempt to mislead in the way the DNR Fisheries only stocks private fish into southern Minnesota waters. They claim the reason is “…because there is no mechanism in placethat allows tracking of strains received from private growers.” I find that hard to believe because every time a fish farmer buys fish they have to report where they bought those fish. The state then has a record of the source of every farmer’s broodfish or fry purchase so it’s disingenuous for them to say they don’t know what strains they are buying. What this arbitrary restriction really does is prevent fish farmers selling more than a token amount of fish to the state. At one time more than 95% of privately produced walleyes went to other states even while the state was reducing stocking quotas. The DNR accomplished this by denying stocking requests from lake associations and private lake owners. If strain was really the issue the state could also provide fry of known strains to farmers to rear. The farmer could then reimburse the state with fingerlings. This would require the DNR to genuinely work with all fish farmers though and that’s unlikely. The strain issue itself is suspect when you consider the following: The state of Minnesota has stocked walleyes throughout the state for decades with little thought of strain. Fishermen have been moving fish from one lake to the other since the invention of the 5 gallon bucket. It is also a fact that Minnesota lakes are changing rapidly in terms of fertility, fish communities and possibly temperature. No one can say that the original strain, if it still exists, is the best for any lake. Another thing that makes me question the sincerity of Fisheries is the state lets out bids in mid-summer. This is months after fry are stocked so it is impossible to suddenly increase production enough to bid on the contract. The state should let farmers bid in mid-winter so that farmers could plan their production. Every farmer in the state should receive an invitation to bid regardless of what their relationship is with Fisheries or whether they have walleyes on their license. This might even encourage some farmers to add walleyes to their production. Wanton waste by Fisheries Last winter I found out about a DNR Fisheries rearing pond that the Fisheries had left walleyes in to suffocate and go to waste last winter so I asked if I could salvage them. Fisheries replied that I could trap them and then buy them at the same price I would sell them. A staff member would have to be present during the harvest. In other words they were going to let those fish die in the pond because they didn't have enough staff to harvest those fish but they did have enough staff to watch someone else harvest the walleyes. Even if Fisheries wants to continue to hinder fish farmers one would think that Fisheries would offer the fish to sportsman's clubs rather than let them rot in the pond. However, if they did that it would be an admission to the public that tens of thousands of walleye fingerlings are left to die in their rearing ponds every winter. It's no wonder that the public pays so much more for state produced walleye fingerlings. When even a few walleye fingerlings that escape harvest survive the winter they can devastate the following years crop of fingerlings so removing them is critical to future fingerling production. One solution would be for Fisheries to allow private producers to salvage those fingerlings in exchange for giving the state a certain percentage. It would have an enormous beneficial impact on the next seasons fingerling production in those ponds. This would be a free way to increase the following years fingerling production at no cost to the state and would immediately increase the number of state fish available for stocking. You can expect Fisheries to oppose this common sense solution because it might help aquaculture. You can also expect their "reason" to not make any sense. Fisheries Sets-up the Accelerated Walleye Stocking Program for failure The Fisheries has been instructed to buy more private fish in order to meeting accelerated walleye stocking program. But, as of April 11, 2004 the Fisheries has not contacted fish farmers to let them know about the increase in bids. Now it is too late to increase production for this fall. I believe that this is deliberate and that Fisheries will attempt to tell the legislature and the public that the private producers are unable to supply the extra walleyes. It is dishonest for Fisheries to say that private walleye producers cannot supply fish when they don't let them know the fish are needed until it's too late. IF the Fisheries had honestly intended to buy more private fish they would have notified private fish producers months ago so that we could have planned to increase our production. Now it is too late. I asked the Commercial Fisheries Program Consultant 8 times if Mr. Goeman's all-inclusive statement Another Arbitrary statement from Goeman that I needed his permission to sell any of the fish I raised in ponds licensed for non-indigenous species anywhere in Minnesota was correct or incorrect. The closest Mr. Johannes came to contradicting him was when he said it was "generally correct" 8 16 02 Johannes. It's not possible for this statement to be "generally correct". As expected Mr. Payer attempted to use DNR doubletalk in his September 12 03 email when he said my question had already been answered. I think this also shows how this small group of state employees covers for each other. Since they act like a crime family I have nicknamed them the "Minnow Mafia". They will defend any decision, good or bad, to our last tax dollar. This is the same group that caused 230,000 pounds of walleyes to rot in Mille Lacs Lake in 2002 under the guise of good fisheries management. The harvest in 2003 was less than 70,000 and is expected to be the same in 2004. Voodo science "not unusual" in Minnesota DNR Fisheries world? Here is an absolutely unbelievable statement that the Fisheries Research Manager made to me. I can't tell if he deliberately tried to lie to me or if he is just utterly unqualified for his position. I can say that this is the same person who testified before the legislature there is a 2.5% error rate in the grass carp triploid test. He then went on claim the so-called error rate came from a peer reviewed journal. I contacted one of the co-authors to find out if his statement was true. The co-author stated that "The 2.5% doesn't have anything to do with "error rate" of detection by Coulter Counter or Flow Cyt[ometer].". He was obviously wrong so I asked him for the papers that supported his statement. He replied with another unbelievable statement that makes me question his basic understanding of fisheries biology. You'll note that the Director of Fisheries also supports this false statement. I have to wonder how well he understands fisheries biology too. I asked another fisheries biologist if Mr. Wingate's statement that triploid fish revert to diploid (shed chromosomes) could be true. He said it would be like a dog reverting to a cat. I then asked a fish genetics expert. His response was "Balogna!". Is this typical of the "science" that the Fisheries Management Team uses to manage our fish? MN DNR tries confiscating 65,000 pound semi over a free permit I have been researching a case where the MN DNR confiscated the tractor trailer of an out-of-state minnow dealer because he did not have a free permit to cross the state. Not everyone crossing the state is required to get that free permit in fact the DNR has told some people not to bother. It depends on who you are and who you ask. During the arrest the state drove a Red Tagged truck away from the site without repairs. A truck that is Red Tagged must be towed or repaired on the spot before it can be legally driven by anyone. In typical DNR Fisheries fashion they claim that abusing this fish dealer was done to protect the "health of the water" in our state. However, not once did they inspect the minnows or test the water for any health concerns. In fact there may not even be any health inspections required for minnows transported out of Minnesota. I sent this email to the DNR Fish Pathologist to find out. How can it be that the goal was to protect the water of this state when they didn't even inspect the fish or the water? This is just one more example of how what Fisheries says doesn't match what they do. Minnesota may be the only state that requires permission to cross with a load of minnows. Minnesota's export license was declared unconstitutional by the appellate court because it charged more for non-residents. The DNR claims they need virtually unrestricted power to protect our environment and then they abuse that power and lie about it. Then they wonder why the public doesn't trust them. Here is a link to the minnow dealers page that tells the story in his own words. It's worth reading. http://www.akronbait.com/ma.htm Here's a link to the appeals court decision. http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/archive/ctappub/0312/opa030055-1202.htm
The Fisheries is abusing this minnow dealer under the guise of protecting the health of the waters of Minnesota. It is an outright lie to say that this protects Minnesota's environment in any way. Those minnows were going to be transported through Minnesota in sealed containers and were not going to be used for bait or released into Minnesota waters. This is just one more example of how the MN DNR Fisheries abuses the public trust. We give them unconditional trust them to do the right thing and they use it to harass people. Then when what they are doing is exposed they claim it's for the public good. I would like to know how many ten's of thousands of tax dollars the Fisheries has wasted on this frivolous case. It should be taken from their generous salaries. Rules of engagement when attempting to deal with Fisheries 1. Always get everything in writing. Make copies and store them in a safe place. Do not use the phone unless absolutely necessary. Even if your manager is an honest person remember that things and staff change. I used to trust Fisheries myself. 2. Check your license and if every "i" isn't dotted and "t" isn't crossed ask to have it fixed. 3. If you meet with them bring a tape recorder. I brought mine to the December 20, 2001 meeting. 4. Get to know your legislators. They need to hear what is happening and right now they are only hearing the DNR badmouth aquaculture. 5. Read the statutes and insist the DNR follow them. If you want clarification do NOT ask Fisheries because an unqualified person in the DNR will interpret it the way the DNR wants. The MN Attorney Generals office will help. 6. Most DNR staff are hard working professionals and deserve respect unless they prove otherwise. 7. If you are going to raise fish in Minnesota good luck because I don't see any hope of change in a state where the DNR has absolute power and no ethics. I would suggest you invest your time and money in a state that understands professional ethics. 8. Determination and patience are essential when dealing with Fisheries as this website shows. If they think that you will go away if they put you off they will. Is the MN DNR stocking toxic fish in your lake? I sent out a simple questionnaire to DNR fish hatcheries. It asked which herbicides they use and what species are raised in the ponds treated with herbicide The DNR uses these aquatic herbicides in ponds that produce fish for public stocking. Aquathol K, Rodeo, and Diquat. The fish exposed to those herbicides were muskie, walleye, and smallmouth bass. State employees were also exposed to aquatic herbicides. Shouldn’t the state notify the public when it stocks fish that may be contaminated with herbicide into your lake? Ask Fisheries Director Ron Payer if they stocked toxic fish in your lake. I'll bet he can't answer you. A safe alternative to toxic fish A safe chemical free alternative to aquatic herbicide has been used in 38 states since 1985 but our DNR puts our health and our groundwater at risk to aquatic herbicide contamination by ignoring the abundant science. To learn more click on Safe Alternative. In 1985 the federal government issued a statement that said triploid (sterile) grass carp are no threat to the environment. Since that time millions of these sterile fish have been used to safely replace literally millions of pounds of toxic aquatic herbicide. There has never been any reproduction in any watershed that requires the fish to be triploid. The state of Minnesota is monitoring this site I see from doing domain searches on visits to this site that someone from the Minnesota Department of Administration spends a lot of time monitoring this site on public taxpayer time. I suppose this site will eventually get my front door kicked in by the state at taxpayer expense. LETS ROCK! I'm ready! I've resigned myself to the fact that eventually they will tell enforcement to issue a bogus ticket to shut me up. DNR says weakening dikes will make farm safer In what I thought was a face-saving attempt to back away from this conflict the DNR offered to review my facility. I agreed to submit pictures and dimensions of my facility. I expected some sort of token change that would allow them to back away without admitting wrongdoing like a corporate criminal. What came back as a suggestion was to put overflows in each pond. To do that I would have to cut through my dikes and risk creating leaks in dikes that do not leak. This would weaken the dikes and increase the risk they would fail. The other suggestion was to dig out a 2 1/2 acre pond to the depth of 6 feet, haul the dirt away, dike thousands of feet of ditch, and build thousands of feet of low dike. It would cost several times what it cost to build the 5,000 feet of dike I have already built. Mr. Goeman suggested that I do both. Before the middle sized ponds would overflow from rainfall it would take 24+" of rain. Before my largest ponds would overflow from rainfall it would take 36+" of rainfall. Just what is their concern? A flood that would put the city of Brainerd under 20 feet of water? A 37" rainfall? Recent communications with the DNR engineer involved say that the concern is that I will forget to turn off the pump I use to fill the ponds. It would take about 28+ days to overfill the largest ponds since I fill both ponds at the same time. I am at the ponds every day and the chance that I would not notice my ponds are getting too full is zero. What it really comes down to is that Mr. Goeman is attempting to get me to waste my money so that he can justify his arbitrary and capricious decision to revoke my license and cover-up the retaliation. I am NOT GOING TO DO IT! It will be much cheaper and more much more satisfying to take those SOB's to court. Mr. Goeman refuses to answer why I should breach my dikes so I asked him why again why? Mr. Johannes says I need to install the outrageously expensive secondary barrier suggested by Mr. Goeman before he will license my ponds for painted turtles and mussels. I ask him why? The barrier would have no effect on the escape of Minnesota turtles or mussels so that just re-inforces my belief that this is only about giving validation to Mr. Goeman's illegal arbitrary and capricious decision to revoke my license. I don't understand why the MN DNR tolerates such arrogance and unprofessional behavior. They continue to try to cover-up their retaliation and waste MN tax dollars. DNR Wastes $35,000 on sturgeon bid The DNR fisheries accepted a bid to produce 5,000 lake sturgeon fingerlings at $8 per fish for a total of $40,000. I was prevented from bidding on that same contract because Mr. Goeman arbitrarily removed them from my license shortly after I filed the first ethics complaint against Mr. Wingate in 2001. My bid would have been $1 per fish for a total cost of $5,000 thus Mr. Goemans arrogance cost $35,000 of taxpayers money. Absolute insanity For years I've told people that Fisheries would use the excuse that the truck carrying fish might overturn as it crosses a bridge and the containers might break open and two fish might survive and find their way to the water below and the two fish that survive might be male and female and they might find each other and they might find suitable spawning habitat and they might produce viable eggs and those eggs might hatch and the fry might survive and there might be a male and female produced from those fry and the male and female might find each other years later and they might find suitable spawning habitat and their eggs might hatch. Well......as it turns out the Fisheries has actually uses that excuse to deny importation permits and here I was using it as a joke because I thought it was so ridiculous. Evidently the patients ARE in control of the asylum in Minnesota. Contact the Commissioners and the Governor Click on this link to ask the Governor and DNR Send comment to restore accountability to the Fisheries division by forming an objective oversight committee of aquaculture. I will continue to add more documents as the DNR Fisheries continues to retaliate against my farm. I may also add other peoples stories of harassment by DNR Fisheries in the future if I can find any farmers who aren't afraid of retaliation. You can contact me here. Thank you for taking the time to read this very long document. Please pass the address to a friend. Here is an example of how the MN DNR turns a blind eye to the damage done by ATV riders Graphic photos of ATV ruts eroding into stream while DNR looks the other way |
|