|
|
| Representative Anderson and Hackbarth have introduced a bill to stop stocking of future Muskie lakes!
The bill will be heard in committee on Tuesday the 22nd of March. Contacting the author and co-author is a good idea but more importantly are the others who will be voting. This is where you need to let them know how important it is that the DNR be left to manage our lakes. It should not be left to Lake Associations and homeowners. These are our lakes, stocked with our license fees, not tax dollars.
Take a few minutes and tell them how you feel, share this with everyone you know, tell your friends we need to stop this in committee on Tuesday and to please act now. As always; Be respectful, It will take a few Minutes to call and leave a message or to email.
This is only the be beginning of a slippery slope. Next they will decide they don't want Waterfowlers, Ice Fisherman, Jet Ski's, Boat landings or all Fisherman. This needs to stop, its encroaching on our Constitutional right to Hunt and fish.
Sec. 12. Preservation of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. [Adopted, November 3, 1998]
This is not a law for the public good, its a law for the Private lakeshore owners, we don't want a European system where only the wealthy have access to water.
Call or write Now
Minnesota Legislature - Office of the Revisor of Statutes
Tom Hackbarth 651-296-2439 [email protected] Dale Lueck
651-296-2365
[email protected] Tom Anzelc
651-296-4936
[email protected] Mark Anderson
651-296-4293 [email protected] John (Jack) Considine Jr.
651-296-3248
[email protected] Tony Cornish 651-296-4240 [email protected] Rob Ecklund 651-296-2190 [email protected] Jerry Hertaus
651-296-9188 [email protected]
Debra Kiel
651-296-5091 [email protected] Eric Lucero
651-296-1534
[email protected] Denny McNamara 651-296-3135 [email protected] Carly Melin 651-296-0172 [email protected] Jason Metsa 651-296-0170 [email protected] Barb Yarusso 651-296-0141 [email protected] |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | here is the list of reps that you should be able to simply copy and paste into an email so you don't have to do it one by one..
everyone that fishes muskies in MN or even those that don't should take 2 minutes and send an email that you support the continued stocking and introduction of new waters in MN.... no excuse if the anti's win on this...
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 705
Location: Alex or Alek? | Thanks BNelson for listing all those! Email sent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Can someone eloquent in writing, versed in legislation, and at least competent in fisheries draft something up that us laymen can send? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Thanks for posting this, I sent an email to everyone on the list.
Now seeing Jaultmans post I probably should have had pointer proof read it.
sk |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| I took a stab at it...
"I learned of a bill introduced that prohibits the MN DNR from introducing muskellunge to bodies of water with no current muskellunge (muskie) population.
I'm not well versed in the legislative process or the limitations when it comes to state legislation concerning the DNR, but it seems to me an overstep for legislatures to place such boundaries as this on the state's fisheries and wildlife experts.
Is there evidence that the introduction of muskies adversely effects ecosystems, or, what is most feared, the populations of other game fish? I don't believe there is. In fact, it's not hard to find studies that suggest muskies have little-to-no impact on the populations of other fish in a body of water.
There are other points to be made concerning the positive economic impact muskies have in this state, but in the case of limiting the domain of Minnesota's fish and wildlife experts, I say there must be sound science behind such a case.
Thank for your time, and please seek out the available relevant information before making a decision on this bill.
Sincerely," |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| Email with pic of my son and my wife both included. We are not hot headed arrogant jerks. We respect the fishery more than most. We care about the environment and we care about the sport. For me it's about my family catching fish and having fun doing it. Both my wife and son will be getting awards tomorrow night and they couldn't be more excited and I couldn't be more proud. Sure we can head out and catch walleyes and crappies. We do that as well and enjoy it. But they love to fish muskies. No different than any other musky guy. The lures. The casting. The following of a fish and of course catching and releasing. I think some of these legislators have an unwarranted stigma about musky fisherman. That, along with all the rest of the false information they have been fed is untrue. Send pics of your wife and kids! An 8 year old smiling ear to ear with a big Muskie says way more than I could ever put into words
Edited by JacobG 3/17/2016 12:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 446
Location: Waconia, MN | Done! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 72
| Not trying to stoke the fire too much here but the co-author rep. Mark Anderson has an address on Gull Lake which is on the proposed stocking list. He probably is going to push pretty hard to get this bill through.
Let those voices be heard! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2276
Location: Chisholm, MN | Done! You do it too! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 745
| Feel free to copy and paste...
Respected Legislators
I am writing to express concern I have over the bill that has been introduced that would potentially stop future stocking of muskellunge in some Minnesota waters. As an avid fisherman of all species, I find it disappointing that the fear mongering and rhetoric of a small but vocal group of dissidents has gone so far as to be brought into potential legislation.
It has been scientifically proven that the concerns of these groups are unfounded and there position is based on false accusations, hyperbole and self directed interests.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources is the proper organization to make these decisions not individual lake associations or legislatures. To attmept to usurp there authority and allow for micro management does not allow for a holistic program that best serves the interests of all sportsmen.
Thank you for your time
Edited by Mojo1269 3/17/2016 2:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | email Tom Dietz sent...well said! Rep Anderson using his position for his own personal agenda is just flat wrong and corrupt!
As an avid angler residing here in Minnesota, I am truly appalled that Mark Anderson would propose a legislation to eliminate the stocking of muskellunge in waters that muskies are not native to originally.
Let's discuss the facts here. The only reason he has proposed this legislation is out of spite. He is a property owner on Gull Lake. He was vehemently against the DNR's proposal to stock Gull with muskies. Based on his personal emotions, he has created HF3207 to eliminate all future creations of musky lakes in Minnesota. This misuse of political power, purely based on personal emotions, is not fair to us as citizens who enjoy fishing for muskies.
Minnesota has a proud history of creating exceptional musky waters. Mille Lacs, Bemidji, Vermilion, Miltona and other lakes are fine examples of musky lakes that were created by the DNR and all of them are still exceptional walleye fishing lakes. To further my point, Lake of the Woods and Lake St. Clair are the top two muskellunge waters in the world, and they both are world class fisheries for walleyes, smallmouth bass, etc! Mark's position that muskellunge are detrimental to any given lake is biologically unsound.
Minnesota is still a must fish destination for many out of state anglers who want to catch big muskies, which equates to tourism revenue. Why then, would Minnesota propose a legislation that would prevent our state from creating more excellent musky fishing Lakes and more tourism revenue dollars?
Lastly, many of Minnesota's best walleye lakes were originally created through stocking, and are still maintained via stocking. Walleyes are predators too. Mark's argument in this legislation is that muskies are bad to introduce into lakes but walleyes are not. That is complete hypocrisy from a biological standpoint.
Please consider the facts presented here. Muskies do not hurt any lake. They are a low density predator. Leech Lake is yet another fine example of both walleyes and muskies living in harmony. A great fishing lake for both species! Please consider the real motive for this proposed legislation. Please consider the potential long term affect on loss of tourism dollars by such a sweeping legislation.
Vote NO to HF3207. This proposal is nothing more than Mark Anderson's personal vendetta against musky anglers, and was drawn up purely from his emotions on this issue. Not fair at all to thousands of Minnesota's anglers.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom Dietz |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Big Thanks to Tom and Everyone who has sent emails |
|
| |
|
Posts: 705
Location: Alex or Alek? | Here is what i sent, I probably should have someone proof read but if you like it feel free to copy and paste:
Hello, my name is Tyler Wenner, I grew up hunting and fishing for all species in this great state and have grown to respect the MN DNR and trust that what they do is the best for our states wildlife. It has came to my attention that a new bill is being introduced to stop the stocking of muskie. This all start with a select few people who believe that muskies will eat all the other game fish in the lake. Though our DNR, who are seen as one of the best DNR groups in all the country, believe this claim is false and have shown data proving this. Well a group that has nothing better to do and has plenty of resources to try to fight this claim have pushed this matter all the way to you. This is a group of people who have been fishing on the same spot for their whole life and do not understand that the world/water has changed around them, and because the fish have moved to a new location and now eat something a little bit different the same ole hook and worm, and they blame something else for their problems. They will also try to say that muskies are invasive species because they are not originally from the lake., but they are originally from Minnesota, and if we go by their theory than a lot of lakes that are currently stocked with walleyes and other fish should not be stocked as well. All I am asking is please listen to the DNR, the people who do this for a living, the people who are the professionals, the scientist, the biologist.
Thank you for your time |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | Sending my email tonight. Thanks for the work on this guys. I wish Muskies inc would be doing something a post on their Facebook. Did I miss something. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Here is what I sent:
Representative,
I wanted to take the time to write to you about the proposed legislation against stocking muskies in new waters in the state of Minnesota. I strongly oppose this bill and I urge you to do the same.
There is a lot of false information going around about muskies. The vast number of reasons muskies are "bad" should give some indication as to how truthful these claims are. First, it's muskies eat all the walleyes. That's been proven false. Next, muskies are invasive species. Not according to the definition of invasive species used by the State. Now it's muskies are a public health threat as they can attack small children and pets. All of these reason are not based in any rational reality, especially that last one. Meanwhile, some of the best walleye fisheries in the state also happen to be great musky fisheries. Lake of the Woods, Leech, Pelican, Vermilion, and many other in neighboring states and across the nation. Do you wonder why that is? I don't. Low density predator populations help provide balanced quality fisheries. On top of all this, muskies provide a tremendous positive economic impact for this state. People travel far and wide to come fish muskies in Minnesota. I, myself, took a job here so I could spend my free time fishing muskies. Supporting this bill will drive away anglers.
Let's keep politics out of fisheries management. Many fisheries managers are not qualified to do your job, and I doubt many of you are qualified to do theirs. Please vote no on HF 3207 when you have the opportunity. Thank you for the time and the difficult job you do.
Respectfully, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Maybe put a small gift of tobacco in with the letter? |
|
| |
|
| sent. thanks all. please, take a few minutes to do this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
Location: US | Email sent. It's unfortunate the tool introducing the bill is using his elected position to support his personal agenda. Dont worry, i didnt call him a tool in the email lol. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13
Location: Hanover, MN | I gave it a shot. Hope it's not too strong. Only took like two hours to get the words out of my head.
Respected Legislators,
I am writing to express the opinion of a passionate and respectful sportsman.
In recent days it has come to my attention of a proposed bill that would limit the stocking of muskellunge (Muskie) in lakes that have not been previously stocked. As an avid angler of many species of fish in this magnificent state I am quite frankly appalled that this proposed bill has made it all the way to legislation. It has been proposed by a small, however loud group of people that stocking of Muskie in lakes without naturally occurring populations will decimate the abundance of other game fish present in the lake such as Walleye.
The Minnesota Department of Natural resources believes that the statement provided by the small group of people to be false and no scientific evidence has been provided that Muskie would hurt other game fish populations. Stocking efforts of the DNR have produced some of the most highly praised Muskie fisheries in the country including Mille Lacs, Bemidji and Vermilion to name a few. Some of these waters are top tier walleye waters also. Furthermore Lake of the Woods is one of the top Muskie waters in the world in addition to being a world class fishery for walleyes and smallmouth bass.
Along with reputation for producing some astounding specimens of the incredible Muskie comes the buzz associated with it. Tourism from out of state anglers provides a significant amount of revenue to our state and local economies. To me it makes no sense to limit the amount of revenue small and large businesses in our state with the passing of a ridiculous bill like this one. Bait shops, restaurants, gas stations, guide services, hotels and parks all benefit from out of state anglers in addition to sales of out of state fishing licenses.
Finally, there is me. Like stated earlier am a multi species angler. Walleye, Smallmouth and Largemouth bass, Muskie, Pike, Sunfish, Crappie, Perch, Catfish, Lake Trout and even Carp! Fishing is more to me than any hobby, it is my absolute life. There is something I get out of fishing more than any other activity, peace. There is no other more enjoyable, relaxing, comforting and clean way to enjoy my time. It is worrying to me that a small group of people have set out to limit that for so many others like myself. People who claim to have the best interest of the fishery itself, but have no credible reasons to explain themselves. My honest opinion is a small group of people who feel that with enough persistence, money and skewed reality that they will be able to get enough individuals like yourselves to pass a bill like HF3207. Please do not pass this bill. I ask that you vote no on HF3207 or any bill in the future mirroring the same proposal. It is simply not right to press the beliefs of these individuals on the rest of us as acceptable.
If you have any other questions about Muskellunge feeding patterns please check for yourself. Google search for "what do Musky eat?". Please look if your curious otherwise please take the time to consider voting no on HF3207.
Respectfully,
Christopher Maas
Edited by Tonkaman 3/17/2016 7:58 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I sent my letters this evening after work so I've not gotten any responses. But apparently Tom Dietz has heard from a couple and they are apparently planning to support this legislation because it's what their constituents want. John Underhill - what's the next step, what can we do to try to swing things the other way? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 53
| Would it be worth an out of stater who travels to MN for Muskie fishing to send an email regarding economic impact/tourism $? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I would encourage it, if you fish here, email.
Does anyone know Sven? the guys that fish with Brad from Musky Mayhem? It would be cool to get a couple of those guys from Sweden to send emails... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I'm headed up to Brad and Carries tonight for the weekend. I think that's an excellent idea, will see if o can get some contact info for that group and even if they can't get a personal note to these legislators in time, I can tell the story and estimate some spending figures for the past however many years it's been. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 72
| I would strongly urge everyone to call all the offices and ask for your call to be counted as a NO on this vote. It might take you 15mins to call all of them but it will make a difference.
I was having dinner last night with a cousin who is a lobbyist at the state capitol and she said the state rep offices count calls and present that tally at their meetings. So it does make a difference.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Thanks Propster |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Just and update!
I got a note that they are getting lots of e-mails from people in MN and people who come to MN.
I was told that the letters from outside of MN carry lots of weight as well. If you are not from MN please send e-mails to the above committee members to help shut this down.
Thank You
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 53
| My out of state email has been sent to all of the reps listed above. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 431
| BNelson - 3/17/2016 2:14 PM
email Tom Dietz sent...well said! Rep Anderson using his position for his own personal agenda is just flat wrong and corrupt!
As an avid angler residing here in Minnesota, I am truly appalled that Mark Anderson would propose a legislation to eliminate the stocking of muskellunge in waters that muskies are not native to originally.
Let's discuss the facts here. The only reason he has proposed this legislation is out of spite. He is a property owner on Gull Lake. He was vehemently against the DNR's proposal to stock Gull with muskies. Based on his personal emotions, he has created HF3207 to eliminate all future creations of musky lakes in Minnesota. This misuse of political power, purely based on personal emotions, is not fair to us as citizens who enjoy fishing for muskies.
Minnesota has a proud history of creating exceptional musky waters. Mille Lacs, Bemidji, Vermilion, Miltona and other lakes are fine examples of musky lakes that were created by the DNR and all of them are still exceptional walleye fishing lakes. To further my point, Lake of the Woods and Lake St. Clair are the top two muskellunge waters in the world, and they both are world class fisheries for walleyes, smallmouth bass, etc! Mark's position that muskellunge are detrimental to any given lake is biologically unsound.
Minnesota is still a must fish destination for many out of state anglers who want to catch big muskies, which equates to tourism revenue. Why then, would Minnesota propose a legislation that would prevent our state from creating more excellent musky fishing Lakes and more tourism revenue dollars?
Lastly, many of Minnesota's best walleye lakes were originally created through stocking, and are still maintained via stocking. Walleyes are predators too. Mark's argument in this legislation is that muskies are bad to introduce into lakes but walleyes are not. That is complete hypocrisy from a biological standpoint.
Please consider the facts presented here. Muskies do not hurt any lake. They are a low density predator. Leech Lake is yet another fine example of both walleyes and muskies living in harmony. A great fishing lake for both species! Please consider the real motive for this proposed legislation. Please consider the potential long term affect on loss of tourism dollars by such a sweeping legislation.
Vote NO to HF3207. This proposal is nothing more than Mark Anderson's personal vendetta against musky anglers, and was drawn up purely from his emotions on this issue. Not fair at all to thousands of Minnesota's anglers.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tom Dietz
Lake St Clair is not that great for walleyes anymore, and perch are on the decline as well. We fight the battle here too with the "muskies ate all our walleyes" guys. I personally believe that changes in water conditions, overfishing for those species, Canadian farm runoff ruining spawning grounds, and changes to the bait structure are to blame. Ive never been to Minnesota but Im drafting my email to your legislatures now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | recommendation:
- don't write a narrative
- use bullets / keep it compact
- you want people to read and retain
- anybody read what EA writes?
- make sense?
- time is money ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | Emails have been sent. Thank you to all who are reaching out to our legislators on this. My kid's future musky fishing adventures appreciate your support!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Here's mine, hope it helps
Dear representatives,
I am writing to express my concerns for bill HF3207. While I do realize the interest in those that belong to lake associations to prevent the introduction of muskellunge (or muskies for short) into their local waters, I implore you to consider the broader picture. Lakes are a public entity and do not belong to the property owners who surround them. The increase in popularity of lakes with muskies present may be a nuisance to some but overall it is a tremendous boost to the local economy and adds new recourses for residents and nonresidents alike. Every significant study has proven that muskies do not pose a significant impact to the overall fish community. In fact it is well known that some of the best multi species fisheries in North America have sustained native populations of northern pike and muskies as well. It is also well documented science that muskies have very poor reproductive success and therefore their populations are well regulated through stocking with no risk of overpopulation. The arguments that muskies are invasive is also a poorly thought out argument as many fish species in the state of Minnesota are introduced to lakes as well as their populations being maintained through stocking. Walleyes being the number one most stocked fish species in Minnesota by a large margin. The final argument of muskies being aggressive and potentially attacking people is absurd to the highest degree. As intelligent rational people please do not give validity to such an antiquated claim. Many of the best muskie waters in Minnesota are also some of the most popular swimming and boating destinations and the lack of ANY muskie attacks is proof enough.
I am an out of state tourist and currently have 4 different friends I travel to your state with every year. I spend around 22 days annually in Minnesota pursuing this great fish and have routinely stayed in xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx, xxxx and have also stayed in xxxx and xxxx. I am planning a trip to a resort on a more remote lake as well that is only drawing me because it was stocked with muskies. All dollars being brought into your state only because of the muskellunge program. It is also well known that Minnesota has to this point one of the best muskie programs in the nation and it brings tourism from all over the Midwest, east and even south eastern United States. In fact in recent years many have began traveling to Minnesota instead of Canada due to the quality of the fisheries now present.
I understand you are in a difficult situation, some of you even passionate about this as you feel a threat to your own interests as a lake shore property owner. I also realize the voices of some lake associations have become louder in recent days. However I ask you to do your homework. Before voting to no longer allow stocking of new lakes look up the scientific studies, consider the revenue generated by this fish and the potential for lost tourism, understand Minnesota lakes to belong to the public and finally give recognition to the MN DNR for literally putting your state in the spotlight nationally as one of the best maintained and improved fisheries in the world. A model that has already influenced regulation in other states that are realizing the positive impacts. Please continue doing the tremendous jobs you've been doing and please leave the management of Minnesota's rivers and lakes to the trained and qualified professionals in the DNR who have the data and science to back up their decisions. They have been doing a wonderful job making your state one of the most popular fishing destinations in the country and one that if allowed to continue will draw people like myself for decades to come.
Thank you for your time
Sincerely,
Andy Swinton |
|
| |
|
Posts: 143
| http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/pressrelease.asp?pressid=1...
Here's a letter Mark Anderson wrote regarding the situation and his stance being a owner on gull lake. He states people against musky are overwhelmingly contacting him on the issue. We need to show an overwhelmingly amount of support for muskies and the amount of tax dollars our hobby provides. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| If Mark feels the state reps and lakeshore owners are better qualified than the DNR to decide if muskie stocking is good or bad, perhaps the DNR and the general public could vote on whether or not we need MNsure. I mean, why let the respective experts have a say? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1200
Location: Walker, MN | Emails sent. Let's stop this nonsense. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | I agree Sled. These politicians do not have time to read 1000 thesis's on why this is wrong, unfortunate as that may be. What matters most is how many people take time to contact them.
I also think copying and pasting a "form letter" doesn't have the same effect as a few sentences "from the heart" so to speak. Form letters are to easily dismissed as coming from a concentrated group rather than the public at large. Just my opinion.
My emails sent. All friends and family have been notified to please contact these folks as well.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | burningdubs - 3/18/2016 12:20 PM
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/pressrelease.asp?pressid=1...
Here's a letter Mark Anderson wrote regarding the situation and his stance being a owner on gull lake. He states people against musky are overwhelmingly contacting him on the issue. We need to show an overwhelmingly amount of support for muskies and the amount of tax dollars our hobby provides.
I get a kick out of the last line of his letter. Pot, meet kettle.
"Let's hope the DNR acknowledges these opinions so our government can start working for taxpayers instead of exerting its will on them."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 72
| This out of stater sent an email. It only took about five minutes. Hopefully everyone else will follow suit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| This is why he is pushing so hard for it. So when he retires he can sit back and spend all of his time fishing gull lake and in his mind not having to compete with musky killing all of his walleyes in the future....... :)....
I could be totally wrong here but hey, this guy has made my blood pressure go up a bit today. (See below)
State Representative Mark Anderson
579 State Office BuildingState Office Building
100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
651-296-4293
For more information contact: Chad Urdahl 651-296-5520
Posted: Feb 15 2016 3:02PM Share on:
PRESS RELEASE
Rep. Mark Anderson to retire from House following current term
Edited by bbradley 3/18/2016 2:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 154
Location: MN | I sent a brief message stating that I oppose such legislation. Copied and pasted BNelson rep list and also added my rep Bob Detmer.
I should also add I didn't read most of the letters posted, they were too long.
Edited by Born 3/18/2016 4:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 274
| Emails sent. Another out of stater for Voting "No" on this bill! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 9
Location: Leech Lake | Hadn't logged on for a bit, glad I did, letters have been sent by another out of stater that fishes MN a lot.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3136
| Invite these reps to the musky expo in three weeks. State capitol is right down the road from Concordia.
Let them walk in and see the madhouse crowd of kids making muskie lures at Georges tackle shop booth, no better example of the future for this sport. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 121
Location: Forest Lake, MN & Bemidji, MN | Email sent. Thanks for posting all the info in this thread, made it easy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
Location: Minnesota | Copied from another post.....Please contact the additional folks indicated on this email.
Collectively we are powerful and can kill this bill if we all lend a little support to opposing it by taking a few minutes to contact these legislators, committee members and a handful of others. There is absolutely nothing a legislator hates more than controversial bills - especially in an election year - like this year is! We need to give them a reason not to hear the bill or to oppose/kill the bill - this can be done by contacting the following folks.
Please provide them a respectful phone call or email informing them that you oppose the bill (HF 3207) for one or all of the following reasons; (1) you support muskie fishing, stocking and expansion; (2) you support rural resort owners, other small business owners, and economic development in Greater Minnesota; (3) you support the experts at the MN DNR and their scientifically sound approach to managing muskies in the state and you categorically reject the junk science and hysteria being peddled around on this issue; (4) that you are concerned about your rights and will be monitoring the issue; (5) whatever else is important to you.
These are the legislators to whom the bill has been referred to in the House. http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?comm=890...
Please also consider contacting the Speaker of the House Kurt Daudt (651-296-5364, [email protected]); Senate President Tom Bakk (651-296-8881 or email form at http://www.senate.mn/members/member_bio.php?mem_id=1003), and Governor Dayton (800-657-3717 or email form http://mn.gov/governor/contact-us/form/). Don't forget the DNR Commissioner Tom Landwehr too at [email protected].
If a companion or similiar bill makes it to the Senate these folks will be hearing it so it may be worth striking early and letting them know you oppose the bill too. Senator Schmit sits on this Committee and Chairs this Committee's Subcomittee on Fish and Wildlife so it's worth ensuring he is contacted.
http://www.senate.mn/committees/committee_members.php?ls=&cmte_id=3...
Again, we can kill this effort if we all stand together and we all take a few minutes out of our busy lives to let the elected officials know we support muskie fishing, the stocking of muskies and the expansion of musky waters in the state and that we are all stand in solidarity in our opposition to this bill (HF 3207). Thank you for any efforts you are willing to lend in this battle for our beloved muskie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I fish MN, and will also make contact.
I too hope some of my Muskies Inc. dollars assist in making an orchestrated effort to not only thwart this but actively promote the sport/species/advantages of having Muskellunge fisheries, to those in MN government.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/18/2016 8:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 23
| I'm sure glad that Mark Anderson is doing his personal bidding in the taxpayers dime. I wish these clowns would let the DNR do what they are paid to do, and do their own jobs. The legislature has bigger problems than trying to micromanage the DNR. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | Emails sent. One to my local rep and copied to all the ones listed.
I can see him opposing the stocking of Gull Lake as any homeowner has the right to voice an opinion but to shut down the entire system is ridiculous. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Couple things. Spent the last hour or two talking to Brad Hoppe. He doesn't guide the "Swedes" any more but they still come over every year, a couple of them come 4-6 times a year. Strictly for the muskie fishing. Even if he can't get hold of them to write a personal note he'll go over some of the details and estimate all the money they have spent and spend and we'll send that to a few key people.
On another front, my daughter's friend works for a couple reps at the capitol. Rep Lueck is the vice chair of the outdoor recreation committee. She also does stuff for the majority whip. She says they will both have influence in the process for this bill, and she has their ear. Lueck opposes this bill.
She says many of the reps have a concern and mistrust of the DNR, probably because of Mille Lacs walleye situation. But she said they have received a ton of push back on this bill and it's bothering some. She'll have more for me on Monday
Edited by Propster 3/18/2016 11:03 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Propster - 3/18/2016 11:01 PM
Couple things. Spent the last hour or two talking to Brad Hoppe. He doesn't guide the "Swedes" any more but they still come over every year, a couple of them come 4-6 times a year. Strictly for the muskie fishing. Even if he can't get hold of them to write a personal note he'll go over some of the details and estimate all the money they have spent and spend and we'll send that to a few key people.
On another front, my daughter's friend works for a couple reps at the capitol. Rep Lueck is the vice chair of the outdoor recreation committee. She also does stuff for the majority whip. She says they will both have influence in the process for this bill, and she has their ear. Lueck opposes this bill.
She says many of the reps have a concern and mistrust of the DNR, probably because of Mille Lacs walleye situation. But she said they have received a ton of push back on this bill and it's bothering some. She'll have more for me on Monday
Good info. Keep the push back coming. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 676
Location: Wisconsin | You have to check out this Mark Anderson's Facebook page.
https://www.facebook.com/StateRepresentativeMarkAnderson/?fref=ts
Real winner that one is. I think he needs to get his own "head in his ass award" for thinking that Muskies are invasive....LOL.
Attachments
----------------
 markanderson.jpg (11KB - 378 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 72
| Not being from MN, I knew nothing about Mark Anderson. I checked out his Facebook page and realized I agree with him on nearly every issue other than this musky situation. Hopefully he can be reasoned with, and hopefully all the emails will have some sort of impact. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| The complete lack of civility shown on that page is what I was referring to. A leader behaving in that manner is a big part of the reason this country is as polarized as it is these days. I wasn't commenting on any particular issue, I suspect I would also agree with a lot of his positions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 72
| Propster, you are spot on. I wasn't offended at all by the posts. He just told it like it was. I appreciate someone that goes totally against the PC crap we are smothered in. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| There's a difference between sharp discourse and the gutter politics of this day and age, which are exemplified by Mr. Anderson's FB page and many, many politicians. I agree the PC movement damaged this country, but acting like a 3rd grader isn't the way forward. I certainly won't be encouraging my children to look to politicians as role models.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think we all agree HF 3207 is a bunch of garbage and emails need to be sent. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | Much can be said for ones approach. I would also say many folks can read way to much into things that are posted on the internet vs speaking directly with someone. The Internet is the single best and worst thing to ever happen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| I agree Nathan Google is good and bad |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | If you want to discuss politics in general, get thee to the basement. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Park Rapids, MN | Emails sent, for those who haven't yet please do the same! |
|
| |
|
| I requested the comments from Gull lake and went through them, I cant get the file to load but I'm sure the DNR will have a link to it. The total input by phone, letter, email, online and public meeting was 535. Support or no issues with Muskie stocking was 61%, 3 people needed more information, 2 spearers were concerned with closing the lake to spearing but supported it if it did not make a ban; and the rest opposed. I saw reference to a lake survey from a couple years ago from anglers on the water. 41% supported it 29% were undecided and 30% opposed. 327 with no issues or supported stocking 202 opposed 3 need more info
Edited by Muskiefool 3/20/2016 6:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| Watch "Steel Dragon - Stand Up And Shout!" on YouTube
https://youtu.be/Jaz-KmTid3U
This is what we need to do !!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 274
| It looks as though a Companion Bill has been added SF 3059:
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=senate&f=SF3059&ssn=0&y=...
|
|
| |
|
| No hearing scheduled in the Senate, we'll see if it gets one. I think it will depend on the House hearing on Tuesday and what comes out of that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | I feel bad for the people in the area because this could result in major tourism dollars in the next decades if it goes well. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | curious what if anything muskies inc is doing on this? we pay $35 per person per year seems to me this is a good cause for some of our dues to be put to use |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | Bnelson,
The MN chapters have been sharing this information with their chapter members. Everyone is encouraged to e-mail or call to give some input on this issue. The president of M.I. has written a letter that will be read in the committee hearing.
M.I. along with the MMPA are in contact with the legislators and will be heard.
Everyone is still encouraged to make calls or e-mails if you have not already done so.
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | right, each individual chapter in MN, I get that... but what about the national org? They have a Facebook page with 4500 followers and have said nothing on their page about this. I have emailed all my musky buds to write emails and have done so myself and I live in WI and feel like I alone have done more than Muskies Inc nationally based on what I have seen .... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | The big thing when you're writing to a legislator in regards to a bill that is about to be heard is to in the first sentence or header state your opinion. It's usually the aids that look at the emails and they do a quick for or against with these emails to give the legislator a heads up as to where public support is. Absolutely speak of your personal experiences, but lead with your position.
Shawn Kellett |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Bnelson, Carol Phillips has been in contact with his legislator (and others) as well as has sent a statement regarding the International's position.
|
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | thanks Treats.... good to know ... just seems like the Anti's have organized a lot more than those of us who support the new waters being stocked.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I wouldn't necessarily say that. We've had more ink on our side then theirs. We've got dozens of people working behind the scenes at the moment. We have a presence at the capital (granted they have an actual legislator). We just haven't been crying a river.
It is scary that it has actually gotten this far, but it speaks to the work that everyone's been doing. These people's ONLY chance now is through through the Capital as they've been blocked on any other front they've brought this fight. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 12
| Dear Respected Legislators:
I am writing to you today to express my opposition to the proposed bill HF3207, which would prevent the DNR from expanding Muskellunge into new waters of MN. There a few key details that I would like to point out that my opposition rests on:
I understand that a fair amount of controversy exists about muskies in the state today surrounding specific lakes the DNR would like to stock. Whether or not those lakes are the right fit for muskies should be left up to the DNR. I do feel the DNR should consider both biology and public interest. In my opinion, it is not your job to micromanage the DNR. Please let them do their jobs.
This law is far too broad. To limit the expansion of muskies into ANY new lake is ridiculous. Muskie fishing is a growing sport and brings a good amount of money to local economies near good Muskie waters. Whether or not the specific proposed lakes today are the right fit for muskies doesn’t mean that those lakes, or any other lake, might be a perfect fit tomorrow, next year, or 10 years from now. To completely eliminate the potential for expansion of musky waters is unfair for the growing number of Minnesotans that enjoy Muskies and benefit economically from them.
Muskie fishing is a fantastic part of living in Minnesota and one that I personally love to do with my family and friends. I hope to be able to continue to do so in the future and pass the heritage of the sport to the next generation. If you aren’t familiar with the excitement of Muskie fishing and would like to know firsthand, you’re welcome in my boat anytime. Please consider my thoughts on this bill.
Sincerely,
Casey Boutain
Starbuck, MN
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | ^ Perfect! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 73
Location: Minnesota | Hearing to be held tomorrow (Tuesday, March 22) on HF3207. If you can make it to oppose the bill please do so.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF320... |
|
| |
|
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | Representatives, I am writing to express concern over HF 3207 and to ask that you please not support this bill. HF 3207 would potentially stop future stocking of muskellunge in some Minnesota waters is not how fisheries management should be conducted in MN or any other state. As an avid fisherman, of all species, I find it disappointing that a small but vocal group has convinced legislators that fisheries should be managed based on feelings and not science. The concerns of these groups are unfounded and their position is based on feelings and not sound scientific resource management. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources hires biologists with the experience to make correct fisheries management decisions, the legislature is not the place to make these decisions. The legislature should be supporting the rights of sportsmen per the MN Constitution: Sec. 12. Preservation of hunting and fishing. Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. [Adopted, November 3, 1998] HF 3207 is not management for the public good. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Will Schultz
Edited by Will Schultz 3/21/2016 1:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Word is that the bill will be amended right off the bat in committee today. Stay tuned... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | I did get 1 response from the reps i emailed. "I am on your side" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | They are working on a compromise, but may get defeated outright. Lots of feedback against |
|
| |
|
| What's to compromise? Should have been trashed hours ago. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | You really don't understand how the game is played do you. Even though I agree with you. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | The bill made it through the committee to the general register for a full house vote. For a little bit I had hope that it was going to get killed in the committee because it got hammered in testimony. Everyone here should send a big thank you to Rep. Metsa for his comments and questions. He was spot on with all of his questions and his verbal thrashing of this bill.
I don't know what more there is to do beyond continued emailing and contacting the representatives. It may be worth mentioning that not all musky anglers are members of muskies inc. One of the main people tied to this bill tried to claim that because there are only 7500 muskies inc members nation wide that the sport isn't growing as claimed by the DNR. A completely false misrepresentation of the data. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Park Rapids, MN | Well that sucks! I was hoping it would never make it our of committee. Any thoughts on the chance it gets passed and if so the chance that Governor Dayton would sign it. Might not be a bad idea to stay in contact with his office as well if it makes it that far. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I have no clue on what the bill's chances are from this point forward. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Park Rapids, MN | Here is a link about today's committee hearing and Youtube video on the page. Take a look and listen:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sessiondaily/SDView.aspx?StoryID=1... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Pointer,
Do you know what the sales numbers are on the Walleye stamp? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Park Rapids, MN | Found these figures from 2012. Walleye stamp validation: 27,477. Couldn't find anything more recent.
Edited by Baldyhook 3/22/2016 7:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Park Rapids, MN | For 2013 it was 21,064 and for 2014 it was 19,467. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Baldyhook - 3/22/2016 6:14 PM
Here is a link about today's committee hearing and Youtube video on the page. Take a look and listen:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sessiondaily/SDView.aspx?StoryID=1...
Thanks for posting. The supporters of this bill didn't have very good facts to support their position.
For those in the know, please keep us up to date with the status of this and let us know who we can contact to show our support for the MN muskie program. Edited by Nershi 3/22/2016 7:16 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Here is a first hand report from Travis who there today to testify against the bill. I didn't even realize you could sign up to do such a thing. Good to know. Also, it would seem we should really be writing our own emails.
"Today was a sad day in my opinion. For the first time in my life I went to bat at our state capital in response to something i believe in. Then I saw how our government really works and realized how much of a joke it is. That bill had zero chance to be killed today because chairman Hackbarth was pushing it through before the hearing even began. He didn't listen to anything anybody said, even though every human in that room could tell it was a bad bill. The committee tried to kill it because there was zero facts or reasoning behind the bill despite certain lakeshore owners that didn't want muskies. The only hope is that tomorrow it doesn't pass through the next level. From what I learned today the only person that really matters will be the chairman tomorrow. Apparently the chairman tomorrow is on our side. I guess we will see. The biggest thing that stood out to me today was the lack of support from anglers. When I signed up to speak today I was the only person opposed to the bill to testify. There were 12 lakeshore owners there to testify for the bill. Muskies inc did also sign in to testify but that was it. Also, there were comments from the committee about all of the copied and pasted emails from Muskie anglers. I guess if we are going to be contacting our representatives, it might be wise for people to actually speak their minds instead of copying someone else's emails. Hopefully tomorrow is a brighter day." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | castmaster - 3/22/2016 6:36 PM
Pointer,
Do you know what the sales numbers are on the Walleye stamp?
I don't. Sorry. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | Said to hear that the format which is used to communicate ones message matters. I guess I can expect a customized letter from those running for office moving forward. Anyone who brought up the issue of canned letters is a goofball. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 154
Location: MN | Mine was my own, very short and to the point. So simple. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Propster - 3/22/2016 7:54 PM
Here is a first hand report from Travis who there today to testify against the bill. I didn't even realize you could sign up to do such a thing. Good to know. Also, it would seem we should really be writing our own emails.
"Today was a sad day in my opinion. For the first time in my life I went to bat at our state capital in response to something i believe in. Then I saw how our government really works and realized how much of a joke it is. That bill had zero chance to be killed today because chairman Hackbarth was pushing it through before the hearing even began. He didn't listen to anything anybody said, even though every human in that room could tell it was a bad bill. The committee tried to kill it because there was zero facts or reasoning behind the bill despite certain lakeshore owners that didn't want muskies. The only hope is that tomorrow it doesn't pass through the next level. From what I learned today the only person that really matters will be the chairman tomorrow. Apparently the chairman tomorrow is on our side. I guess we will see. The biggest thing that stood out to me today was the lack of support from anglers. When I signed up to speak today I was the only person opposed to the bill to testify. There were 12 lakeshore owners there to testify for the bill. Muskies inc did also sign in to testify but that was it. Also, there were comments from the committee about all of the copied and pasted emails from Muskie anglers. I guess if we are going to be contacting our representatives, it might be wise for people to actually speak their minds instead of copying someone else's emails. Hopefully tomorrow is a brighter day."
The MN House Website had a disclaimer beneath the scheduled bill hearings that due to the interest in the bills, if people wanted to speak about a bill they needed to send an email to get put on the agenda.
Unfortunately, as Travis eludes to in those comments, no amount of testimony was going to kill this bill today. I will say that the majority of support for this bill appears to come from the Republican side. Obviously, choosing who to vote for should be much broader than someone's stance on musky stocking, but the DFL Reps absolutely hammered this bill on how ridiculous it is. Just some food for thought. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | You're right, how they vote on a muskie bill is pretty minor to how they vote on lots of other things, but I guess I'm surprised by the apparent party support you describe. Below is some information I just got from my daughters friend at the capital.
"This is what I just received from the chairman's committee administrator (she sets the schedule)
"Yes, the bill is going to the GR, but isn't being scheduled to be heard on the floor anytime soon. As a point of clarification, the bill was amended to only ban stocking in 6 specific NEW lakes that the DNR had chosen to stock. It does not affect the DNR's ability to stock any other lakes in the state. There has been a lot of misinformation being passed around"
GR means to the House Floor for a vote by the entire body
I don't know yet which 6 are being referred to but I'd bet it includes Gull |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Here's the amendment. It's the lakes proposed this year. Why they would just pick these seems so arbitrary.
Attachments
----------------
image.png (58KB - 355 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| Watching the hearing on YouTube. I typically vote Republican and I was disappointed that my party came off looking like hacks for the most part (including my own representative) and the DFL members offered thoughtful comments and questions. Rep. Metsa was particularly well informed and asked very pointed questions. The DNR's representative did an excellent job. With regard to the Dark House association, I thought that they weren't going to fight us on new lakes if we didn't oppose spearing bans being lifted. Did they just stab us in the back like a trophy northern?
Edited by kustomboy 3/22/2016 8:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| Pretty much. The 1st A in MDAA doesn't stand for angler, it stands for ***hole. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20
Location: Park Rapids, MN | I agree with the personal note part of things. I wrote my own email very short with 3 main bullet points thanked the legislator for his/her time and asked them to respond to me with his/her feelings on the bill. To date only one has. I also sent an email to the governor and my senate representative. I'll keep emailing and encouraging others to do the same.
Edited by Baldyhook 3/22/2016 9:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 89
| I am bummed for you guys, I am an Iowa guy so I don't know how far my opinion goes with your legislators until it is to late. My father and I spend 5 or 6k a year fishing in and buying tackle from Minnesota. By the time I have voted with my wallet and gone some place new the battle is already lost.
I will admit I have almost no respect for our elected leaders at this point. The honest people who think they can make a difference are drowned out by the career prostitutes with there hands out.
I do think you might have a couple things going for you in this election year.
1. If the bill does not pass before the MN expo you have an edge. BLANKET it with fliers, even more then when the 55 inch limit was up. Put together a quality hand out, include all the contact information for all the legislators. Make it clear who is on our side and who is not so the people can praise those who have aided the cause and those who are enemies of public waters. Make sure one ends up in the hands of every warm body in the door. Every guy who walks in probably has 3 or 4 buddies who couldn't make it but wish they could have. When they talk about the expo it will be one of the first things spoken of. If they are smart they will have this passed before thousands of eyes who have an interest in the future of our sport gather in one place to celebrate it.
2. I feel like we tend to look at the small picture. We look at this as a couple lakes and some misinformed people and think if we show them that we don't mean any harm and that what we are doing isn't hurting anyone but our own pocket books they will understand. THAT IS 100% WRONG. These people don't care about any of that. They want to restrict the rights of the public and lay claim to something. Once they have control of it they want to enforce their judgment of who, and how their resource is used.
I think it might be better to broaden the view of what they are doing. Lake shore property owners are pushing your legislators in an attempt to restrict usage of public waters funded by tax payer dollars. This is an attack on all public waters in the entire state. Rich private property owners (why not America is all identity politics anymore) are attempting to restrict fair public use and demand tax payer dollars to enhance resources they will block access to. We should demand our legislators stand up for public resources and not bow to a small politically well connected few. Soon after they gain this new control of our waterways, private interests will seek the power to close public launches, Use public funds to stock an improve increasingly private lakes and enforce other private rules on the greater public.
I'm sure there are many of you out there who are 100 times the writer I am, even in my most inspired moments. I am sure you could clearly convey these points to a broad audience. But in the end this is more then just a couple lakes and a few fish.
If this works they will continue down this precedent and we will find more and more doors shut. If it works in Minnesota they will use it in Wisconsin and Iowa and further. Don't be fooled! They don't care about the fish, They don't want US to be on the lake they consider to be their property.
Just the thoughts of an out of state guy, who has lost all hope in our elected officials.
Good luck
Colin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Well spoken Colin. I think a brief letter outlining your personal impact on the economy surrounding Minnesota muskie lakes would go a long way. Including the fact you pay a lot more for your license. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| Here is a direct link to the YouTube video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJ-yW3CGF8g |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN |
Does no one else see the irony in the expert testifier that Mr. Anderson brought forward. Lets say you agree with Mr. Andersons position that the fisheries in the northern part of the state have been miss managed. He then brings forward the Retired commissioner of the Brainerd area who spent 30 years of running that area as an expert on what fish should be stocked and not stocked???? They showed their hand this isn't about fishing or Muskie or walleye its about lake usage and the fact that owners around the lake don't want us surfs on the lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | NathanH - 3/23/2016 8:09 AM
Does no one else see the irony in the expert testifier that Mr. Anderson brought forward. Lets say you agree with Mr. Andersons position that the fisheries in the northern part of the state have been miss managed. He then brings forward the Retired commissioner of the Brainerd area who spent 30 years of running that area as an expert on what fish should be stocked and not stocked???? They showed their hand this isn't about fishing or Muskie or walleye its about lake usage and the fact that owners around the lake don't want us surfs on the lake.
Yeah, that was pretty laughable. I wish someone would have asked the question, "so if these lakes have been mismanaged wouldn't you be one of the main people to blame, yet here you are saying how they should be managed?"
He was a useless testimony. And got verbally abused by Rep Metsa and Constadine. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Honestly when I first saw this bill I couldn't stop laughing, I literally thought it was a joke. I was thinking there is no way that anything like this would ever be taken seriously. And now here we are. There are so many things these politicians should be focusing on improving in this state rather worrying about their lake being stocked with muskies. Secondly, I really think that this whole situation would be going differently if the DNR decided not to propose stocking Gull lake. This is one of the busiest northern lakes and being one of the most expensive lakes to live on. Why would to risk peeing off a lot of lake owners who have tons of money and have the contacts to make bills like this get passed. Money controls everything, always has always will.
I'm a very civil person but this Mark Anderson seems like a complete stiff. This whole matter makes me hate politicians even more.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 61
| Sad. I hate politics so much. All about special interest of a few, regardless of their party lines.
Sound logic, science and interest of public seem to be a thing of the past.
I appreciate the efforts of those of you who have gone above sending emails, etc. As a kid who grew up in MN exploring the vast number of public waters and land and now lives in WI, good to see there are folks who care that future generations are afforded the same opportunities.
Hopefully someone with some leverage and half a brain can kick this bill and others that restrict access to public water and land to the curb!
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Good point Nathan. The supporters of this bill really didn't have their act together. My two favorite parts of the video were.
1. Rep Anderson brings a retired DNR worker to testify for this bill. One of his main points is Gull Lake has excellent walleye fishing and he is worried introduction of muskies could jeopardize that. Shortly later Rep Anderson says that the walleye fishing in Gull has got really bad. He says even the guides on the lake complain about the walleye fishing. He claims putting musky in the lake will hurt the walleye population even more.
2. A representative says they used to be able to catch limits of 10-12 inch crappies on his 200 some acre lake. The crappie fishing was so good that there would be 300-500 ice houses on the lake in the winter. He then blames the DNR introducing walleyes in the lake as the reason he can now only catch 6-8 inch crappies and says introducing muskies could do the same. I'm sure the hundreds of ice houses had nothing to do with it. Kinda reminds me of the walleye fisherman who claim the muskies eat all the walleyes yet they are out keeping their limit as much as possible.
Some of the points the rep from Virginia made were really solid.
When the final vote was made it sounded to me like there was a lot more opposed to the bill than those who supported it. The chairman clearly wanted this bill to go through no matter what testimony was made so that didn't matter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???
This was one battle in the war and was effectively a political "push". We are at the Capital again today and will be testifying in the Senate. This bill still has a LONG way to go and there are many ways it can be derailed. As some have said there was more opposition in the voice vote then proponents, that will play if it ever gets to the floor.
Like I said, be ready and we'll let you know when to start carpet bombing the capital with emails.
Shawn |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Bbradley - don't want the DNR to pick Gull cause it may pee off some people? So we cave on that one. Once that precedent is set, what's to keep any lake assn from introducing legislation keeping "their" lake off limits. As Rob Kimm says, their ownership stops at the water line, what makes them any higher priority than any of the rest of us on public waters. Politicians really are starting to pee me off. John Underhill tied to talk to Hackbarth about the bill and he wouldn't. When did they get so high and mighty - last I checked they work for and represent us! Let's hope the good politicians outnumber the bad ones on this deal and this gets defeated. I sent some new emails to a few of the reps thanking them for their efforts. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Muskie Treats - 3/23/2016 10:17 AM
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor???
Shawn
Love it. Thanks Shawn |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | P.S. For those younger folk that may disagree that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, I suggest you watch the movie Animal House. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Propster - 3/23/2016 10:18 AM
Bbradley - don't want the DNR to pick Gull cause it may pee off some people? So we cave on that one. Once that precedent is set, what's to keep any lake assn from introducing legislation keeping "their" lake off limits. As Rob Kimm says, their ownership stops at the water line, what makes them any higher priority than any of the rest of us on public waters. Politicians really are starting to pee me off. John Underhill tied to talk to Hackbarth about the bill and he wouldn't. When did they get so high and mighty - last I checked they work for and represent us! Let's hope the good politicians outnumber the bad ones on this deal and this gets defeated. I sent some new emails to a few of the reps thanking them for their efforts.
I know that as tax payers we have the same equal rights as lake owners do. And therefor they should not be able to dictate the outcome of of their lake. It solely should be up to the DNR to manage MN lakes. My point is that gull lake home owners have a reputation as thinking they own that lake, and usually very passionate about voicing their opinion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | Don't worry I'm getting us a little extra power on the issue. We should be good as long as we don't need to hit a curveball.
Edited by NathanH 3/23/2016 10:44 AM
Attachments
----------------
image.jpeg (51KB - 423 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | bbradley - 3/23/2016 10:37 AM
Propster - 3/23/2016 10:18 AM
Bbradley - don't want the DNR to pick Gull cause it may pee off some people? So we cave on that one. Once that precedent is set, what's to keep any lake assn from introducing legislation keeping "their" lake off limits. As Rob Kimm says, their ownership stops at the water line, what makes them any higher priority than any of the rest of us on public waters. Politicians really are starting to pee me off. John Underhill tied to talk to Hackbarth about the bill and he wouldn't. When did they get so high and mighty - last I checked they work for and represent us! Let's hope the good politicians outnumber the bad ones on this deal and this gets defeated. I sent some new emails to a few of the reps thanking them for their efforts.
I know that as tax payers we have the same equal rights as lake owners do. And therefor they should not be able to dictate the outcome of of their lake. It solely should be up to the DNR to manage MN lakes. My point is that gull lake home owners have a reputation as thinking they own that lake, and usually very passionate about voicing their opinion.
The problem with this is, the same could be said about most lakes with homes on them. Not just in MN, but anywhere. Lake property owners feel they own the lake/should have more say simply because they live there. |
|
| |
|
| Then I should be able to get a bill to limit the number of vehicles that use the county (public) road that butts up to my back yard. Nothin worse than a truck rumbling down the road when I'm enjoying my crumpets and tea on the deck. It must be just awful to be a lakeshore owner watching people relax and enjoy life and to hear the faint splash of a muskie lure on occasion over the buzzing sound of their weedroller .
Edited by mnmusky 3/23/2016 1:06 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Here's the problem with letting this one though: It sets a very dangerous precedent of micromanaging what can and can't be done on public waters though the legislature.
Imagine this: I have a boat on Minnetonka and don't like the fact that I have to dodge walleye fishermen on my way home from Fletcher's at night. I could go to my Rep and ask them to outlaw walleye stocking because all the boat out at night pose as "safety hazard".
Crazy I know, but if we let it go they can use this to stop the next lakes that come up in perpetuity. There's a lot more at stake here then just Gull. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | Pointerpride102 - 3/23/2016 8:52 AM
NathanH - 3/23/2016 8:09 AM
Does no one else see the irony in the expert testifier that Mr. Anderson brought forward. Lets say you agree with Mr. Andersons position that the fisheries in the northern part of the state have been miss managed. He then brings forward the Retired commissioner of the Brainerd area who spent 30 years of running that area as an expert on what fish should be stocked and not stocked???? They showed their hand this isn't about fishing or Muskie or walleye its about lake usage and the fact that owners around the lake don't want us surfs on the lake.
Yeah, that was pretty laughable. I wish someone would have asked the question, "so if these lakes have been mismanaged wouldn't you be one of the main people to blame, yet here you are saying how they should be managed?"
He was a useless testimony. And got verbally abused by Rep Metsa and Constadine.
This is about the only response to that testimony that I can come up with!!...
what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| Representative Metsa has commented on a few Facebook posts, be sure to thank him if you come across his comments and keep the Facebook threads respectful so he will continue to comment on this issue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
Location: deephaven mn | It's sad that Hacbarth allowed only 15 minutes for testimony on this bill and then let Anderson's key speaker carry on with individual opinion with no substance. I would say the Pelican Lake Association leader showed many shades of ignorance again.
thanks Mr. Treats and anyone else who was able to attend yesterday
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | kap - 3/23/2016 5:04 PM
It's sad that Hacbarth allowed only 15 minutes for testimony on this bill and then let Anderson's key speaker carry on with individual opinion with no substance. I would say the Pelican Lake Association leader showed many shades of ignorance again.
thanks Mr. Treats and anyone else who was able to attend yesterday
I'd say the hearing on the bill lasted much longer than 15 minutes. I didn't time it, but it seemed to last much longer than 15 minutes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 304
Location: Lino Lakes, MN | I finally was able to watch the video of the hearing. I learned a lot just watching it.
I would suggest watching it if you can.
Some very interesting testimony.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | I sent an e-mail to the COLA testifier respectfully informing him that my family as lake shore property owners, and lake association members don't support this bill, and should not be included in his generalized, made up numbers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 785
| Another thought... I keep hearing how musky anglers are such a low percentage of the fisherman present but out of 10,000ish lakes there's only 100ish muskie lakes. I think many would agree on lakes with muskies present the percentage of anglers targeting muskies is often higher then 50%. On many lakes it seems like over 75% are targeting muskies. Not sure if this can be used in anyway as hard data may be hard to come up with but it seems the number of muskie anglers is limited to the number of available resources and not simply due to the fish being unpopular compared to other species such as walleyes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| Worked late last night with a Walleye guy, we got to talking, he mentioned he has buddies on Gull and it has been extremely difficult to catch walleyes for years. I mentioned the Muskie stocking and he said it will never happen and if the DNR shows up to stock Muskies they would be shot. These peeps are Crazy. Let him know some quick facts and suggested he do some research and watch the youtube videos as I'm a multi species guy. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
Location: US | I love how they are so hell bent on keeping they're current management plan all the while complaining how bad the fishing is already. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1080
Location: Aurora | 7th Inning Stretch Speech Draft #1 - Just watched the testimony and those that spoke against stocking did so with more conviction, passion, and supporting data (regardless of how unfounded it was). Those that spoke for it lacked in those same areas and were content to "wing it" in unpolished fashion rather than prepare something to read from.
They've got home field advantage and one helluva offense but good pitching always shuts down good hitting.
We gotta focus on repeatedly delivering a polished, well spoken, consistent conservation-mined message rooted in factual data and stick to it. |
|
| |
|
| Sorry I havent updated, I cant log in from my phone. The house bill could be brought to a floor vote, at that time everyone's vote would be recorded and put under a microscope. We'll keep you all informed.
The Senate bill moves to another committee where it will be voted on. We'll keep you informed on that as well. We will need to step up and make more calls and emails. It's not fun but neither is watching our fishery be chipped away at. We'll keep you up to speed with that as well.
Also, we are all Muskies Inc at the MMPA. Without MI we don't exist. We are the chapters of the state working together in this organization to stop poor legislation and educate the legislature on the value of Muskies. We do what MI cannot do and they do what we can't. MN MI chapters are involved and sending our message to their members. If you haven't been hearing about this from your chapter through email call or write your MN chapter president. We have been in contact with Reps of every chapter on this issue.
It's not over and we have not stopped fighting for these fish and your constitutional right to have laws for the public good of fishing.
As Frank Schneider would say, "Stay positive and never stop fighting". It is a battle for these fish every year. |
|
| |
|
| Rep Heintzman says no-one he talks to in his district wants this and it will cost him his election if Muskies go in Gull http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/members/members.asp?id=15435 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Heintzman is my rep and I have contacted him multiple times in support of muskies in Gull, as have others I know. Interesting what some people's definition of "no one" is.
Aaron
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 85
| Heintzman also owns a business in the area that definitely has an appeal to the Gull Lake crowd/money. I'm guessing this is also another case of being fueled by personal gain/wallet protection. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| No one with a fat wallet and a big house on Gull, that's what he means by "no one". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
Location: US | Does MN still ask survey questions when you buy a fishing license? They always used to. Seems like asking if anglers plan to target muskies at all during the year would be a good question rather than just relying on muskie Inc. membership to assume angler participation.
Edited by anderj85 3/24/2016 3:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| Guys we need to be contacting our senators regarding the Senate version of this bill too (SF3059). My senator Bev Scalze (who also sits on the Environment and Energy committee which currently has the bill) responded to my email today to ask me additional questions about my opposition to the bill. She mentioned that she has received many emails in support of the ban, mine was the first she received in opposition. I shared my thoughts with her, but it would certainly help for her to hear from more opponents to the bill as well. Get going! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_members.php?...
Here is the contact information for the committee that this bill has been referred to. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| I sent Senator Bev Scalze an e-mail a week ago titled SF3059 - VOTE NO! So I'm surprised that she stated that yours was the first she has received in opposition. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| I'm surprised by that too. I think it's definitely worth sending her your opposition email again! |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | when is the next vote? I sent an email to the senators that had their emails listed on that link Pointer gave.. here is the block of emails you can copy/paste into your email. Everyone should take 2 minutes and drop them an email and tell them to vote NO on SF3059
'[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
Location: US | I just emailed all of the senators as well. I did see a local girl (fairmont) on FB spreading more propaganda about the big scary 5ft muskies biting everyone. Unfortunately the amount of stupid people eating it up is very disappointing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 6
| Here is a link to Outdoor news where a survey is being done about bills that are being proposed to halt the stocking of muskies. I not sure what impact the results of this survey will have but it might not hurt to click "No" just in case it could be used. Make sure you scroll down and look at the right side of the webpage. Here's the question:
http://www.outdoornews.com/Minnesota/
Several state legislators have introduced legislation that would prohibit the stocking of muskies in new lakes in Minnesota. Do you agree muskie stocking should be put on hold for those lakes in 2016?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | yikes I just did the survey and its 2-1 yes to no's. It would be nice to get this out on the Muskie flee market on facebook... I'm blocked at work. That crew really help pound in the emails last time we had a dance. Any survey these guys can reference that's anti Muskie they will remember the survey monkey poll?
Edited by NathanH 3/30/2016 7:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I wouldn't worry about that poll. I'd worry more about sending emails to all the reps in the other thread. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | still let's not lose this poll...there are 100s of musky fishermen that frequent this site...let's at least win that vote/poll...
http://www.outdoornews.com/Minnesota/ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | Pointerpride102 - 3/30/2016 7:37 AM
I wouldn't worry about that poll. I'd worry more about sending emails to all the reps in the other thread.
I see no reason not to do both and I promise you if the poll shows a lean towards a Ban it will be brought up as a counter to the DNR poll which was challenged at the last committee hearing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | That's fine...it is very easy to win this poll. Just close your browser and open the link and vote again. Lol. By the time I get to work I'll have us darn near tied.
Vote early and often! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| I couldn't find the poll at first - note it's quite a ways down the page on the right-hand side.
http://www.outdoornews.com/Minnesota/
(Outdoor News MN Muskie Poll.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Outdoor News MN Muskie Poll.jpg (98KB - 388 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 173
Location: Minnesota | voted on my phone and computer as well as sending emails |
|
| |
|
Posts: 897
| Email sent to all of them. Here's what I wrote. I would urge everyone to write their own given the comments about the "cut and paste" emails from muskie fishermen.
Good morning,
I am aware there are two proposals in front of the State Senate and House regarding muskellunge management in Minnesota. As a MN resident, taxpayer, and an avid outdoorsman, I would ask each of you to leave management of the State's natural resources to the experts, the Department of Natural Resources. Minnesota's fisheries are the envy of other states, and for good reason. The DNR is largely responsible for that. Dissatisfaction with the results on one lake, Mille Lacs, which also sees significant impact from other users than sport fisherman, should not result in you all deeming the DNR unfit to manage the State's resources. The DNR does a fantastic job in this state managing for all species of fish and game. I can personally attest to the fantastic walleye, crappie, perch, and muskie fishing MN offers. I am also very happy with the grouse, pheasant, turkey, and deer hunting opportunities MN has to offer.
Catering to lake shore property owners, rather than the public who owns these resources, is a mistake. A vote in favor of either of these bills will surely impact how I vote in the future.
Please vote NO to each of these bills. Leave management of our resources to the experts.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | I am not sure this is new to anyone or not, but here is the link to the MN Legislative site that confirms who represents you in your district. I would suggest personalizing the message to those individuals a little more than the form email that might be sent to the masses. Just my 2 cents. Thank you to everyone for continuing to support the future of muskie fishing in MN.
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/districtfinder
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | I would add that anyone who lives in Sen. Karin Housley's disctrict please be sure to reach out to her specifically with your opposition of the Senate version of the bill. She represents the district that Big Marine Lake is in and was recently added as an author. That district includes the Forest Lake, Stillwater, and Lake Elmo areas.
[email protected]
Edited by jasond 3/30/2016 9:33 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 688
Location: Already Gone | Great article. Thanks for posting this, Nate.
Pretty much says it all.
http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/03/30/minnesota-muskie-war-goes-... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2752
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | |
|
| |
|
Posts: 84
| Heard back from my district's rep yesterday. She's opposing the bill if it hits a vote. Was glad to hear that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| I contacted both my reps and haven't heard anything yet...guess I shouldn't be surprised. |
|
| |
|
| I highly suggest going to the link from Mike McFeely and from their navigating to the audio from the knucklehead state legislator Bill Engebrigsten on why he wants to stop Muskie stocking.
He is referring to the 2008 long range Muskie plan form the DNR as out- dated old science, comical. He also keeps referring to a 54" Muskie as if it's this super predator eating 10lbs of fish a day. He also keeps pounding away at the social attitudes toward muskies. He is anti-science to his core. Finally, he is a property owner on Lake Ida. I know shocker.
Power plus stidity is a dangerous mix and this is a classic example!!!!!i
http://mcfeely.areavoices.com/2016/03/31/audio-sen-bill-engebrigtse...
Edited by Cfollow 3/31/2016 6:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ^listened to it ... MN is screwed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Cfollow, he's not really anti-science. He's anti-muskie. He's a dark house guy to his core (has/had spearing decoys decorating his Senate office last time I was in there).
The Dark House people will say anything to pee on our parade. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 53
| As an out of stater, I did email the representatives and senators with a cordial discussion on my trips to MN and the economic impacts. Senator Housley has responded and appreciated the discussion saying she would consider my thoughts if it is brought to a vote. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Bill Ingrebretsen is a huge obstacle for us. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| I would feel a lot better about a law being past saying that dark house spearing not being taken away from any lakes that have muskies introduced after today...I completely understand dark house enthusiasts being worried about the DNR changing their tune on dark houses for lakes with muskies introduced. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| The issue I have on that gets back to the dishonesty where they talk in % vs. number of lakes. They like to cite us having some higer % of water as musky inhabited in the state, but that is based on acreage since most of the large bodies of water have them. If you look at actual number of lakes it a pittance. 130 or so lakes vs. 12,000 in the state.
To me the Darkhouse guys are exterem. They can spear an all 11870 lakes that don't have musky, and a few that do. Meanwhile, we have to fight tooth and nail to get what, 6 more lakes stocked.
It just goes to show that framing is everything and the framing in terms of acreage is, IMO, incredibly dishonest. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 536
Location: deephaven mn | 2% of lakes in Minnesota are designated Muskie Lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Stupid is rampant in the discussion of politics. So is rude. Neither are welcome here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I enjoy that Ingebrigtsen keeps calling the musky an invasive species because it's not native to the lakes that it's stocked in, but he's a member of pheasants forever. The last time I checked, the pheasant was native to Asia, not North America and not Minnesota. And heck, walleye aren't even native to all of the lakes they are stocked in. Sounds pretty invasive to me... Also, he kept referring to the social aspect of this, not society is now against musky stocking. I might be wrong, but I thought I had heard that musky fishing is the fastest growing segment in MN, if that's true, it would seem that society seems to be in favor of musky stocking.
Edited by dami0101 4/1/2016 6:50 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Nearly all species of earthworms in the US are invasive from Europe. Think of that while its on your hook Ingebrigtsen. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | he also complained that if his grandson caught a 51" musky, they wouldn't be able to keep it and stuff it. To that I say, true, but you do have another option open to you, get a reproduction made... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | mnmusky - 4/1/2016 6:59 PM
Nearly all species of earthworms in the US are invasive from Europe. Think of that while its on your hook Ingebrigtsen.
Hell, if I was Native American I could make the argument that Ingebrigtsen and his family are an invasive species since they aren't native to North America... The point is, if you really try, you can turn anything into an invasive species. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | dami0101 - 4/1/2016 6:49 PM
I enjoy that Ingebrigtsen keeps calling the musky an invasive species because it's not native to the lakes that it's stocked in, but he's a member of pheasants forever. The last time I checked, the pheasant was native to Asia, not North America and not Minnesota. And heck, walleye aren't even native to all of the lakes they are stocked in. Sounds pretty invasive to me... Also, he kept referring to the social aspect of this, not society is now against musky stocking. I might be wrong, but I thought I had heard that musky fishing is the fastest growing segment in MN, if that's true, it would seem that society seems to be in favor of musky stocking.
This document (if it works) has the citation to the study indicating musky angling growth.
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/species/mue/MUE_2016_rtc.pdf
A good read, in general. Of course, it mostly falls on deaf ears. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32789
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Obviously the muskie population has effected Vermilion walleye fishing.
http://timberjay.com/stories/DNR-walleye-numbers-exceptionally-stro... |
|
| |
|
|
As always Keep it positive and friendly when speaking with these legislators, many of them on these committees are on our side and they are getting some negative comments in general. We will have more info very soon, the chair of the House committee has been juggling this bill so we don't have the ability to keep ahead of it. Once again stay positive and support fishing, this is a anti-fishing pro public water takeover bill with Muskies on the surface. This will negatively effect everyone, Ducks, Trout, Ice anglers, bow-fishermen and is going to move towards access. Here is a comment from the Pelican Lake Assn President and leader of this campaign to take your water rights away, as stated in their newsletter from this month. “I believe it is almost impossible to get change at Pelican, without first getting change at the overall state level on new Lake Muskie stocking. If we all stand and fight together on this issue, we can win at a statewide legislative level."
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 457
Location: Minneconia | Received this from Sen Michelle Benson. If she is your state senator I would encourage phone calls.
Dear Roger,
I support the bill. I have heard from many lake associations, residents, and organizations who have expressed concerns about the DNR's plan. Many of them feel their voices and concerns have not been heard and they are not comfortable introducing a non-native species to their lakes. A few local governments have also passed resolutions to halt this process. There seems to be conflicting information on this issue and I believe the wise course of action at this time is to stop the stocking of new lakes. There are plenty of options for muskie fishermen. We shouldn't stock them into new habitats when the consequences could be significant.
Sincerely,
Michelle
Edited by Dirt Esox 4/5/2016 11:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 745
| I received the same e-mail from Michelle. Its a dangerous world when politicians take the word of constituents rather than subject matter experts/scientists.... Hopefully reason prevails here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 53
| I got the same email from Benson |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | yah she copy and pasted that (or her staff did ) and sent that out to some ppl I know too....sad.... |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Dirt Esox - 4/5/2016 11:46 AM
Dear Roger,
I support the bill. I have heard from many lake associations, residents, and organizations who have expressed concerns about the DNR's plan. Many of them feel their voices and concerns have not been heard and they are not comfortable introducing a non-native species to their lakes. A few local governments have also passed resolutions to halt this process. There seems to be conflicting information on this issue and I believe the wise course of action at this time is to stop the stocking of new lakes. There are plenty of options for muskie fishermen. We shouldn't stock them into new habitats when the consequences could be significant.
Sincerely,
Michelle I received the same email from Rep. Michelle Benson. Apparently she thinks lake shore owners own 'their lakes'. I hope the people in her district make their voices heard in the upcoming elections. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 901
| Wow. How ignorant. Very good point Nershi about pointing out THEIR. Since when do lake assoc own the lakes?
And she obviously doesn't realize that walleyes are not native to hundreds of the lakes the DNR stock them with.
Ugh. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| To be fair, it sounds like there is a lot more dissent than just lake associations and lake property owners. Not that their concerns are necessarily founded in facts, but if an entire area doesn't want muskies stocked in local lakes, thats a little different than just lake associations.
We all should have concerns with the thought of the DNR not hearing our voices or ignoring our concerns, this time, we are on the DNR's side, but who knows about next time?
Although the language of the legislation is frustrating, why not do a moratorium for 5 years to allow for more investigation, etc vs an outright ban?
Edited by VonBraun 4/5/2016 3:15 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | VonBraun - 4/5/2016 3:13 PM
Although the language of the legislation is frustrating, why not do a moratorium for 5 years to allow for more investigation, etc vs an outright ban?
Because the real issue here is that these lake property owners and associations don't want extra traffic on "their" lakes. I bet very few of those against this are actually against the Muskies. Stocking new fish in these lakes basically means more opportunities for anglers thus more traffic, on "their" lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | VonBraun - 4/5/2016 3:13 PM
To be fair, it sounds like there is a lot more dissent than just lake associations and lake property owners. Not that their concerns are necessarily founded in facts, but if an entire area doesn't want muskies stocked in local lakes, thats a little different than just lake associations.
We all should have concerns with the thought of the DNR not hearing our voices or ignoring our concerns, this time, we are on the DNR's side, but who knows about next time?
Although the language of the legislation is frustrating, why not do a moratorium for 5 years to allow for more investigation, etc vs an outright ban?
I don't think that's being fair at all. Fisheries chief for MN has stated multiple times that surveys completed show that somewhere around 60% of respondents have a favorable opinion of the musky program.
This is 100% about controlling the lake. The opposition just happens to be exceedingly wealthy, which draws the lust of some elected officials. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 901
| Well said Pointer. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Espy - 4/5/2016 3:51 PM
VonBraun - 4/5/2016 3:13 PM
Although the language of the legislation is frustrating, why not do a moratorium for 5 years to allow for more investigation, etc vs an outright ban?
Because the real issue here is that these lake property owners and associations don't want extra traffic on "their" lakes. I bet very few of those against this are actually against the Muskies. Stocking new fish in these lakes basically means more opportunities for anglers thus more traffic, on "their" lakes.
I agree for many of them it probably does have more to do with increased use of "their" lake. Heck, I'm willing to bet there are quite a few of the Gull Lake crowd that don't even fish.
Hmmm, maybe we should have a get together on Gull to fish pike one weekend this summer!!
Edited by castmaster 4/5/2016 5:14 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | I just sent this response to senator benson:
Hello Senator Benson,
I am contacting you today in regards to your stance on the musky bills currently making their way through both the house and senate. Your offices response to several people who do not support the bills has made its way into the community and there are several issues with it.
· Perhaps you misspoke, but homeowners and lake associations do not own the lakes that their homes border. Lakes are owned by all the people of this state, and in making their case for expanded musky stocking, the DNR cited a survey by the U of M which indicates 32% of anglers either prefer, or strongly prefer to target muskies, an increase of 23% from 2003 when a survey indicated only 9% of people targeted muskies. Also, the MN Fisheries chief has stated that surveys show approximately 60% of respondents have a favorable opinion of the musky program. It seems to me that the people of MN are becoming more and more interested in Musky fishing.
· You also stated that there are plenty of options available to musky fisherman. This is incorrect as the DNR only manages 116 lakes/bodies of water as musky waters, meaning that to target muskies fishermen can access less than 1% of the total bodies of water in this state. By comparison, walleye are managed in approximately 1,800 bodies of water across the state, or roughly 15%.
· You made mention of the introduction of non-native species to lakes. While it’s true that musky are not native to these lakes, I would like to point out that walleye are also not native to many of the lakes that they are stocked in. Perhaps we should stop stocking walleye in those lakes as well.
I do not expect this e-mail to change your mind, but I wanted to make sure you had the correct information.
Thanks and best regards,
Michael |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Pointerpride102 - 4/5/2016 4:34 PM
VonBraun - 4/5/2016 3:13 PM
To be fair, it sounds like there is a lot more dissent than just lake associations and lake property owners. Not that their concerns are necessarily founded in facts, but if an entire area doesn't want muskies stocked in local lakes, thats a little different than just lake associations.
We all should have concerns with the thought of the DNR not hearing our voices or ignoring our concerns, this time, we are on the DNR's side, but who knows about next time?
Although the language of the legislation is frustrating, why not do a moratorium for 5 years to allow for more investigation, etc vs an outright ban?
I don't think that's being fair at all. Fisheries chief for MN has stated multiple times that surveys completed show that somewhere around 60% of respondents have a favorable opinion of the musky program.
This is 100% about controlling the lake. The opposition just happens to be exceedingly wealthy, which draws the lust of some elected officials.
I agree with this as well. I'd say we need to watch who votes in favor of this. I know I will be, and the $ I'd spend on a bait or two will be donated to the campaigns of anyone running against them in their next election. About all a "little guy" like me can do.
And I will do so for the very reasons being talked about. Yes, I love to fish muskies, but to me this it about a whole lot more than that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Is anyone who received that reply from Sen. Benson a subscriber of the MN Outdoor News? If so could I somehow persuade you to write a letter to them with a copy of her reply?
I believe the Outdoor News would print a well written letter in their "letters to the editor" section, and I believe making more people aware this is about more than just muskies could really help our cause. I think most folks are intelligent enough to know what she meant when she said "their" lakes.
I would do so but I never received a reply from her so figure it would be better if it came from someone who received the email. |
|
| |
|
|
We need to focus on these two House Members right now. We have been talking to Sen Benson as well, she was a very strong supporter of the 54" increase. Treat her with respect and thank her for her past support. Back to the message for the next day. Hello Anglers, we need to contact these two legislators that Support Fishing and tell them we don't like the Anti-Fishing language in the game and fish bill. This is an attempt to control lake management by property owners. Please be very considerate to these members, Rep Uglem is the legislator that helped with the Catch and Release Records for Muskies, Catfish and Sturgeon. Ask them to support Public water access and science based fish management conducted by the MN DNR. Please Call or write them today, pass the info along to all of your family and friends who want to continue with the DNR fisheries management plan and want to keep our lakes public water. Remind them that the MN Constitution says "Fishing"shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good.
PS Keep in mind these gentlemen are anglers just like us.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| Have we contacted the big fishing companies in the midwest? Like Pure Fishing/Abu Garcia, Crestliner, Lund, Ranger, Alumacraft, mercury marine, Shimano, Johnson outdoors, Lowrance, or st croix rods? What's their involvement in this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | tolle141 - 4/8/2016 11:39 PM
Have we contacted the big fishing companies in the midwest? Like Pure Fishing/Abu Garcia, Crestliner, Lund, Ranger, Alumacraft, mercury marine, Shimano, Johnson outdoors, Lowrance, or st croix rods? What's their involvement in this?
they sell walleye stuff too ...
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Nice to see this Message coming out ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=338TH_pwiAI |
|
| |
|
|
Excellent! More of this! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Any recent news? I'd like to apply he thought that no news is good news, but I recognize that we're dealing with politicians here. |
|
| |
|
| I'm guessing it will pop up for a floor vote. So far nothing further. Thanks everyone. If you haven't called or written please do, or if you want to try again we appreciate it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Muskiefool - 4/19/2016 7:07 PM
I'm guessing it will pop up for a floor vote. So far nothing further. Thanks everyone. If you haven't called or written please do, or if you want to try again we appreciate it.
Senate or House side? |
|
| |
|
| Senate as a stand alone amendment, its already in the House Game and Fish bill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| So the following passed the Senate as part of SF 2793 (which also includes Invasive species control authorization; wild rice license requirements modification; natural resources regulations and penalties streamlined review and report requirement):
Sec. 14. [97C.008] NEW MUSKELLUNGE WATERS PROHIBITED.
Until August 1, 2020, the commissioner of natural resources shall not introduce muskellunge to additional waters or stock muskellunge in waters not previously stocked with muskellunge.
It passed 53-10:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/journals/2015-2016/20160427089.pd...
See the top of page 11 for the Yays and Nays.
Very sad |
|
| |
|
Posts: 102
| I guess the next step for Muskies Inc and the MMPA is to find documentation to which lakes in MN were previously stocked with muskellunge. I know the FM Chapter stocked quite a few lakes in the early 70s with muskies...but most of these never took.
Let's find the loophole to this language!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 114
| VonBraun - 4/29/2016 11:12 AM
So the following passed the Senate as part of SF 2793 (which also includes Invasive species control authorization; wild rice license requirements modification; natural resources regulations and penalties streamlined review and report requirement ):
Sec. 14. [97C.008] NEW MUSKELLUNGE WATERS PROHIBITED.
Until August 1, 2020, the commissioner of natural resources shall not introduce muskellunge to additional waters or stock muskellunge in waters not previously stocked with muskellunge.
It passed 53-10:
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/journals/2015-2016/20160427089.pd...
See the top of page 11 for the Yays and Nays.
Very sad
What an absolute joke. Politicians are dirtballs. (except for the ones who voted not in favor of the bill) How does this not just pee you off.
Edited by bbradley 4/29/2016 11:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
| I guess being from Wisconsin all I can hope for is that this stupidity stays west of the Mississippi. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 273
Location: US | Make sure everyone saves that list for election day |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1039
Location: North St. Paul, MN | Sent my rep an email looking for explanation how he could possibly vote for somethiing that had no scientific evidence. He won't be getting my vote, again. (Chuck Wiger) |
|
| |
|
| So....who is to conduct the studies on the impact of muskies to lakes over the next 4 years?????????
the DNR? The lake associations, or our wonderful representatives?
Edited by mnmusky 4/29/2016 12:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 859
Location: MN | I contacted Goodwin my rep with the same questions. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| I contacted mine for the 2nd time, really annoyed that she doesn't have an email address so I have no records showing how often I have contacted her without a response. She's definitely not getting my vote over this issue... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2004
| Everyone offer to take Dayton fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | So is Dayton the last line of defense so to speak at this point or is the house version still pending? I want to make sure the emails and calls to still prevent this from becoming law are aimed in the right direction. My Senator wasn't present during the vote it appears, but clearly this wasn't even close in the Senate. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| House has not voted on SF 2793. It is currently being referred for comparison HF 2866 (Invasive special control provided, wild rice license requirements modified, streamlined review of plans and regulations provided, civil penalties provided and modified, Wildfire Act modified, Sand Dunes State Forest logging prohibited, and report required.)
Which has no mention of Muskellunge. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 901
| Why didn't Matt Dean vote on this? He's my rep.
I'm very frustrated. I sent several emails to many reps with no response to any of them.
I know Matt's brother Dan Dean was heavily involved with the MN Musky alliance back in the day. Maybe he still is as I've lost touch. Frustrating to see my rep Matt Dean didn't even vote.
I also specifically emailed Karin Housley multiple times and not one response.
I know legislators cannot make everyone happy but it would be nice to get at least one response from someone.
Ugh.
Edited by MuskyMidget 4/29/2016 3:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Bummer.
I am sure there were many more people who contacted their representatives opposing this bill than there were supporting it. This just proves that the only constituents voices that matter to the reps are those with fat wallets. Hopefully the Muskie community makes their voice heard in the upcoming elections.
It would be great to get some media attention on this in our favor. That might get the attention of the governor to consider a veto. Anyone know of a journalist from the star tribune that would write something up on this? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 705
Location: Alex or Alek? | Looks like it passed the house 63-62 per the Minnesota muskie alliance facebook page. Sad day for MN muskies. I hope the DNR starts focusing on lakes they have stocked in the past, but have neglected for some time. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| If nothing changed from the Senate Bill, the language that passed was:
"Until August 1, 2020, the commissioner of natural resources shall not introduce
muskellunge to additional waters or stock muskellunge in waters not previously stocked
with muskellunge." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| This is maddening trying to keep up with on the legislature site...I followed the appropriate bills, but they continually change, get merged, etc, but the site doesn't say that...even after things pass...like HF3207 is the one that specifically calls out prohibiting stocking muskies in specific lakes, but that looked dead...except now it has been rolled into HF2844 and that passed the House yesterday 85-42. |
|
| |
|
| MOJOcandy101 - 5/17/2016 10:36 AM
Looks like it passed the house 63-62 per the Minnesota muskie alliance facebook page. Sad day for MN muskies. I hope the DNR starts focusing on lakes they have stocked in the past, but have neglected for some time.
Wow. That was close. Better than I would have guessed.
Maybe Dayton will veto??? Probably not. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 705
Location: Alex or Alek? | The more i'm reading into it(the house website is really confusing) it looks like it passed 53-10 so maybe not as close. But like VonBraun said it really confusing trying to follow the bills.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?b=House&f=SF2793&ssn=0&y=2... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 172
| 53-10 was the senate vote which sent it to the House. |
|
| |
