|
|
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.
|
|
| |
