Cfollow - 3/18/2019 7:58 AM

why would I need a license to posses a fish that has a 54" minimum and is essentially catch and release? who would be dumb enough to buy one?

Cfollow - 3/18/2019 7:58 AM

why would I need a license to posses a fish that has a 54" minimum and is essentially catch and release? who would be dumb enough to buy one?

Cfollow - 3/18/2019 10:29 AM

The funds NEVER go to the right places, EVER. They will be building bike paths and gates to keep AIS out.

Pepper - 3/18/2019 10:32 AM



Sad but true

VMS - 3/18/2019 7:24 PM

Recieved an email back... I have copied and pasted it below...

John Persell
Mon 3/18/2019 5:21 PM

Hi Steve,

If passed, the muskie licence will apply to fishing for muskie in Minnesota with exceptions provided in the Bill. The muskie licence funds would be deposited in the DNR's fish and game fund for fisheries management purposes but not dedicated to muskie management.

John

AWH - 3/18/2019 11:18 PM

You can download the audio file from the hearing on March 14th here.

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Committees/archives/91003

You can fast forward to around the 55 minute mark to listen to the discussion. Several people testified against the bill. Only one person spoke in favor. That person happens to be someone that has a well documented track record of supporting any bill that would be detrimental to the state's muskie fisheries. A very concerning red flag there.

Interesting that the DNR also voiced their concerns. A bill that on the surface is said to want to help contribute more funds to the DNR...and the DNR is against it...saying that is is not needed and unnecessary. Another red flag?

To clarify, this would not be a harvest tag. It would be a required license/stamp to fish for muskies (or keep them). The bill is worded in such a way that it seems that they are trying to encourage harvest. Ignoring that point, it otherwise doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. But I can see how the intentions may not be what it appears by those pushing for it.

You don't have to imagine too hard to see how the anti-muskie crowd would try to use something like this against us. One of the co-authors of this bill has had his name on the anti-muskie bills in previous years. There is a Senator (that supports the muskie program) that absolutely believes there is an ulterior motive here. And the fact that they had the biggest anti-muskie spokesperson there to support the bill for the hearing should be a concern to all of us.

Aaron

anderj85 - 3/19/2019 6:35 AM

I bet they want to do this so they can say we sold X licenses but only this many muskie licenses. At that point they use that as an excuse to limit muskie stocking, funding, etc.

anderj85 - 3/19/2019 6:35 AM

I bet they want to do this so they can say we sold X licenses but only this many muskie licenses. At that point they use that as an excuse to limit muskie stocking, funding, etc.

VMS - 3/19/2019 8:44 AM

Anything that has Senator Ingebritson at it would make sense as he is the chair of the environmental and natural resources finance comittee...

Steve

Cfollow - 3/19/2019 6:34 AM



I guess I am fishing or PIKE then. How do you prove someone is fishing for muskies exactly?? I'll answer my own question here. The only way is to ask them and if they say they are fishing for pike then that is exactly what they are doing.

FlyPiker - 3/19/2019 2:44 PM

My rebuttal:

$10 musky stamp

muskies entirely catch and release

All money goes to musky spawning habitat restoration or stocking


Or we could just go about our usual business. Or offer an optional stamp that would again go towards habitat improvement and/or stocking efforts.


This basically feels like a "okay the past few years didn't work, let's see how else Wecan sneak some non-sense through." Shouldn't there be more important things to worry about?

esoxaddict - 3/19/2019 3:52 PM



Muskie baits, musky rods, musky net... You can tell them you're fishing for pike, but the figure 8 is a dead giveaway.

Pointerpride102 - 3/19/2019 4:22 PM



Won’t hold in court and a CO wouldn’t write the ticket to begin with. I’ve asked them.

tolle141 - 3/19/2019 9:29 PM

biggest problem with MN stocking right now is hatchery capacity. until the hatchery capacity is increased, we're not going to hit state plans for stocking

M Ruff - 3/21/2019 9:31 PM

Am forwarding an e-mail from a friend who keeps close tabs on the politics that are relative. These are his thoughts/opinions.
Too Bad Frank Scheider Sr. isn't still with us!! May he rest in peace.

? Hi Everyone,
By now, many of you have heard that there is a bill moving through the Capitol that would create a mandatory $10 license or stamp for muskie anglers (Persell, Heintzemen HF2145). It's been stated that this would be a way to get an actual count of muskie anglers in Minnesota, and to create more funding for the program.
This idea has been discussed repeatedly within the MMPA and at the DNR pike and muskie workshops for as many years as I've been involved in muskie management. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Both of those stated goals would be a very good thing, and I really don't think the average muskie angler would disagree with putting a few more dollars into the program. But it's much more complicated than that...

Before I get into the reasons, I think it's worth pointing out that the muskie stocking program is not the great financial drain that it is so often portrayed to be. Sure, an individual muskie costs significantly more to stock than an individual fish of another species. But the number of muskies stocked in MN is miniscule by comparison.
According to DNR data handed out to the pike/muskie work group, from 2005 through 2016 muskie stocking cost 8% of the total fish stocking expenditures in Minnesota!
The muskie program is not running short of funding and is not detracting from funds that would otherwise be used to stock more walleyes.

So, one significant problem with a muskie license would be the overlap in anglers and techniques for other fish. We all know that there are times and places where very small lures catch very large muskies. But there are also a lot of anglers out there fishing for bass and northern pike. Some of them use some pretty big lures. And some of them catch quite a few muskies. So who decides what's intentional or accidental? How do we define what someone is fishing for? Does everyone fishing on a muskie lake need a muskie license? It might not seem like a big deal to those of us who fish all the time, and who target muskies, but what about the average casual angler who just wants to go throw a few lures around- how are they going to feel about muskies when they're forced to buy a license for a fish they're not trying to catch?

So, acceptance and enforcement would be a problem, but here's the real meat of the issue...

This Legislation was not brought forth by anyone involved in muskie fishing and it wasn't asked for by the DNR. It is a Trojan Horse.
It seems like it could be a good thing, but it would only open the door for more legislation attacking the entire muskie program. Don't forget that we have key Legislators looking for any angle they can find to destroy muskie fishing in Minnesota.
If this bill were to pass, the next thing would be legislation limiting the muskie program to be funded ONLY by the money from the muskie license. And no existing program would continue to function solely on the revenue from its specific license or stamp.
After that, we can expect another attempt to lower the muskie size limit. And then, we'll see Senator Ingebrigtsen state that a dead fish is a dead fish, regardless of how it was harvested, so if anglers can buy a license that allows them to keep a muskie then spearers should be able to buy one too! And anyone who doesn't believe that is his ultimate goal hasn't been paying attention!

Dave Majkrzak recently testified in favor of the muskie license bill.
That should really tell you all you need to know.

It proves 100% beyond any doubt that this is hostile legislation with hidden intentions. There is a plan in place to use a muskie license to sabotage the muskie program.

Opinion is that:
Dave Majkrzak is one of the most zealous, outspoken anti-muskie advocate in Minnesota, doesn't care at all about muskies, doesn't care about other species of fish either, or healthy lakes, or habitat. doesn't even fish. So we believe he wouldn't drive 4 hours to the Capitol to support a bill that doesn't somehow work to his advantage
For those that don't know, Dave appears to be the one who's created/built up the entire Ottertail County muskie "problem" by using his ample time and money to influence local lawmakers and government entities. He's worked his way into various COLA positions and used it as a platform to spread muskie lies statewide.

Majkrzak has connections to the Gull Lake lake association through his COLA position. He's found anti-muskie followers there. That's where Representative Heintzemen comes in. It's his district. We haven't seen Heintzemen take an active role in the past, but he is anti-muskie, and I guarantee Senator Ingebrigten is waiting in the weeds on this.
Majkrzak has connections at the Capitol through Jeff Forrester (Lobbysist), and his anti public-access/pro lake-privatization organization.
And finally, do not forget that Senator Ingebrigtsen is the Chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee.... does anybody really think he's going to let that money do anything good for the muskie fishery?!

Don't be fooled.
These are the people pushing/supporting this muskie license bill. And as long as people like these are trying to destroy the muskie program we can never support legislation like this.

At the same time, Senator Ingebrigtsen has introduced a phony fish hatchery bill, which is all smoke and mirrors. It reads like it's supposed to be doing something to improve hatcheries and increase walleye production, even though it proposes doing that by having people who've never even been to a hatchery, much less know how to operate one, apparently deciding how they could/should be run more efficiently. But the part of it he's really after is where he gets to reassess what stocking programs are important for Minnesota. The entire thing is nothing more than the Senator building himself a committee, creating himself a new Chair position, so that he can take control of fish stocking in Minnesota.

Put these things together and what we have is the foundation for the destruction of Minnesota's muskie fishery built on one Senator's personal vendetta and one wealthy nonresident's efforts to spread muskie hatred statewide so he can privatize "his" lake in Ottertail county.

So there it is- Welcome to the 2019 Legislative session.