Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | A bit of a longer read but things are progressing and we need to be ready to act, swiftly and in great volume. Please read:
From Aaron Meyer of MMPA.
Subject: Fwd: The other anti-muskie bills
I am scheduled to testify in the Senate on Monday evening, in opposition to anti-muskie SF3319.
I know you are familiar with the issues surrounding this bill, but wanted to share some further information.
Since the introduction of this bill, we've been trying to figure out Bill Ingebrigtsen's real agenda.
This bill has a whole array of ridiculous mandates that make it unacceptable to a whole lot of people, including some of the people who don't like muskies.
We have been able to confirm our suspicions about his intent: His plan is to push this bill as far as it will go, and then because it is so extreme, it will look like he is making a reasonable compromise when he begins to push his smaller, separate bills.
He has also authored SF 2985 and SF 2986.
These bills have companions in the House, HF 3373 and HF 3335, authored by Nornes.
These bills would put a moratorium on muskie stocking in Ottertail County and force a non-DNR muskie study.
SF3319 is a Trojan horse. His hope is that the muskie community will expend all of it's energy fighting the current bill, and then fade away when the most extreme measures are removed. When it becomes only about Ottertail County and more studies, he figures muskie anglers won't be so concerned and won't fight back.
Meanwhile, his "compromise" will appear reasonable to other Legislators, making it easier to pass.
The compromise plan would also be supported by the Ottertail County Commissioners current position, who do not support the current bill. (We do hope to change the OTCC position when we meet with them to deliver real scientific fisheries data)
And, the compromise plan will look reasonable to average anglers who won't see anything wrong with more muskie studies.
There are several reasons why a "compromise" designed by Ingebrigtsen will be bad news for muskie fishing, and the fisheries in Ottertail County.
Obviously, a stocking moratorium on these lakes would leave an unfilled gap in the muskie population.
Further, once they get muskie stocking stopped, I can guarantee they will do everything they can to keep it stopped!
This would be setting the precedence for doing the same thing on other lakes in other parts of the state.
The bill is very vague in it's requirements and has the potential to be a real mess.
Who is going to do this study?
Who is going to have the authority to decide who does the study... the anti-muskie Senator pushing it?
This study is obviously a "fishing expedition". All of the appropriate data already exists, but he doesn't like what it proves, so he's simply trying to dig something out of nothing.
What exactly is this study going to examine?
What are the parameters of this study, what determines a good vs. bad outcome?
What is done when those outcomes are reached?
What if they don't find the outcomes they're searching for? Do we continue the moratorium until they do?
You cannot remove the key component of the equation (muskie stocking) before the study, and then get a valid scientific outcome.
Most of all, this situation would be the first stepping stone in stopping muskie stocking across the state. The actions of the individuals involved, over the last 10 years or so, have proven this to be true!
They will not stop with Ottertail County!
This potential compromise won't be a compromise at all, and we need to be ready to fight back.
Thanks for your time.
Aaron Meyer
Co-Chair MN Muskie and Pike Alliance
320-260-0961
[email protected]
|
