Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Musky Stamp |
| Message Subject: Musky Stamp | |||
North of 8 |
| ||
| This weekend read a story about pheasant hunting on public hunting land in SE WI. What really struck me was the amount money the pheasant stamp has raised for both habitat and stocking over the last 25 years. Just shy of $11 Million. All funded by the folks who enjoy the sport. With the larger number of folks musky fishing and concerns about reduced natural reproduction, might this be the time to reconsider having all who wish to musky fish buy a stamp to support the sport? Right now, a basic fishing license doesn't cost as much as most musky baits. Why not add $15-$20 for a stamp and put it toward stocking? The money would be segregated from general funds and be used for that, just as the pheasant stamp money is. Unlike general fishing, musky fishing is not something that can be done really cheap. So, the argument that it would keep people from trying the sport doesn't really fly. It would take a decade or more to really make an impact, but you always have to start somewhere. At my age, I would not see much benefit from it but I would like my grandchildren to have the opportunity to experience a healthy musky fishing environment. For the most part, I don't think musky fishing needs a lot of money spent on habitat, like pheasant but that might be looked at as well. | |||
| musky513 |
| ||
Posts: 523 | Something similar to the walleye stamp in Minnesota would be great in my opinion. The walleye stamp purchase is voluntary. I think it might be a hard sell to mandate someone to buy a musky stamp if they are not really into musky fishing, but who knows. If the funds raised were guaranteed to be used to directly improve stocking efforts, or habitat/ invasive species control, I would be all for it for sure. That being said, I'll be buying a trout stamp and probably will only fish trout a handful of times this year. | ||
| RobertK |
| ||
Posts: 120 Location: Twin Cities Metro | The potential problem is that there is the possibility that it is one step in the direction of having a state legislature say that the revenue generated from the stamp is ALL the revenue that the muskie program would receive. Tying muskie funding directly to its numerical popularity could easily backfire. If you want to fund muskie stocking, the sporting clubs like Muskies, Inc. are probably a better and more reliable avenue. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
RobertK - 1/13/2022 2:53 PM The potential problem is that there is the possibility that it is one step in the direction of having a state legislature say that the revenue generated from the stamp is ALL the revenue that the muskie program would receive. Tying muskie funding directly to its numerical popularity could easily backfire. If you want to fund muskie stocking, the sporting clubs like Muskies, Inc. are probably a better and more reliable avenue. Pheasants Forever is arguably a much more successful fund raising non-profit than Muskies, Inc. and yet the stamp does a lot for pheasant hunting in WI. The current legislature in Madison in doing very little for musky fishing, any fishing focus is on Walleye because that is what the resorts, etc. want. | |||
| esoxaddict |
| ||
Posts: 8719 | What exactly ARE the barriers to natural reproduction when it comes to muskies? My understanding is that it related to a few things: Lake of suitable substrate for egg development Sand/silt Shoreline erosion Climate Depredation Seems to me a stamp would do little to address those issues. The riparian landowners could potentially help maintain a more suitable habitat. The only thing we can do about depredation is encourage harvest of pike and largemouth bass. Climate is what it is... Additional stocking would help, but it's a tough sell when the majority of the population could care less about muskies and many actually oppose having them in "their" lakes. I'd be open to buying a stamp if I thought it would do anything, but I don't know if the money could be spent in ways that would actually be beneficial. Thoughts? | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
esoxaddict - 1/13/2022 3:45 PM What exactly ARE the barriers to natural reproduction when it comes to muskies? My understanding is that it related to a few things: Lake of suitable substrate for egg development Sand/silt Shoreline erosion Climate Depredation Seems to me a stamp would do little to address those issues. The riparian landowners could potentially help maintain a more suitable habitat. The only thing we can do about depredation is encourage harvest of pike and largemouth bass. Climate is what it is... Additional stocking would help, but it's a tough sell when the majority of the population could care less about muskies and many actually oppose having them in "their" lakes. I'd be open to buying a stamp if I thought it would do anything, but I don't know if the money could be spent in ways that would actually be beneficial. Thoughts? Again, the example of pheasants. It is largely a put and take proposition. Their focus is on stocking and habitat. With musky, emphasis would be stocking and the related costs. Climate is a challenge that neither the state nor landowners can do anything about. In some areas warming waters has given bass a big leg up in reproduction and while most studies have focused on how that impacts walleye reproduction and survival, it likely impacts musky as well. On the chain where I live, the lake association has stressed how important it is to the overall health of the lake that the riparian zone be left as natural as possible. In addition, the fisheries committee got permission to add "fish sticks" along one shore line to help improve the habitat. Since a couple members are hard core musky guys, I am sure that was part of the thought process in applying for state permission. | |||
| RobertK |
| ||
Posts: 120 Location: Twin Cities Metro | North of 8 - 1/13/2022 3:04 PM The current legislature in Madison in doing very little for musky fishing, any fishing focus is on Walleye because that is what the resorts, etc. want. That is actually my concern with the stamp. If the legislature is neutral or even slightly hostile with regard to muskie fisheries, their response to the proposal for a stamp might be, "Very well. Have a stamp. Now the muskie program has its own source of revenue via stamp sales so it does not need a share of the revenue from general fishing license sales." Some folks I know of at the Wisconsin DNR have indicated that this would be devastating to the muskie program in that state. In the best case, the stamps would provide additional revenue over and above their cut of the general fishing license revenue. In practice, it would be tempting for the legislature to cut the muskie program loose from general fishing license sales and that would hurt. | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1184 | I can't think of a single legislator that is anti-pheasant. Here in Minnesota, we have a senator who is the chair of the outdoor finance committee, who is completely anti-muskie. He would love nothing more, than to have something that would show how many fewer muskie fisherman there are, than walleye/panfish fisherman, so he could do exactly what RobertK is saying. At this time, organizations like Muskies Inc., and the MMPA, are the most effective places to put your money. We've even purchased shoreline in prime muskie spawning grounds, to protect them. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20179 Location: oswego, il | Listen to the Team Rhino Backlash Podcast with Jordan Weeks. It would be the latest one that he was on. He details why the stamp is a bad idea. Basically the revenue for Muskies would come solely from the stamp which would be far less that what's funded by the percentage of the fishing license fee that goes towards it. We are way to the plus on this by dollars to percentage of anglers. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
ToddM - 1/13/2022 5:40 PM Listen to the Team Rhino Backlash Podcast with Jordan Weeks. It would be the latest one that he was on. He details why the stamp is a bad idea. Basically the revenue for Muskies would come solely from the stamp which would be far less that what's funded by the percentage of the fishing license fee that goes towards it. We are way to the plus on this by dollars to percentage of anglers. Is that for WI or IL? | |||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20179 Location: oswego, il | North of 8 - 1/13/2022 6:21 PM ToddM - 1/13/2022 5:40 PM Listen to the Team Rhino Backlash Podcast with Jordan Weeks. It would be the latest one that he was on. He details why the stamp is a bad idea. Basically the revenue for Muskies would come solely from the stamp which would be far less that what's funded by the percentage of the fishing license fee that goes towards it. We are way to the plus on this by dollars to percentage of anglers. Is that for WI or IL? Wisconsin Jordan is the head of fisheries for the state. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
ToddM - 1/13/2022 6:27 PM North of 8 - 1/13/2022 6:21 PM ToddM - 1/13/2022 5:40 PM Listen to the Team Rhino Backlash Podcast with Jordan Weeks. It would be the latest one that he was on. He details why the stamp is a bad idea. Basically the revenue for Muskies would come solely from the stamp which would be far less that what's funded by the percentage of the fishing license fee that goes towards it. We are way to the plus on this by dollars to percentage of anglers. Is that for WI or IL? Wisconsin Jordan is the head of fisheries for the state. I knew he was with WI DNR but he has also written about what is happening with muskies in other states, so just wanted to be sure we were talking about WI | |||
| muskymartin67 |
| ||
Posts: 770 Location: Delavan, WI | I agree that it's a bad idea, reason it works well for pheasants it's a take and put $ back program, thus replenishment of what you take, most if not all serious muskie fishermen already put muskies back, but if people who do not necessarily target muskie, but decided to buy their muskie stamp just incase when purchasing their license kinda like the burger place asks, would you like to upgrade to large, so some may decide to give it more of a try and if they get lucky enough and actually catch one, they would be more prone to keeping it, since they paid for the stamp the feel they are now entitled to that I mean they paid extra right? So in so many words I believe it would encourage more harvest in the end offsetting any benefits the same stamp was thought to be helping out. | ||
| RobertK |
| ||
Posts: 120 Location: Twin Cities Metro | In principle, a muskie stamp would be a great way to generate revenue over and above the current funding level from license sales, so I don’t mean to be overly negative about the idea. I just think it could be easily weaponized to harm the muskie program. But on the other hand, I think all of us anglers contributing to a healthy aquatic ecosystem that supports water quality, habitat renewal, and stocking of fish from mid-level predators through apex predators is a great community effort. If that’s what my license fees help pay for, I would be happy to pay more in fees. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
| From the responses, doesn't appear to be much support for the idea. However, I still am hard pressed to understand how it works for ducks, pheasants, trout, salmon, etc., but won't work for muskies. It would not exclude private efforts from Muskie, Inc., or clubs, those efforts would still be needed. | |||
| miket55 |
| ||
Posts: 1202 Location: E. Tenn | North of 8 - 1/13/2022 10:27 PM From the responses, doesn't appear to be much support for the idea. However, I still am hard pressed to understand how it works for ducks, pheasants, trout, salmon, etc., but won't work for muskies. It would not exclude private efforts from Muskie, Inc., or clubs, those efforts would still be needed. Simple... a lot more folks are bird hunters, and "other species" fishermen.. | ||
| ToddM |
| ||
Posts: 20179 Location: oswego, il | North of 8 - 1/13/2022 9:27 PM From the responses, doesn't appear to be much support for the idea. However, I still am hard pressed to understand how it works for ducks, pheasants, trout, salmon, etc., but won't work for muskies. It would not exclude private efforts from Muskie, Inc., or clubs, those efforts would still be needed. As I stated earlier the money allowcated towards Muskies from the license is greater than money that would be allowcated by a stamp. I don't know what the over/under is on the stamp price but like I said listen to the podcast this is coming right from the head of fisheries. | ||
| kap |
| ||
Posts: 536 Location: deephaven mn | yup instead of buying the stamp donate your $20 to your local club that stocks and every penny will be used to purchase fish | ||
| anzomcik |
| ||
Posts: 529 | PA has a musky stamp like program, its name is voluntary musky permit. The price is in the ball park for $11. Its in place for a handful of years, and has been very successful. Basically its voluntary, you do not need one to fish for musky. The funds from the sale go into a earmarked account that can only be used to supplement the musky program. The musky program does not rely on its funds, it is basically the public being able to donate funds to their respected interest knowing it will not be used in other areas. Of coarse like most people would worry, there was initial skepticism it would actually be used in the way it said it would. The PAFC releases the funds generated and what was purchased with it. So far inline water heaters, snap feeders, minnows and addition musky waters added to stocking list have come as a result. The funds are going right to helping the stocking of healthier fish. Not a bad thing. If your interested in learning more check out the Fat AZ Musky Podcast, more specifically the one with Jared Sayers as a guest. He works for the PAFC and has been one several times to talk about the program and how the funds are used. Feb 5th 2019 show was the first time he was a guest. | ||
| TCESOX |
| ||
Posts: 1184 | I don't think every state is dealing with a substantial anti-muskie crowd. My guess is that most places, it is pretty much off of most people's radar, and not considered a threat to anyone. In Minnesota, there is a sizable, connected, anti-muskie effort. They mistakenly think their interests are/will be harmed. | ||
| North of 8 |
| ||
anzomcik - 1/14/2022 7:21 AM PA has a musky stamp like program, its name is voluntary musky permit. The price is in the ball park for $11. Its in place for a handful of years, and has been very successful. Basically its voluntary, you do not need one to fish for musky. The funds from the sale go into a earmarked account that can only be used to supplement the musky program. The musky program does not rely on its funds, it is basically the public being able to donate funds to their respected interest knowing it will not be used in other areas. Of coarse like most people would worry, there was initial skepticism it would actually be used in the way it said it would. The PAFC releases the funds generated and what was purchased with it. So far inline water heaters, snap feeders, minnows and addition musky waters added to stocking list have come as a result. The funds are going right to helping the stocking of healthier fish. Not a bad thing. If your interested in learning more check out the Fat AZ Musky Podcast, more specifically the one with Jared Sayers as a guest. He works for the PAFC and has been one several times to talk about the program and how the funds are used. Feb 5th 2019 show was the first time he was a guest. Thanks for the information. | |||
| North of 8 |
| ||
ToddM - 1/13/2022 6:27 PM North of 8 - 1/13/2022 6:21 PM ToddM - 1/13/2022 5:40 PM Listen to the Team Rhino Backlash Podcast with Jordan Weeks. It would be the latest one that he was on. He details why the stamp is a bad idea. Basically the revenue for Muskies would come solely from the stamp which would be far less that what's funded by the percentage of the fishing license fee that goes towards it. We are way to the plus on this by dollars to percentage of anglers. Is that for WI or IL? Wisconsin Jordan is the head of fisheries for the state. While Jordon Weeks is certainly an accomplished fisheries biologist and is the lead on the state musky project, he is not the head of fisheries for the state. Currently he heads up the team working on Mississippi fisheries projects. | |||
| chuckski |
| ||
Posts: 1184 | When I take a trip to Minnesota or Wisconsin from my home state of Colorado I just buy a full season nonresident even if I'm only going to fish a week. | ||
| 7.62xJay |
| ||
Posts: 480 Location: NW WI | anzomcik - 1/14/2022 7:21 AM PA has a musky stamp like program, its name is voluntary musky permit. The price is in the ball park for $11. Its in place for a handful of years, and has been very successful. Basically its voluntary, you do not need one to fish for musky. The funds from the sale go into a earmarked account that can only be used to supplement the musky program. The musky program does not rely on its funds, it is basically the public being able to donate funds to their respected interest knowing it will not be used in other areas. Of coarse like most people would worry, there was initial skepticism it would actually be used in the way it said it would. The PAFC releases the funds generated and what was purchased with it. So far inline water heaters, snap feeders, minnows and addition musky waters added to stocking list have come as a result. The funds are going right to helping the stocking of healthier fish. Not a bad thing. If your interested in learning more check out the Fat AZ Musky Podcast, more specifically the one with Jared Sayers as a guest. He works for the PAFC and has been one several times to talk about the program and how the funds are used. Feb 5th 2019 show was the first time he was a guest. I'd be on board with that. I think though you might be better off with a bumper/boat sticker. We all know how some of us Loooove plastering our trucks and boats with stickers. Stamps on the other hand, unless ur a collector, will just get tossed. Sure they'll be a small price hike to match. I'd even say the pattern should change every year and be chosen from independently submitted artwork | ||
| OldMuskyGuy |
| ||
Posts: 33 | So, would everyone who fishes a body of water that contains musky need a stamp, or would you just need one if you are going to keep the musky? Would be impossible to enforce other ways. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 Now viewing page 1 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |