|
|
Posts: 280
Location: Pewaukee WI | When I think of the amount of tourism dollars that recently stocked musky lakes/ towns receive a year like Vermillion, GB, ect… I was curious to know when stocking musky actually turns into a positive revenue stream for a state from increased tax revenues.
Since I know very little about salmon fishing I was curious to know how big of an economic effect salmonid stocking has in the Great Lakes every year. I know there is a huge industry built around it. Do the salmon stocking efforts bring enough tax revenues to offset the cost associated with the stocking efforts?
Has anyone analyzed musky stocking efforts and the amount of tourism it brings to certain areas compared to salmon species? It seems to me stocking a native species that lives 20 years would be more beneficial than stocking a non-native species that lives 4 years. I’m not here to start a controversy but just looking for historical facts and information on stocking benefits to the local economy. I’d like to see a lot more fish stocking of all species especially when it makes sense economically. Are there any Govt agencies that study the effect of this.
Thanks
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Musky, couple things.
1. Your "taxes" don't go to stocking fish in most cases. Revenue from your fishing licenses are used for stocking in most cases in most states.
2. To fish for salmonoids you have to purchase a separate endorsement that goes directly towards that effort (at least in WI and MN).
That said, there is a great benefit to the local economy in a lot of these lakes. The MMPA is currently working on fleshing this information out and put it into a form that can be distributed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20180
Location: oswego, il | I read awhile back that stocking muskies in pomme de terre brought in 750k a year to the area. |
|
| |
