|
|
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... |
|
| |
