|
|
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: 32786
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: 32786
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 |
|
| |
