|
|
Location: MN | I got the following response from one of the Senators that I emailed to show my support for the 55 bill.
"This provision had much debate in committee. We finally decided on a 56" limit for 20 lakes with the metro lakes that have tiger muskie being 40" and the rest of the lakes having a slight increase from 48" to 50" The muskie association has since asked that this language be removed from the bill. My expectation is the DNR through its rules will adopt rules comparable to these lengths as it was their suggestions that lead to this decision. It is uncertain today as to the outcome, but thanks for your info and stay in touch."
Did the muskie association ask that the increase from 48 to 50 be removed or did I misinterpret that message? Wouldn't any increase be beneficial to protect the muskies?
Edited by Nershi 4/25/2014 4:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
The legislatures bill protects no more Muskies than the DNR plan does, we're trying to protect fish above the 50 inch DNR Rule Change plan. We didn't spend all this time and resources; as well as all of your time contacting legislators to achieve what was already in place and will be in place regardless of legislative action. Did he mention that there's a good chance that they will not be voting on a Game and Fish bill? I guess its not important enough for them to spend another 2-3 hours on it in finance to bring it to a floor vote. Why would they do something like that? Thats the real question. Not having that language in the bill when it and if it will go to conference committee is much better than coming out of their with god only knows. They fear o floor amendment, they know that thousands of you will contact your legislators. They also know if your legislators get calls and e-mails from you that they will likely vote in your favor. Unlike they way they are treating the wishes of their own constituents. Its almost as if these few powerful legislators don't like Muskie fisherman, its like they have some personal issue with Muskie management. We'll keep you up to date on what they plan on or don't plan on doing this year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 110
Location: Albertville, Minnesota | Well, in other news, at least they were able to get together and rename Asian Carp in MN....LOL. That measure will sure help the fisheries and definitely is way more important then getting the committee together for this vote.
By the way, I'm now offended calling the German cockroach a "german" cockroach.
Sorry to hi-jack, and great job guys.
Chris |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | I don't like Swedish meatballs. I find that afensive |
|
| |
|
| Its frustrating I know, and if not for basically 2 key people we would have this legislation moving through. We are talking with them and others trying to find a way to get something that will help sustain our fishery. Things are changing about every hour it seems and there's always hope until its over. It sounds like the anti-Wolf hunting crap may be added so that will possibly sink the entire bill. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | I love how are system works. There always adding things to bills that have nothing to do with the original bill. What dose wolf hunting have to do with musky fishing. Next they will add free school lunches to the bill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 42
Location: Shoepack | MN 55-inch muskie minimum fails MN House on 18-113 vote.
Edited by Qrocks 5/5/2014 4:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
| It’s been a busy month for us, we’ve been working at coming up with a good amendment for the legislation that’s in the senate now. I think we’ve got a good one that the DNR and the legislators are favorable with. Unfortunately our request for an informational amendment so we could hear the arguments against it was without our support brought to a vote. The presenter; who had several Wolf hunting amendments ahead of the Muskie one had our amendment defeated. This was a vote against him; not us. We asked he not bring Muskies into a conversation with Wolves. I appreciate his support but I wish he would have listened to our request. The amendment language that would keep the metro Tiger lakes at the current 40 inch, it would make 55 statewide; while giving the DNR the latitude to change as many to 48 inches to keep with current regulations as they want. We’re still working on it; I’m hoping the MN DNR will start making meaningful steps towards protecting Muskies if nothing else. Possibly with an overhaul of the broken public input process that failed Muskie fisherman many times over the past 15 years. Its not over till its over. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| Anybody we should be contacting at the DNR? |
|
| |
|
| Not yet. We've still got some time. Friend us on Facebook and I'll keep posting here also as to what we need to do to keep the discussion going. These 2-3 people cant keep us down forever. We haven't made calls to the DNR since the darkhouse guys and Sportsmen for responsible muskie management tried to scuttle the Long Range Plan and Pokegama Stocking. We'll let them know. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Can you please post the names of the congressmen or women who are opposing this. If you do not want to post it on the board can you PM me. I would like to know who we should work on voting out at the next elections. Thanks |
|
| |
|
| We're working with several that are needing more info, you guys, the guides and resorts have done a great job getting this far. You dont know who really opposes you until its all done and actually many of the old opponents are helping or at least listening to you guys and we're seeing that. I'll keep you in the loop unless someone finds out before me, then they will lol Thanks everyone. |
|
| |
|
| Urgent: Please call Governor Dayton and ask him to sign the Game and fish bill, and that you support the statewide increase of Muskies to 54 inches. Call ASAP Governor Mark Dayton Telephone Toll Free: 800-657-3717 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| I called and talked to Casey and he thanked me for calling & would mark down my comments |
|
| |
