|
|
Posts: 385
| Lake Bemidji has been cut from the MN stocking list due to lack of funds. Quite a few people I know, (mostly Muskies Inc. members) have been throwing around ideas about fundraisers, other options for continued stocking on the lake to help keep a stable musky population. I know first thing would be to get DNR permission to stock fish. IF permission is granted, what would be some good ideas for fund raiser to help achive this goal? Any and all ideas appreciated.
Thanks | |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| in that part of the state,,gun raffles!!! not a joke,,in outstate people love guns especially deer rifles | |
| | |
Posts: 209
Location: Big Falls MN | Happy Hooker is rite gun raffles work very well to raise one money. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
I can't see permission being a problem. You pay for it and stocking continues, not a matter of needing approval to keep a program going.
What is the current expense of stocking Bemidji? Right now we stock a 1000 acre lake. It costs our club $5000/year.
Maybe this will be a wake-up call to all those who continually bad-mouth MI and won't join due to personal issues.
The organization is about the muskie fishery, not about individuals.
JS
| |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | JS, The DNR has been putting in app. 1850 muskies every other year in Bemidji...
which if my math is right is going to take about $20k every other yr to keep up that amount as I believe you get muskies for about $10-11 each ???
if it is being cut, it makes no sense why they would cut this lake over some others that are not producing the fish like this lake has in the last 10+ yrs.
Edited by BNelson 7/22/2010 10:31 AM
| |
| | |
| ---Maybe this will be a wake-up call to all those who continually bad-mouth MI and won't join due to personal issues.---
Well that makes me want to join.
Plenty of ways to fund it if you can get enough people interested in the cause. Look what Operation Muskie does each year. Takes a hard working dedicated person to run it, though. | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | It would probably be much less expensive to work w/ the MN-DNR and donate the money they need to keep the lake on the list instead of purchasing 1800 fish. If it's a matter of keeping minnows in their bellies that shouldn't be a problem for a chapter to raise the money. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
The DNR is buying many of it's muskies that it stocks now. It costs the DNR about the same per fish to raise them and stock them as to buy them.
If this is going to be an annual expense that needs to be filled, and I see no reason why it won't be due to the State's financial situation, than a dedicated group will need to take care of this and whatever other muskie shortfalls will be coming in the future.
Nice; you may not like my blunt statement but there is truth to it.
Many people won't be part of MI due to issues that I would consider petty and insignificant. That's very unfortunate. Most of them are due to being competative and not being able to get along in a group of people that don't all have the same points of view. Kind of like a church congregation. Not everyone at my church may get along personally or ideologically but they all come together for common belief and purpose.
It's to bad more anglers can't do that.
JS | |
| | |
| the earlier poster is correct that fund-raising on that scale on an ongoing basis takes a lot of dedication to the cause, hard work, and effective awareness raising.
many local Muskies Inc chapters quietly do this kind of thing to benefit their fisheries every year. i donate every year to stocking efforts in both WI and MN through Muskies Inc, it's amazing what gets accomplished on the local level.
the Bemidji-Cass chapter of Muskies Inc seems to be an obvious group to make some effort on this issue, if they were to organize something i know i'd start contributing every year.
| |
| | |
| Interesting reading...
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/fy10-11/budget_from.pdf
Being I live in Minnesota, I seem to be contributing to several of the big tax categories (already) that fund the Minnesota DNR (already)...
Looks like Pawlenty cut 0.0035325 % for fiscal years 2010-2011 and this translates to Bemidji being one of the cuts.
Seems there is money to buy land for a state park up on the Big V.
Why not push for a non-resident musky stamp of lets say $100.00 for each out of stater?
| |
| | |
Posts: 256
| Were any other lakes cut from muskie stocking? | |
| | |
Location: Grand Rapids, MI | john skarie - 7/22/2010 12:15 PM The DNR is buying many of it's muskies that it stocks now. It costs the DNR about the same per fish to raise them and stock them as to buy them. I hope they're getting a really good deal on them. The cost per fish here isn't anywhere close to the cost from someone like MN Muskie farm. Fundraising: I saw this on some guides webiste and thought it was cool! "The muskie waters in Michigan wouldn't be what they are without the work on Preservation, Restoration and Education of Michigan Muskie Alliance. 10% of my guide fee from every trip is donated to Michigan Muskie Alliance."
Edited by Will Schultz 7/22/2010 12:16 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The DNR has an optional Walleye stocking stamp people can buy when they buy their license. How about having an optional Muskie stocking stamp? I would think $15 would be appropriate for those people who would be willing to contribute the price of an average priced Muskie lure.
What do you all think?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | How does one then direct where the stocking fund dollars from the stamp go? JS, is that really an option? | |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | non resident stamp for 100$$???
good luck with that one buddy | |
| | |
Posts: 183
Location: Grand Forks ND | Herb_b - 7/22/2010 12:44 PM
The DNR has an optional Walleye stocking stamp people can buy when they buy their license. How about having an optional Muskie stocking stamp?
All for it!! | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | I would be all for a non resident musky stamp that would go directly to stocking MN musky lakes....$100 might be a bit much but I think a $20-40 range could fly....
also, imo musky guides should also be asked to buy some sort of musky stamp etc..as they are making money off there being muskies in a lake to begin with...
A musky stamp to me seems simple but i'm sure logistically it could be a huge undertaking but with state budgets being cut more and more will more and more lakes be on the chopping block in the future...I agree with JS ...imo Muskies Inc does far more good for our muskies waters than anything negative some people have issues with
Edited by BNelson 7/22/2010 1:33 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I would think the funds would go to the DNR to use for Muskie stocking.
Just doing a little math: If there are 150,000 Muskie anglers in MN and one third of them (50,000) bought a $15 stamp, that would add up to $750,000 for Muskie stocking. And that is only about the price of one moderately priced Muskie lure for each fisherman. Seems doable, doesn't it?
How much is the DNR Muskie stocking budget right now? Might it be possible that we could support much of the Muskie stocking in this way? | |
| | |
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | There are other options too. For instance, how about some kind of Muskie bumper stickers that could be sold at retail stores such as Gander Mountain, Thornes, Reeds, Cabelas, etc. The proceeds could be sent directly to the DNR. People could then put the stickers on their vehicles, boats, trailers, etc to show their support for Muskie stocking.
I'd buy at least a couple of them. One on the boat, one on the truck, maybe somewhere else. 
Any other ideas? | |
| | |
| Could you provide where this information came from? | |
| | |
| I'm fairly certain this is a misunderstanding. | |
| | |
| john skarie - 7/22/2010 11:15 AM
Nice; you may not like my blunt statement but there is truth to it.
Many people won't be part of MI due to issues that I would consider petty and insignificant. That's very unfortunate. Most of them are due to being competative and not being able to get along in a group of people that don't all have the same points of view. Kind of like a church congregation. Not everyone at my church may get along personally or ideologically but they all come together for common belief and purpose.
It's to bad more anglers can't do that.
JS
This is exactly the reason I havent joined the local chapter of MI. In principle I think they can do good things, but many of the individuals that I had the displeasure of meeting were not worthy of spending my time with. It's unfortunate, I had hopes that I could share ideas, spots, and a boat with some other people that had a similar interest, but each of these people were more concerned about themselves than anyone else.
I dont need any help catching muskies, but I am quite put off by my ambition to share with other people and then they just look down your nose to you for doing so or do not reciprocate. Heck, I would take paper maps and highlight them for people that were interested in musky fishing and give them some ideas.
All I got in return was "I caught it on Lake X"
Whatever, I learned what these folks were good for and they were just in it for themselves.
I like the stamp idea and I think it would do well, but what about making the out of state guides actually pay state sales taxes? There is a loophole that allows them to be here for a certain number of months and get by without claiming income here. If the state received some of this money, perhaps these cuts wouldnt have been made.
IMO it is a tragedy that Bemidji is cut from the list. Maybe there are other factors that led the DNR to selecting it, perhaps there is sufficient natural reproduction so they felt it could sustain itself? If that is the case, I think diverting the money to lakes that do not is wise.
Personally I would like to know this answer before hurrying to dump stocked fish in there. Maybe the money would be best spent elsewhere on other lakes? How about stocking Woman Lake? There are plenty of others that come to mind too.
I would need more information that led to this decision before dipping into my pocket. But $15 is nothing, but I want to make sure my money goes where it would do the best good. | |
| | |
| Do we know if muskies actually need to be stocked in Bemidji anymore? With the significant amount of stocking that has taken place, why wouldn't there be any natural reproduction?
Why is it that the focus of MI is stocking? It should really be called Stocking Inc. Where does habitat, come into play? It's much cheeper to let the muskies do it themselves.
Also, what role did the MN DNR have in this decision?
$100 out of state stamp is crazy. | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
MI has done lots of habitat work. Not that long ago we raised over $50,000 to buy land on Leech Lake to protect a known spawning bed. We've also been involved in petitioning developments across MN that could negatively affect spawning habitat.
The "focus" of MI has been very broad in regards to muskie and other fishery issues. The Stocking Inc. comment is based on lack of information.
If you want a specific lake to be stocked than you need to have a dedicated donation, in other words write them a check that is specifically meant for stocking lake Bemidji. You need to be able to commit a certain amount of money over a certain period of years to get the O.K.
Stamp idea sounds great, but in reality not that many anglers would buy one, and it's expensive to make and distribute stamp.
It's much easier to sell a raffle ticket, people like to win something when they "donate", just the way it is.
The only real solution here is for an organization to say we'll commit X amount of dollars every other year to supplement stocking. Than it's up to the org to come up with the cash.
I don't know any details of how successful muskies are spawning on Bemidji. It most likely wouldn't be nearly good enough to keep that lake up to it's current levels of fish/acre.
JS
JS
| |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| Dont have to be Sherlock to figure this out its too much of a coincidence,,,there had to be some kind of inducement to lure Mike Habrat/tfoot up,,,prime rib sandwiches and 2 martini lunches everyday are eventually going to eat into that districts budget,,fish had to go!!
| |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| Bemidji can get by on natural repo????
how many of you have plans to hit leech this year,,,or Winnibigoshish people want and flock to stocked fisheries because their easier,,Tonka,Mille lacs,Vermilion have been hit HOW hard since 2000
raising money for fish isnt all the problem,,,finding private fish rearers that can PRODUCE enough fish is the bigger problem | |
| | |
| Just hold some tournaments during July & August on White Bear Lake, Tonka, ect. and raise some money for stocking the lakes up north | |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| you can get permits on TONKA IN the summer???? you got a scoop! the Bass guys have all the available permits grandfatherd in | |
| | |
Posts: 2361
| Captain - 7/22/2010 2:10 PM john skarie - 7/22/2010 11:15 AM
Nice; you may not like my blunt statement but there is truth to it.
Many people won't be part of MI due to issues that I would consider petty and insignificant. That's very unfortunate. Most of them are due to being competative and not being able to get along in a group of people that don't all have the same points of view. Kind of like a church congregation. Not everyone at my church may get along personally or ideologically but they all come together for common belief and purpose.
It's to bad more anglers can't do that.
JS
This is exactly the reason I havent joined the local chapter of MI. In principle I think they can do good things, but many of the individuals that I had the displeasure of meeting were not worthy of spending my time with. It's unfortunate, I had hopes that I could share ideas, spots, and a boat with some other people that had a similar interest, but each of these people were more concerned about themselves than anyone else.
I dont need any help catching muskies, but I am quite put off by my ambition to share with other people and then they just look down your nose to you for doing so or do not reciprocate. Heck, I would take paper maps and highlight them for people that were interested in musky fishing and give them some ideas.
All I got in return was "I caught it on Lake X"
Whatever, I learned what these folks were good for and they were just in it for themselves.
I like the stamp idea and I think it would do well, but what about making the out of state guides actually pay state sales taxes? There is a loophole that allows them to be here for a certain number of months and get by without claiming income here. If the state received some of this money, perhaps these cuts wouldnt have been made.
IMO it is a tragedy that Bemidji is cut from the list. Maybe there are other factors that led the DNR to selecting it, perhaps there is sufficient natural reproduction so they felt it could sustain itself? If that is the case, I think diverting the money to lakes that do not is wise.
Personally I would like to know this answer before hurrying to dump stocked fish in there. Maybe the money would be best spent elsewhere on other lakes? How about stocking Woman Lake? There are plenty of others that come to mind too.
I would need more information that led to this decision before dipping into my pocket. But $15 is nothing, but I want to make sure my money goes where it would do the best good.
Well thank you uhm..."captain anonymous" for proving John Skarie's point in one useless post. Also like the bit at the end where you would have all these conditions before dipping into your pocket. Yes, I am sure that your unorganized voice is going to be meaningful on that. Agree?
You miss the whole point of MI, and then demonstrate your own ego driven midget mentality with your restrictions before YOU would come forth and contribute. More and more, musky fisherman will face resource problems in the future, and MI is the only organized voice out there trying to deal with things like this. It aint all about YOU, it IS all about US, and it IS about the resource. We can all be a disorganized bunch of ineffective whiners, or we can bring some organized thought and pressure to the table. MI wasn't created to stroke people's egos or give away information, it was created to deal with problems in, and raise the potential, of the fishery. Lack of organization is part of the problem Captain Dufuss, not the solution. | |
| | |
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Here we go again....another open palm to the sky.
If the stocking was a planned event but was cut back or completely because of the lack of funds then it would seem that there is a known $ amount needed to complete as planned. Those dealing with the DNR should find out that $ amount and the min amount to make an effort to continue. (Might be less fish but some stocking is better than no stocking).
Sure makes you wonder why with the "lack of funds" how the Game & Fish subcommittee thought that cutting the funds raised by license's was a smart move???? | |
| | |
| well said, fsf | |
| | |
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Stamps sound like a good idea up front, but then....Here's my personal opinion, and this is just based on 50 years of hunting & fishing in MN. Every time the sportsmen in this State stand up and raise some money as "Dedicated Funds" some fine piece of work in the legislature gets in through that the money needs to go into the General Fund. Next thing you know everyone's dipping it getting what they can for their cause. (If you've ever seen a flock of Pelicans on a school of young bullheads you got the picture right) I do believe that the fishermen of this State would support the efforts just as the hunters, wetlands habitat people, wildgame supporters, and all sportsmen have in the past. But we are tired of seeing the "dedicated funds" that are raised by good honest hard working people doing allot of work, end up being raped & pillaged by all causes because of goverment over ruling. Until that changes I say we act together control the money ourselves and take it case by case. Put our bucks where they'll get the biggest bang for our sport. That's just my feeling but hey don't take that as gospel take a look at the historical facts but put the Kleenex close when you go down that path. | |
| | |
Posts: 541
| it's sad it was taken off the list due to funds! that makes a person think well so much for getting other lakes that are'nt currently being stocked some more that need it, obviusly won't be any stocking done to lakes that never get it ever!. If there taking others off the list cause of no money! | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wait a minute. Joining MI doesn't automatically make one a conservationist or valiant guerrilla fighter of all problems muskie. Some folks, like JS, are 'conservationist'/activist at heart, and are very active in MI efforts to assist the local/national fisheries as a result. It's a few folks who do the lion's share of the work necessary to raise the money from raffles and seminars and shows and do whatever else they can see needs to be done as volunteers. There are only a few folks of this ilk per club of dozens to hundreds. The others, who may not necessarily have the time or resources (or perhaps, desire) to be as dedicated, and by far are the lager group, are the very folks who the dedicated conservationists rely upon to fund the projects they create, and make up the core of the folks who, when the club calls upon them, step up and make the funds available.
I disagree with what some had to say. MI is a 'club', and needs to remember that. If being a member and attending meetings is not an enjoyable experience for everyone....the club will shrink until there's no one left but the 'conservationists'. I've been involved in MI as a member of 5 MI clubs and an active supporter since the early 80's... and I have seen this happen more than once.
Precious few truly lead MI organization/conservation efforts, and to those folks I will forever owe unbridled respect and admiration. Those folks never forget to highly value all MI members and ALL prospective new members, offer them due public respect, expect nothing more from any of them other than what they are able and willing to offer....all the while never forgetting if one begins to expect or demand compensation, whether in recognition or otherwise, one is no longer a volunteer.
That said, MI is a good prospect for raising the funds needed to keep the stocking levels at today's numbers...if they approach the rest of us as peers and explain the need carefully and fully. I don't want anyone up in my face, I'd like to hear the facts, how the money is to be raised, and where it will be spent, and I'm all in.
I'd be in for a donation, and I've never fished there.
| |
| | |
| A $100.00 non-resident musky stamp isn't that outrageous when you consider the costs incurred for creating and managing the trophy musky fishery within the State Of Minnesota by its property tax, state withholding residents.
This amount is a fractional percentage of what those who really paid for this fishery have already contributed.
When you compare the cost of fishing Canada to this amount, especially in areas difficult to drive too, it's well within reason to have all users pay a fair share, since the non-residents are not really paying their fair share.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember, the fishery isn't managed strictly for residents of ANY state. It's the absolute goal of many well managed fisheries programs, in concert with State tourism, to draw in out of state vacationers who spend HUGE amounts of money, generate big dollars in sales tax, and keep the resorts full. So what's a 'fair share'? How much money comes to each State from federal programs and taxes?
| |
| | |
| Guest - 7/22/2010 5:36 PM
A $100.00 non-resident musky stamp isn't that outrageous when you consider the costs incurred for creating and managing the trophy musky fishery within the State Of Minnesota by its property tax, state withholding residents.
This amount is a fractional percentage of what those who really paid for this fishery have already contributed.
When you compare the cost of fishing Canada to this amount, especially in areas difficult to drive too, it's well within reason to have all users pay a fair share, since the non-residents are not really paying their fair share.
How are they going to enforce a $100 musky stamp? Fisherman are going to argue that they are targeting pike, not musky since it is pretty hard to indecisively say you are fishing for muskies, since most musky fisherman do not harvest the fish and have them in their possession as evidence... And having a $100 stamp to cover all esox fishing would be comically laughed at since your average fisherman is not going to spend $100 on a slimy skake pike!
Do you think that maybe they stopped stocking Bemidji to see if the lake could be self sustainable like Cass Lake.... I mean spending that kind of money when it has a very strong chance of being self sustainable seems silly to me!
| |
| | |
Posts: 356
Location: In the slop! | Maybe the MNDNR should talk to the IDNR. Iowa raises about 10 times as many musky fingerlings as it stocks in state. Personally, I would like those fish to go to Mn. as opposed to some of the other places they go. They could probably just trade some catfish for our muskys. | |
| | |
Posts: 1516
| Do non residents pay any taxes in Mn? Let's see gas tax to come & go, sales tax grocery store, lodging tax at the resort, exsize tax on tackle. If they hire a guide I suppose some of that money is taxed. Would and extra $100.00 per year stop me from coming to Mn to fish, probably not, but there is always Wisconsin. What about the resident anglers any thought about a stamp for them say $200.00 cause they fish there all year not just 1 or 2 weeks a year. | |
| | |
Posts: 408
Location: Omaha, Nebraska | sledge51 - 7/22/2010 5:48 PM
Maybe the MNDNR should talk to the IDNR. Iowa raises about 10 times as many musky fingerlings as it stocks in state. Personally, I would like those fish to go to Mn. as opposed to some of the other places they go. They could probably just trade some catfish for our muskys.
Same, NE only stocks their lakes every third year so maybe you could work out a deal with the NGPC, but the MNDR would probably need to have some solid bargaining fish because I'm pretty sure the NGPC is quite fond of the trout they currently are receiving in return. | |
| | |
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | This will be shameful if the stocking on Lake Bemidji does come to an end. It is an unbelievable fishery right now for a lake of its size/acreage and has maintained very well vs sometimes immense fishing pressure put on it. I don't have all the facts but unless many other lakes are being cut or severely cut back Bemidji should be maintained and these cuts should come from other less productive lakes or lakes that may be getting the fish but are simply not getting the fisherman to maintain stocking at current levels. | |
| | |
| I believe that this is a precursor of things to come in MN... Pawlenty's budget cuts have cut the guts out of education in our state - I'm an educator and can vouche for that without making some type of politcal statement within a political arena. Bemidji was probably cut because the fisheries managers believe it can sustain itself, at least to some degree, without stocking or limited stocking. Mark my words - this is only the beginning of stocking cuts if things continue, politically, as they are.
Dan Craven | |
| | |
| The amount of sales tax revenue that is proportioned into the Minnesota DNR budget is minuscule as compared to the contributions from property and state income tax taxes. I would not believe that the full Minnesota resorts are are musky fisherman. This amount would be minuscule in comparison to other Minnesota resource usages.
Unless there are some published data indicating this perceived non-resident populace and sales tax point of view, well, it's a point of view not well taken.
The 100.00 non-resident musky stamp should be used for supplementing the musky stocking where budgetary concerns result in tough choices between Minnesota DNR programs.
Trophy musky do not grow on trees and are not replaced very quickly. Minnesota's trophy musky fishery evolved from the early 1980's through support primarily from it's residents. Never forget the current non-resident has even approached any comparative fair share percentage whether they have returned annually for the past five years as compared to the state residents having been here from the start - some 25 plus years too. Oh, yea, they pay sales tax too - full the entire year and far more than any nonresident musky angler.
Simple as that... | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would not believe that the full Minnesota resorts are are musky fisherman'
On muskie waters there are plenty. Just listen to the locals complain about it. It's interesting, some complain about the hordes of interlopers beating up MN waters until someone points out their contributions, then suddenly their are none. Which is it?
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/fy10-11/budget_full.pd...
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/legislativeinfo/biennial-budg...
Good reading.
'This amount would be minuscule in comparison to other Minnesota resource usages.'
When one compares Muskie angling expenditures (resident and non resident) in MN to the DNR and supporting dollars spent on the resource statewide, I bet the numbers will mesh nicely.
What's a 'current non-resident'?
| |
| | |
| I am one of the locals, a northern Minnesota resort owner, lake association member and a majority of the available Minnesota Musky Waters are not over run with non-resident Musky Anglers. And, a majority of the available Minnesota Resorts are not over-run with non-resident Musky Anglers. There are some seasonal peak usages on certain specific waters, but the related return on gas and sales taxes revenues that ultimately end up contributing the stocking of Minnesota Musky waters is again miniscule.
I live and work here in the industry you are using as a basis for your view. I attached the first link (already), the second is meaningless unless you care to quote the relevant substance to support a point of view not well taken.
A non-resident Musky stamp costing $100.00, one dedicated to supplement musky stocking costs, is reasonable and is in-line as compared the costs of fishing Canada and other trophy fisheries outside of the midwest.
This isn't a not in my back yard stance. It's a stance to support the Minnesota Trophy Musky Fishery. | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What point of view is 'not well taken'? That the non resident anglers fishing MN muskies DO contribute in a ratio probably proportionate to the actual use of the resource?
That those non residents should not be discouraged from fishing MN by being singled out for a $100 'tag'? If ALL Muskie anglers in MN had to pay the c spot, I'd agree it's 'fair'. You say there's very few non resident muskie anglers up there...(which is not my experience in my travels, but that's another argument) and if that's so, what good would the non resident tag do anyway?
The budget I linked tells a heck of a story, either way.
Your claim that tourists to your state haven't 'paid their fair share' towards the privilege to fish is a very strange way to encourage tourism. I'm sure comparing Canada to MN by saying it costs more to get there so tourists should pay an extra $100 won't create a demand to fish MN. The issue is a budget shortfall...which won't be helped by driving off tourism. | |
| | |
| $100 is OBSURD!
It is completely unnecessary for anyone to spend $100 on a stamp so they can fish public waters for just 1 species that may or may not even catch! You guys need to come down to earth and rethink this, maybe you should focus on better stocking strategies that are more cost effective and possibly spend the money to try and go 100% catch and release! The $100 stamp isn't going to fix anything and is like only putting a band aid on the problem and it will eventually fall off and become useless, yet the non residents will continue to pay for it. You guys act surprised that when the economy isn't doing so hot your family isn't the only place where cutbacks happen. Then you try to solve the problem by having non residents who visit your state and already help stimulate the economy pay for your problems, which will eventually help them decide maybe the grass is greener in Wisconsin. More taxes/fees is NOT always the solution. | |
| | |
| "What point of view is 'not well taken'? That the non resident anglers fishing MN muskies DO contribute in a ratio probably proportionate to the actual use of the resource? That those non residents should not be discouraged from fishing MN by being singled out for a $100 'tag'? If ALL Muskie anglers in MN paid the c spot, I'd agree it's 'fair'. You say there's very few muskie anglers up there...(which is not my experience in my travels, but that's another argument) and if that's so, what good would the non resident tag do anyway?"
Where are your facts to support "DO contribute in a ratio probably proportionate to the actual use of the resource?" This is a presumptuous guess at best.
My resort here in Minnesota has what is considered several trophy musky waters and yes, there are non-residents who stay at my place who musky fish. When I compare my total yearly bookings to those acknowledged non-resident musky anglers, they amount to less than 4 % of my business. Now, before you say it's just my business, I am also a member of rather network resort association and my business and ratio is in line with over 200 resorts. I have more business from non-Musky anglers, general vacationers, snowmobile riders and ice-fishing than I do from non-resident musky fisherman.
"The budget I linked tells a heck of a story, either way."
Care to enumerate this perceived heck of a story, either way? Something of credence to your presumptions and point of views not well taken?
Your claim that tourists to your state haven't 'paid their fair share' towards the privilege to fish is a very strange way to encourage tourism.
I claimed nothing to this extent with regards to those who panfish, walleye fish, bass and northern pike fishing. These resources are more generally available and self-sustaining. Trophy musky are not and require stocking efforts that bear these costs on a consistent and tailored plan based on individual musky lake needs to not only grow those musky waters yet to blossom, but maintain those nationally recognized ones as trophy musky waters.
Minnesota residences have paid well, well, well, beyond the thought of a $100.00 musky stamp through full year property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, whether they musky fish or not...
Non-resident fishing licenses are $40.00 for a single non-resident Minnesota fishing license. It's actually $10.00 cheaper than a non-resident Wisconsin fishing license.
What is the cost of musky fishing in Canada on an annual basis. Do they not require a stamp of a special musky fishing license?
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's point out the main flaw in your argument. If less than 4% of your guests fish muskies, and the rest fish other species, then the anglers who fish muskies from your resort VS income from them has to be pretty even. Doesn't sound to me like your data supports any significant use of the Muskie resource whatsoever by anglers from out of state.
Your state taxes are not my problem, or any tourist's problem...they are yours and the rest of the MN residents who pay them. Much the same could be claimed by ANY state resident of ANY state....so what? You think the management of muskies in WI or any other state is cheap? Nope. Pelican hasn't been stocked since 1998. Not a thing to be done about it, either.
Indicate the exact dollars spent on the Muskie program from the current budget, how much came from general funds, and then we can look at Dept Of Tourism estimates as to the return from tourism dollars instate because of the Muskie fishery.
Enumerate? Seriously?
The last several years I fished Ontario, I bought a Conservation License.
And not a single 'meses' yet. | |
| | |
| Perhaps a 100.00 muskie stamp for MI members only...seems like they would want to pay it and the fishery gets the money it needs, also then the MI members can yell at others for not paying...seems like a win-win for everyone...BR | |
| | |
Location: Contrarian Island | Guys,
The info Matt had in the initial post is wrong...a friend of mine involved w/ getting other lakes stocked checked with Henry Drewes with the MN DNR and Bemidji is not being cut and he knows of no plans to cut it in the future....
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 4% of the tourists in MN are now very happy. | |
| | |
| That is confusing - "then the anglers who fish muskies from your resort VS income from them has to be pretty even". Perhaps this is a better explanation, if I did not have this 4% business, I would still be profitable.
"Doesn't sound to me like your data supports any significant use of the Muskie resource whatsoever by anglers from out of state."
And, your data (incidentally, what data do you reference?) supports really what? Perhaps it's more like probable and what I hear from locals, except people like myself, one who is a local and a resort owner who you say I benefit tremendously from non-resident Musky Anglers. Perhaps this huge number of non-resident Musky anglers stay at motels or camp grounds. Cannot speak for those attendances, but my business and others just do not see their dollars.
How long does it take to grow a trophy musky? The delayed mortality from this insignificant usage as you label it takes a very long time to replace and recover and the only way to maintain the trophy musky fishing here in Minnesota is not only continuing the regular stocking intervals on those lakes which need it, but expand the musky range here in Minnesota.
Your flaw is thinking there is an unlimited resource up here that you perceive I would welcome with open arms by having more non-resident musky anglers show up. The only way this is going to happen is by having continuous stocking and more musky waters.. The trend is going the other way - lack of stocking funding and the range is barely expanding... The $100.00 non-resident stamp contributes a fair share to the maintaining the stocking and the musky range expansion goals.
"Your state taxes are not my problem, or any tourist's problem...they are yours and the rest of the MN residents who pay them. Much the same could be claimed by ANY state resident of ANY state....so what? You think the management of muskies in WI is cheap? Nope."
And, your state taxes are not my problem either. I have no reason to fish Wisconsin when I can fish them right off my resort dock.
"Indicate the exact dollars spent on the Muskie program from the current budget, how much came from general funds, and then we can look at Dept Of Tourism estimates as to the return from tourism dollars instate because of the Muskie fishery."
I would think this is your homework to support your probably and probable assumptions. Your the one saying there is a large number of non-resident Musky anglers who are spending a large amount of money here in Minnesota, on resorts, hotels, campgrounds, etc, paying gasoline and sales taxes and this amounts to all the tourism dollars we receive here in Minnesota.
I am saying the opposite is the business reality in my circles. You want to come to Minnesota and fish trophy muskies, you're more than welcome. $40.00 license and a $100.00 musky stamp to help maintain the reason why you all keep wanting to come back. Fair share, simple as that.
"The last several years I fished Ontario, I bought a Conservation License."
How much is that?
| |
| | |
Posts: 468
Location: Not where I wanna be! | A stamp will never happen... no matter how much we talk about it on here....
the loss in participation due to the added expense to fish MN would offset the revenue it was intended to generate... That is a risk the MNDNR won't take. Stamps are a thing of the past and public waters are just that, public.... | |
| | |
Posts: 541
| I understand the majority of the thought processes on here but I would have to think that there could be a better way than a $100 stamp, I'm a local from here too but I would have to say if Wisconsin came up with a stamp like that I would not want to fish there for ski's just because of the fact not that I could'nt afford it but I mean a $100 plus a fishing license crying out loud it's not a deer tag! and your not gonna keep it anyway! | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Your argument makes so little sense I don't even know where to start.
1) I don't think, nor did I ever say, the muskie resource anywhere is unlimited
2) 4% of your trade, by your own claim, are muskie anglers. Very small portion of your business by your claim
3) Small number of muskie anglers equals small impact. Can't be any other way, can it?
4) Probably and probable? Is that enumerating?
5) Wait, the trend is going the other way...what trend? Stocking? What difference would that make to you if no tourists are fishing your waters? None? What the heck are you talking about...you can't have it both ways. Your taxes pay for walleyes, and all other management, habitat improvement, etc. Show me the dollars spent out of this budget on Muskies, and we'll look at the estimated impact of non resident muskie anglers. If you don't know, you have no argument either way.
6) I have no reason to fish MN muskies either, I can fish muskies on over 250 lakes here within an hour drive. I fish MN once a year during the Spring Bay Outing. There, I am welcomed beyond expectations, as are my peers. Perfect.
7) I never said your resort was crammed with Muskie anglers. Some are, if the location is a highly desired one, and I hear the Bemidji area is getting plenty of non resident pressure. That's where the issue was...right?
7) I stand by my assertion that attempting to single out the visiting anglers to make up your budget shortfall stocking interruption (that wasn't) is a bad idea.
8) 'How long does it take to grow a trophy musky? The delayed mortality from this insignificant usage as you label it takes a very long time to replace and recover and the only way to maintain the trophy musky fishing here in Minnesota is not only continuing the regular stocking intervals on those lakes which need it, but expand the musky range here in Minnesota.'
What? If any of that was even close to reality, it would behoove ALL locals to stop muskie angling immediately, as 4% by your math of your 200 resort's clients are killing off muskies wholesale by CPR related post catch mortality to the point where NR and stocking will not keep up. The data CERTAINLY doesn't support that...see the research forum for details.
A conservation License in Ontario is about 23 bucks, if I remember correctly. The resort I stay at provides one at no charge to encourage folks to release more fish. Imagine that.
| |
| | |
| sworrall - 7/22/2010 5:34 PM
Wait a minute. Joining MI doesn't automatically make one a conservationist or valiant guerrilla fighter of all problems muskie. Some folks, like JS, are 'conservationist'/activist at heart, and are very active in MI efforts to assist the local/national fisheries as a result. It's a few folks who do the lion's share of the work necessary to raise the money from raffles and seminars and shows and do whatever else they can see needs to be done as volunteers. There are only a few folks of this ilk per club of dozens to hundreds. The others, who may not necessarily have the time or resources (or perhaps, desire) to be as dedicated, and by far are the lager group, are the very folks who the dedicated conservationists rely upon to fund the projects they create, and make up the core of the folks who, when the club calls upon them, step up and make the funds available.
I disagree with what some had to say. MI is a 'club', and needs to remember that. If being a member and attending meetings is not an enjoyable experience for everyone....the club will shrink until there's no one left but the 'conservationists'. I've been involved in MI as a member of 5 MI clubs and an active supporter since the early 80's... and I have seen this happen more than once.
Precious few truly lead MI organization/conservation efforts, and to those folks I will forever owe unbridled respect and admiration. Those folks never forget to highly value all MI members and ALL prospective new members, offer them due public respect, expect nothing more from any of them other than what they are able and willing to offer....all the while never forgetting if one begins to expect or demand compensation, whether in recognition or otherwise, one is no longer a volunteer.
That said, MI is a good prospect for raising the funds needed to keep the stocking levels at today's numbers...if they approach the rest of us as peers and explain the need carefully and fully. I don't want anyone up in my face, I'd like to hear the facts, how the money is to be raised, and where it will be spent, and I'm all in.
I'd be in for a donation, and I've never fished there.
Thanks Mr Worrall for understanding my point. Obviously FSF was either one of the folks I met or one just like them.
I have no issues with Muskies Inc, and I clearly stated that, just my local chapter. There are tons of great people out there, just mine was loaded with gloats. That's fine, I dont need to be a part of that club to share the passion and fun for musky fishing with others and my kids.
I have introduced several people to musky fishing and they thank me for how willing I was to help them get started. I put my time on the water like the rest of us working folks which means I am not a professional. Some people obviously take it too seriously and forget what matters most and that is MORE people that share a common interest to bring more support and ultimately dollars.
Just because someone isnt a member of MI doesnt mean they aren't doing their share to contribute. Each of us goes out and buys the hottest new baits every year, who do you think that supports? Many of these companies are based in the Upper Midwest and hopefully those jobs stay here. So, it may not be fingerlings that are put in a lake, it is someone's livelihood at stake.
I guess shame on me for not handing out my money to somebody when I dont know what it is going to be used for.
At least with Pheasants Forever you know that for every $1 donated, $.90 of it goes to habitat. | |
| | |
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | A muskie stamp of about $10-$15 dollars would be fine....use the money for stocking and habitat preservation ,........ But do it in ALL states that have muskies.
That way no one can complain about "outa towners" not helping do their fair share.
Mr. Skairie is right,....... states will cut back on their budgets, and we as common muskie nuts will have to pick up the slack if WE want to keep on enjoying fishing our favorite Lakes. Just a thought.
Jerome | |
| | |
| In my eyes its really sad to see somthing like this coming down to whether your a member of muskies inc or not....... I mean I will come straight out and say that I am not a member of muskies inc, yet I will fish every tournament that they run just simply for the fact of giving something back to the resource. Being a Member or not means nothing when it comes to accomplishing the same goal and that is maintaining a great stocking program for all lakes in this state and all species of fish.
I can remember just last year when I fished the Frank Snieder Muskie tournament in September. This tournament has proven to be an incredibly well run and exciting tournament sponsered by Muskies Inc. Every year this tournament makes sure to give money back to DNR to help maintain the musky fishery in the Walker MN area. The only problem is last year Muskies INC donated a 3,000 dollar check of which went to buying up shoreline of a lake that was not even fishable for muskies. Correct me if i'm wrong. This is the exact reason that I hope this year Muskies Inc finds a better way of making sure the money is directed straight back to the lakes in this tournament. Tournaments are a great way to fund projects such as stocking as long as the money made is used to ensure great fishing to come.
Basically what I'm saying is that if we want to ensure great muskie fishing for years to come we are all going to have to step up the plate and donate something back to these fisheries we have come to love. Mike Crawford | |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Since you keep bringing up Canada as an example, a conservation license for non locals runs 34.00 ( annual). MOST people only travel there once a year, that would be only 21.50$$ And you are proposing that someone pay 140.00$ for the right to fish Muskies in Minnesota?
Not even worth arguing because it so outrageous and you are standing on a mountain alone, Steve is dead on with everything he said.
I think many of us would be willing to contribute something financially to the cause...within REASON, what you are throwing out there is just pure nonsense.
Edited by Musky Brian 7/23/2010 12:20 AM
| |
| | |
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Some of you need to go back and actually READ all of the posts in this thread. There are some gems.
HINT: tfoot and brad nelson wrote some good ones.....
2012 isn't here early, the sky is not falling. Crisis averted. | |
| | |
| Your argument makes so little sense I don't even know where to start.
1) I don't think, nor did I ever say, the muskie resource anywhere is unlimited
2) 4% of your trade, by your own claim, are muskie anglers. Very small portion of your business by your claim
"My business yes, for right now, but it has grown over the last several years and that is the point to remember. The interest in musky fishing here in Minnesota is in fact growing. The musky fishery is a limited resource, one that with the consequences of delayed mortality and the time involved to replace a trophy fish, one having needed 12 or more years to grow to trophy size, is not replaced easily or very quickly. When the stocking efforts are being reduced and the expansion of the Minnesota musky range crawls at a snail's pace, it doesn't take much knowledge of Economics 101 that the demand has begun to exceed the supply and in order to meet this ever growing demand, the supply will have to increase."
3) Small number of muskie anglers equals small impact. Can't be any other way, can it?
"Small impact from delayed mortality isn't small, it takes far more time to replace than a trophy walleye, bass, blue-gil and other non-musky sporting species. The advancement in fishing technology and fishing skills results in more muskys being caught and released be a smaller group, yet the net effect is the same with regards to delayed mortality and replacing that resource. Now couple these facts with each year having more non-resident musky anglers plying Minnesota trophy musky waters. What has taken from the mid to late 1980's to result into today's trophy fishery isn't going to be sustained very long when lakes are not maintained with the lake by lake basis needed to maintain this wonderful situation, nor expand the musky range."
4) Probably and probable? Is that enumerating?
"It's punting. Your the one saying the contributions of non-resident musky anglers and their tourism expenditures are contributing their fair share as equal to the residents of Minnesota, but offer no data to support these claims. As you stated previous, you base this off of talking to locals which is a selected sample and not reflective of the entire resident population that caters to Minnesota tourism."
5) Wait, the trend is going the other way...what trend? Stocking? What difference would that make to you if no tourists are fishing your waters? None? What the heck are you talking about...you can't have it both ways. Your taxes pay for walleyes, and all other management, habitat improvement, etc. Show me the dollars spent out of this budget on Muskies, and we'll look at the estimated impact of non resident muskie anglers. If you don't know, you have no argument either way.
"What difference? The same as you in that I musky fish and want to not only preserve the existing musky fishery, but want to expand it. That takes money for which my fair share of property, income, sales taxes have contributed towards over the last 25 years. Some non-resident musky angler visiting Minnesota for a week to 10 days once or twice a year and only within the last several years is reaping the reward from those who already have proven their dedication for establishing, growing and maintaining the Minnesota trophy musky resouce. This $40.00 license entitlement and what ever sales taxes they pay is a fraction of the monies needed to maintain this Minnesota trophy musky fishery under todays standard of living costs"
6) I have no reason to fish MN muskies either, I can fish muskies on over 250 lakes here within an hour drive. I fish MN once a year during the Spring Bay Outing. There, I am welcomed beyond expectations, as are my peers. Perfect.
"Sounds like you do have a reason, then, Spring Bay Resort and this site's club outting".
7) I never said your resort was crammed with Muskie anglers. Some are, if the location is a highly desired one, and I hear the Bemidji area is getting plenty of non resident pressure. That's where the issue was...right?
"Now you are becoming more focused in your facts. Exactly, some areas or pockets of areas are receiving the brunt of the demand exceeding the supply. My point of view is that this isn't unlimited and as soon as this falls off and it will due to the reduction of moneys for stocking and the (again) the snails pace of range expansion, the pressure will shift local and the delayed mortality effects will shift to other waters not capabile of sustaining the current pressure on waters such as the Big V or Mille Lacs. The reason my clientel percentage, albeit only 4%, is growing is in fact from the demand exceeding the supply on both these waters with demand being not having to stand in line as is so ever present on these waters. Think of my situation benefitting from the quality of the experience. With regards to the Bemidji area, there are several out of state guides who profit far more than their contributions towards maintaining this resource. While the locals shy away from the local brood stock lakes, these people do not."
7) I stand by my assertion that attempting to single out the visiting anglers to make up your budget shortfall stocking interruption (that wasn't) is a bad idea.
"Musky anglers spend far more than $100.00 on musky equipment than the ever end up really using. Take a look at the overstock items of accumulation pictures on another thread by this firstsixfeet person. Yet, when $100.00 is asked for really the most important factor, that being preserving the resouce and expanding it, all I see in replys is "a bad idea" or I cannot afford it. As you say, you cannot have it both ways."
8) 'How long does it take to grow a trophy musky? The delayed mortality from this insignificant usage as you label it takes a very long time to replace and recover and the only way to maintain the trophy musky fishing here in Minnesota is not only continuing the regular stocking intervals on those lakes which need it, but expand the musky range here in Minnesota.'
What? If any of that was even close to reality, it would behoove ALL locals to stop muskie angling immediately, as 4% by your math of your 200 resort's clients are killing off muskies wholesale by CPR related post catch mortality to the point where NR and stocking will not keep up. The data CERTAINLY doesn't support that...see the research forum for details.
"Your math failed to compound my resorts effects to all the other resorts, motels, campgrounds that harbor the non-resident Musky Angler. That is the reality of your limiting logic. Again, supply, demand and the supply isn't being maintained when stocking monies budgets are being cut and the range isn't expanded because of lack of funding, yet the increase with the non-resident Musky angler is for me, growing each year, more as an overflow effect than something as widely known as the Big V or Mille Lacs. As you said earlier, "I hear the Bemidji area is getting plenty of non resident pressure", is nothing more than proof of my assertion that demand has exceeded the quality of the experience supply with regards to these lakes and is shifting to other places. As a business man, you would think I am excited about this and be benefitting from this. All true, yet when the primary reason for this overflow shift into my area isn't maintained, it's only going to decline the experience for everybody. Right now, with water temperatures in or near the 80's, I am not fishing muskies, yet those non-resident Musky Anglers, having planned their vacations for the current situation, are here, fishing muskies in warm water conditions, basically because they are on vacation, incurred expenses and gosh darn the resource be darned. Isn't it rather Ironic that these out of state guides who do not fish their home state waters because of water temperatures migrate to Minnesota, yet fish under the same warm water concerns anyways?"
A conservation License in Ontario is about 23 bucks, if I remember correctly. The resort I stay at provides one at no charge to encourage folks to release more fish. Imagine that.
"There is no imagining that. More fish caught and released, more delayed mortality. What was up, then goes down." | |
| | |
| " Isn't it rather Ironic that these out of state guides who do not fish their home state waters because of water temperatures migrate to Minnesota, yet fish under the same warm water concerns anyways?"
Very good point!
| |
| | |
| i donate waaaayyyy over $100 to MN muskie fisheries efforts every year, and i'm happy to do it willingly. when i give that money, i know where it's going and how it will be used to benefit the muskie fishery.
i would not be willing to pay a special tax to the government in order to fish muskies. we all know that the money would find it's way into the general fund and not provide full benefit to the muskie fishery.
it's very different when you're asked to give something compared to when it's taken from you by Uncle Sam.
for those who view high-priced stamps or surcharges as a way to discourage out-of-state interest in MN muskie fishing, be careful about waving that knife too close to your nose. claiming that they're "our fish" because no one else pays for them is just plain wrong. drive everyone and their money away and you'll have tourist-free lakes for awhile, and then eventually you'll have more fish-free lakes too and be back to fishing only the unstocked waters. (i'm a WI resident with family properties in northern MN.)
| |
| | |
Posts: 734
Location: Watertown, MN | Is $100 to much, the states have set the bar high for deer hunting, residents pay $20 for 9 day, I now pay $160 to hunt the same 9day season because I am no longer a resident of WI. The real issue finding a solution to the economics short falls of the budgets that are coming for the state of MN, and sure other states will have these same issue. Like pointed out before a guy in the "know" does not know about this.
Troyz | |
| | |
Posts: 1764
Location: Ogden, Ut | BNelson - 7/22/2010 8:21 PM
Guys,
The info Matt had in the initial post is wrong...a friend of mine involved w/ getting other lakes stocked checked with Henry Drewes with the MN DNR and Bemidji is not being cut and he knows of no plans to cut it in the future....
Did this bit of information get lost in the stamp argument? 
S.
Editor's note:
S,
Yup. But you know how I love a good debate.... | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Delayed mortality considering the pressure on your lakes is not a real issue. Sorry, you are not correct. Give me the figures on delayed mortality, creel numbers on CPR and the latest figures on base muskie populations in those lakes. Then let's talk about NR and stocking, and the numbers will make more sense. If what you are trying to insinuate is even close to factual, some of your lakes would be devoid of all muskies by now. Your entire premise for asking non resident anglers to pay a surcharge to fish in Minnesota is based upon ... 'the sky is falling' ...and that's not the fact of the matter.
if you wish to protect your muskies from harvest and the biologists agree they need it, I'd suggest shooting for a 50 to 54" limit. It's worked for Ontario very well on trophy waters there, and is working on WI waters as we speak.
Limiting logic? I'm using your data at 4% of the entire 200 resort association you belong to. On one hand you claim little money is spent by out of state muskie anglers in MN based upon the small number in your resorts, yet on the other you claim delayed mortality will decimate the lakes up there because of all the fishing pressure by out of state muskie anglers.
You are not suggesting the state of MN 'asks for' a $100 tax on out of state muskie anglers. You are suggesting they demand it, and all because of some concept that the muskies in MN are dying off at an accelerated and unsustainable rate from CPR by non resident anglers; that stocking will cease, which turned out to be a rumor. That is a bad idea, and I think it has about as much chance of happening as a snowball surviving in Hades. Your tone is anti-tourism, and that's a bad idea. Your insistence the MN residents have 'paid for' the muskies and own them outright as a result flies in the face of reality. Ask us as a group, and you will find muskie anglers across the country are a generous lot. Insult us, and tell us we 'owe you' extra money to fish there, well, not so much then. 'Harbor' the non resident muskie angler?? Bad choice of words, IMO.
This isn't a 'club'. And my point was Spring Bay welcomes us out of staters, as any resort in MN would if they value out of state business. If some resorts don't value the business, well...hang a sign out front, and we'll go elsewhere if we choose MN as a vacation destination at all.
I bet resistance to expanding the range of Muskie lakes in MN has as much to do with folks not wanting that to happen...folks who live in MN. That's been quite a conversation here over the last few years.
Same warm water concerns? Are you trying to say the water temps on Vermilion, Bemidji, and Mille Lacs are frequently over 80 degrees throughout the water column? Your characterization of lack of concern for the resource by non resident anglers is incorrect and rude; if the water temps are too warm, folks should focus on other fish and take care to do 100% water releases, and that goes for all muskie anglers, not just non residents. I bet if I went around and looked at the tags on the muskie boats on many MN muskie waters on this day, the resident tags will outnumber the non. As to the guides, that's been beat to death here in the past. If the State of MN decides non resident guides are not welcome, it'd be pretty simple to make the permit so expensive they will not fish there. I'd have no problem with that at all, but apparently your State does. Don't throw a stone at all out of state anglers because your state fails to regulate the guides as well as you'd like, most of us don't guide over there.
Shifting to other places. Sure, numbers of Muskie anglers is on the increase. It is everywhere, because Muskie angling is a growth segment in freshwater fishing. I bet there's a heck of allot more new MN muskie anglers than there are new non resident visitors fishing your waters. Ask them for the stocking funds, and they will help, IF you ask them without all the 'self entitlement' stuff.
Ontario Muskie angling is the best it's ever been, across the board, and that's from the fisheries managers in Ontario. Why? Catch and release, and the trophy waters protected by the 54" limit. Conservation licenses guarantee NO muskie harvest, not even a 60" fish. Sure, more CPR means more fish caught, but harvest is a certain dead fish, and CPR is a 90% or better surviving fish. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire Norh American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR.
Troyz,
There are near 700,000 hunters in WI looking to harvest less than half that number of whitetails, and comparing a hunting tag for a big game animal is not a good comparison. Totally different social set, totally different management strategy, and apples oranges. It doesn't take being some 'insider' to understand budget crisis issues due to the economy. Most state DNR budgets stink right now. They won't forever, and if each state's conservationist/activist muskie anglers want to make sure each State's muskie program is well supported despite poor budgets by raising enough money to fill the void, alienating a good portion of us ain't the way to get that done. | |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| Well,,WELL,WELL
has usual!!!!!! these threads go on to the point where I get fed up with rumor and finally call the dnr
so I did!!! the Bemidji area office at 9:35 am today/friday
talked to Gary Barnard Minn DNR
told him about the rumor
he said 'I heard that too and I dont know where it came from" Lake Bemidji is sced to get 1850 fish again and the plan is to keep on indefinitely.
He went on to say "In fact theres some new lakes sced to come about so if that was the case we would cancel stocking the new lakes and continue on with Bemidji
he went on to tell me 'please spread this word around so the info is straight"
guys the DNR does NOT bite,,,pick up the phone on these things they are a public agency their not going to put you on speaker phone and laugh at your question,,,, | |
| | |
Posts: 385
| Very happy to hear this was untrue according to the info that Brad was able to obtain. I can't believe that a well intentioned post to get some general thoughts and ideas on how to go about maintaining the resource turned kind of ugly with lots of hostility toward different groups of individuals. The out of state guides point fishing 80+ degree water temps when they won't fish their home waters is a very good point though. Thanks Brad for getting some good info. | |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| FYI
Bemidji dnr office is 1-218-308-2330 if you want to confirm this | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't see 'hostility', I see a good debate. It's OK to disagree if it's done well, and there's some good points made here by many.
Sounds like the stocking in MN is looking good for the future. Thanks for all who contributed and for clearing up the issue.
I still think a $100 tag is a bad idea.
If water temps are over 80 through the water column, many of us here think everyone should fish bluegills or something until the temps come down, and that's been discussed here recently, too. | |
| | |
Posts: 203
Location: Germantown, WI | I have never fished in MN, but I have been fishing Ontario for almost 30 years. We purchased the Ontario musky stamp when it first came out in Ontario, but it was a small fee compared to the cost of the regular license. It was comparable to the Inland Trout Stamps that I have purchased in WI and PA. Since Ontario has offered a Conservation license we have been purchasing that.
If MN really believes that tourism dollars are important and that musky anglers are singnifcantly contributing to that then it would be well advised not to impose a punitive tax on out of state musky anglers. If MN imposed a modestly priced musky stamp that was applicable to both residents and non-residents alike (like the Inland Trout Stamp in both WI and PA) I don't think it would have much impact on tourism positively or negatively.
Maybe it's time to see if some of the created musky fisheries in MN can stand on their own without stocking. MN has created a tremendous musky fishery through stocking, but can that really be sustained forever with the kind of ming-boggling numbers of big fish? If you really want to continue the intensive stocking on all the waters currently stocked and even add additional waters then it may be necessary to come up with additional funding sources. A punitive non-resident musky stamp is a bad idea. A reasonable musky stamp applicable to residents and non-residents alike might work. | |
| | |
| "Delayed mortality considering the pressure on your lakes is not a real issue. Sorry, you are not correct. Give me the figures on delayed mortality, creel numbers on CPR and the latest figures on base muskie populations in those lakes. Then let's talk about NR and stocking, and the numbers will make more sense. If what you are trying to insinuate is even close to factual, some of your lakes would be devoid of all muskies by now. Your entire premise for asking non resident anglers to pay a surcharge to fish in Minnesota is based upon ... 'the sky is falling' ...and that's not the fact of the matter."
That is a rather blanket and uneducated statement, how would you know what are my lakes? They certainly are not of the size of the Big V or Mille Lacs, meaning 10% of those lakes fishing pressures on these lakes in my area is just as equivalent due to ratios of anglers and musky per acre. We are already close to the handling capacity of some of the smaller waters already.
"if you wish to protect your muskies from harvest and the biologists agree they need it, I'd suggest shooting for a 50 to 54" limit. It's worked for Ontario very well on trophy waters there, and is working on WI waters as we speak."
Increasing the size limit doesn't prevent delayed mortality from those fish caught and having to be released due to any established size limit. Ontario is further north and doesn't necessarily achieve the warm water conditions we have here and certainly has a broader range of musky options than we here in Minnesota.
"Limiting logic? I'm using your data at 4% of the entire 200 resort association you belong to. On one hand you claim little money is spent by out of state muskie anglers in MN based upon the small number in your resorts, yet on the other you claim delayed mortality will decimate the lakes up there because of all the fishing pressure by out of state muskie anglers."
The money spent by non-resident musky anglers is vastly lower than the other forms of Minnesota Tourism. My resort books far more non-resident Minnesota vacationers who do not musky fish than those who do musky fish. And this is pretty much the standard for the other resorts in my association. My earlier comment which you fail to address or understand is that while low, that being 4%, it is now growing.
"You are not suggesting the state of MN 'asks for' a $100 tax on out of state muskie anglers. You are suggesting they demand it, and all because of some concept that the muskies in MN are dying off at an accelerated and unsustainable rate from CPR by non resident anglers; that stocking will cease, which turned out to be a rumor. That is a bad idea, and I think it has about as much chance of happening as a snowball surviving in Hades. Your tone is anti-tourism, and that's a bad idea. Your insistence the MN residents have 'paid for' the muskies and own them outright as a result flies in the face of reality. Ask us as a group, and you will find muskie anglers across the country are a generous lot. Insult us, and tell us we 'owe you' extra money to fish there, well, not so much then. 'Harbor' the non resident muskie angler?? Bad choice of words, IMO."
That's funny. The state should "ask" when they pass regulations that results in a new revenue streams. They demand it when passing these regulations and Minnesota isn't the only state that demands new taxes.
Minnesota State budgetary problems are resulting in cuts in MDNR budgets across the board. Stocking muskies is not the only issue here or the only item on the MDNR table to address for cutting activities. My tone is not anti-tourism, its for everybody to contribute a fair share to maintain the stocking and expanding the range. Why would I write this if I did not expect more non-resident Musky Anglers to be coming. I see that in the percentage of my business related to this group growing, albeit slowly and not like other specific areas in Northern Minnesota. I am not unrealistic to think even more will be coming. What I am realistic about is that the waters I address through my business interests, the pressure is close to exceeding supply and our stocking has been cut. Good for Bemidji, bad for the other, more smaller musky areas which are not receiving the necessary stocking to maintain their current levels.
"This isn't a 'club'. And my point was Spring Bay welcomes us out of staters, as any resort in MN would if they value out of state business. If some resorts don't value the business, well...hang a sign out front, and we'll go elsewhere if we choose MN as a vacation destination at all."
You seemed to be pre-occupied from my subject point at hand. It's getting the funding to maintain existing stockings where appropriate and expand the musky range because the increased pressure is coming as seen over the last several years and so to the effects of delayed mortality."
"I bet resistance to expanding the range of Muskie lakes in MN has as much to do with folks not wanting that to happen...folks who live in MN. That's been quite a conversation here over the last few years."
Exactly, finally you are right about something. Now compound the increased fishing pressure and delayed mortality, we are right back at Economics 101 with the demand growing, the supply gradually falling and the same number of lakes remaining realtively constant.
"Same warm water concerns? Are you trying to say the water temps on Vermilion, Bemidji, and Mille Lacs are frequently over 80 degrees throughout the water column? Your characterization of lack of concern for the resource by non resident anglers is incorrect and rude; if the water temps are too warm, folks should focus on other fish and take care to do 100% water releases, and that goes for all muskie anglers, not just non residents. I bet if I went around and looked at the tags on the muskie boats on many MN muskie waters on this day, the resident tags will outnumber the non. As to the guides, that's been beat to death here in the past. If the State of MN decides non resident guides are not welcome, it'd be pretty simple to make the permit so expensive they will not fish there. I'd have no problem with that at all, but apparently your State does. Don't throw a stone at all out of state anglers because your state fails to regulate the guides as well as you'd like, most of us don't guide over there".
Incorrect? How can you say that? While I hope everybody is water releasing, that isn't the case from the reports I receive, the dock pictures I look at, for those resort association members within my association as well as what I see from my customers. Your right, all musky anglers, except the pressure of a picture to take back home is what motivates the non-water release practices I am seeing right now. I wrote that some out of state guides in the Bemidji are putting business ahead of the resource and you construe my comments as throwing a stone towards all out of state anglers? I fail to see that connection.
"Shifting to other places. Sure, numbers of Muskie anglers is on the increase. It is everywhere, because Muskie angling is a growth segment in freshwater fishing. I bet there's a heck of allot more new MN muskie anglers than there are new non resident visitors fishing your waters. Ask them for the stocking funds, and they will help, IF you ask them without all the 'self entitlement' stuff."
No question, the new crop of Minnesota Musky Anglers are too providing through their income, property, and sale taxes. Again, vastly more than the non-resident individual who pays just $40.00 for 10 days each year.
"Ontario Muskie angling is the best it's ever been, across the board, and that's from the fisheries managers in Ontario. Why? Catch and release, and the trophy waters protected by the 54" limit. Conservation licenses guarantee NO muskie harvest, not even a 60" fish. Sure, more CPR means more fish caught, but harvest is a certain dead fish, and CPR is a 90% or better surviving fish. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire Norh American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR."
Ontario musky range to Minnesota's musky range is not exactly comparable when you look at the range, the season, the water temperature concerns and other factors. Yes, CPR means more fish caught and more fish incurring delayed mortality. In either case of harvest or delayed mortality, the resource is gone until it is replaced.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'That is a rather blanket and uneducated statement, how would you know what are my lakes? They certainly are not of the size of the Big V or Mille Lacs, meaning 10% of those lakes fishing pressures on these lakes in my area is just as equivalent due to ratios' of anglers and musky per acre. We are already close to the handling capacity of some of the smaller waters already.'
No, it's a statement based upon many studies done by biologists across the Muskie's range on CPR and past capture mortality. Been discussed here literally dozens of times with input from biologists from across the muskie's range.
Increasing the size limit works, period....if the system has an upper confidence limit that matches/exceeds the limit and/or the goal is to reduce harvest of large fish. That's not debatable.
'Right now, with water temperatures in or near the 80's, I am not fishing muskies, yet those non-resident Musky Anglers, having planned their vacations for the current situation, are here, fishing muskies in warm water conditions, basically because they are on vacation, incurred expenses and gosh darn the resource be darned.'
That's what you posted, and that's what I responded to. Educated muskie anglers would avoid mishandling muskies in warm water conditions. It's your job and ours to educate those who don't understand the possible consequences, and they ain't all out of state anglers. There's your 'connection'.
'Ontario musky range to Minnesota's musky range is not exactly comparable when you look at the range, the season, the water temperature concerns and other factors.'
Sure it is. Many Ontario water bodies can and do occasionally reach temps too warm to fish muskies for my preference. Too warm is too warm no matter where it is.
CPR works everywhere, and your concept of delayed mortality averages is way too expansive. The season nearly mirrors MN muskie season. It's frequently warmer in Dryden than it is in Minneapolis. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire North American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR. And that's a fact.
'No question, the new crop of Minnesota Musky Anglers are too providing through their income, property, and sale taxes. Again, vastly more than the non-resident individual who pays just $40.00 for 10 days each year.'
Fair share? If I fish there 6 days, and I pay $750 for a resort, $150 in boat gas, $80 for my wife's license and mine, $125 for food and entertainment, and catch and release a couple fish, I'd say I paid my 'share' towards the overall MN economy.
Read the above post by HH from his conversation with the DNR up there, it pretty much destroys your whole argument anyway.
| |
| | |
| so would the $100 stamp be a sort of muskie fishing "green card"? of course, then MN would have to pass a law requiring out-of-state anglers to show identification and proof that they weren't illegal muskie aliens...
"it's a muskie fishermen invasion! they're tunneling under the St.Croix and jumping over the fences! they're setting off bombs in the streets...or...umm...at least killing all of "our" fish by delayed mortality." bwhwhahahaha.
if you want to raise out-of-state fishing license rates, talk to Chaudary and i bet he'll include it in the next Fish & Game bill. oh, sorry, nevermind, he lost the DFL endorsement over those kinds of shenanigans.
that, or you could just pass a bill making muskie fishing against the law.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And all the while I was trying (without much success) to say the same thing by responding to the guy...bullseye, l. | |
| | |
| happy hooker - 7/23/2010 9:49 AM
guys the DNR does NOT bite,,,pick up the phone on these things they are a public agency their not going to put you on speaker phone and laugh at your question,,,,
Or just listen to tfoot  | |
| | |
Posts: 221
Location: Detroint Lakes, MN |
There seems to be a theme that spending money as a tourists is a positive for both the tourism industry and the fisheries.
That is not correct.
In the case at hand here, muskies, more tourism (by musky fishermen) does not make more money or resources available to the MNDNR muskie program. If that were the case than it's budget would increase every year instead of decline with the increasing numbers of visiting anlgers we have seen for the past 10 years.
So let's be clear here on the difference between helping the economy and helping the resource that brings the tourism in.
JS | |
| | |
Posts: 305
| Two things that most people agree on when it comes to politics during times like these are 1) We need to control spending 2) ...but don't cut(fill in blank with things that will pertain to them). | |
| | |
Posts: 1516
| What does make more money or resources availanle to the MNDNR muskie program? | |
| | |
| "No, it's a statement based upon many studies done by biologists across the Muskie's range on CPR and past capture mortality. Been discussed here literally dozens of times with input from biologists from across the muskie's range."
This statement is contrary to recent creel studies done on those waters of interest to me as compared to earlier creel surveys. The lack of consistent stocking in these waters has resulted in an imbalance of across the boat muskies sizes and being able to see the effects of delayed mortality, that being floaters, has increased in correlation to the increase in fishing pressure. How can I extend your point of view as well taken when this reality is something myself and other local resort businesses with a sincere interest of maintaining the current musky fishing environment see otherwise?
"Increasing the size limit works, period....if the system has an upper confidence limit that matches/exceeds the limit and/or the goal is to reduce harvest of large fish. That's not debatable."
What is not debatable? The reduction of fish under the size limit not being harvested or the increase in delayed mortality as observed throughout my resort owners association of floaters, reduce creel survey counts, as well as the imbalance of population sizes due to inadequate stockings?
"Right now, with water temperatures in or near the 80's, I am not fishing muskies, yet those non-resident Musky Anglers, having planned their vacations for the current situation, are here, fishing muskies in warm water conditions, basically because they are on vacation, incurred expenses and gosh darn the resource be darned.'
That's what you posted, and that's what I responded to. Educated muskie anglers would avoid mishandling muskies in warm water conditions. It's your job and ours to educate those who don't understand the possible consequences, and they ain't all out of state anglers. There's your 'connection'."
How am I able to construe that the local resident anglers within my resort association community are just as responsible when the creel surveys before the non-resident traffic began to show up showed an increase creel survey ratio from census to census? How am I able to construe the increase in floaters that are observed since the increase in out of state Musky traffic is apportioned to just as much as the same locals as before this increase? It behooves our businesses and livelihoods to educate these warm water concerns, but I cannot be in their boat to prevent it from happening. It certainly isn't the non-resident vacationer who reports the floater, just the opposite, it's the local fisherman who discovers and reports it for a majority of the time.
"Ontario musky range to Minnesota's musky range is not exactly comparable when you look at the range, the season, the water temperature concerns and other factors.
Sure it is. Many Ontario water bodies can and do occasionally reach temps too warm to fish muskies for my preference. Too warm is too warm no matter where it is."
Must be global warming finally coming home to roost and how many years of "The Sky Is Falling" transpired before the reality of this became unquestionable? Again, lack of consistent stocking, increase in delayed mortality floaters, reduced creel survey counts go directly against what is what you label un-debatable.
"CPR works everywhere, and your concept of delayed mortality averages is way too expansive. The season nearly mirrors MN muskie season. It's frequently warmer in Dryden than it is in Minneapolis. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire North American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR. And that's a fact."
I haven't talked about delayed mortality in an expansive manner, just Minnesota where the balance of fishing pressure upon muskys prior to the current wave of angling interests demonstrated furtherance in the viable musky population. I've observed the decline in recent official studies, observed the trend of imbalance in certain musky waters relative to across the board proportional muskies sizes and the correlative effects from non-consistent stockings. Lastly, I've observed enough to be like those early global warming advocates to be concerned that while the sky hasn't fallen, it's not transcending into the direction where one day that will assure it never will.
"Fair share? If I fish there 6 days, and I pay $750 for a resort, $150 in boat gas, $80 for my wife's license and mine, $125 for food and entertainment, and catch and release a couple fish, I'd say I paid my 'share' towards the overall MN economy."
As a resort owner, I thank-you for your business. However, a mere pittance to the amount of monies we Minnesotans pay in income, property and sales taxes each year, especially when compounded to a grand total amount over the last 25 years for those of us having been here from the very start of the current musky program.
Unfortunately, a good portion of your well earned, hard spent vacation monies will never end up in the MDNR coffers due to the current Minnesota Government practices. You certainly must be knowledgable about the Minnesota multiple state lottery system. It's existence was projected as a natural resource funding mechanism.
Today, from all the ticket sales, only 22 million is directed back into the resources.
There is no question, beyond being debatable as you enlist, that there are musky lakes here in Minnesota that are in decline and soon to be in decline because of limited monetary stocking continuance concerns, increased fishing pressures and delayed mortality.
You earlier stated $15.00 would be fine for a non-resident musky stamp. Others have written it's too much too.
Your position is based off the amount of money, not the concept of a musky stamp. The $40.00 license fee is for a non-resident annual license so perhaps a compromise here is $100.00 for this type if license and prorated down for those limited day type of non-resident fishing license.
| |
| | |
| The "elephant in the room" that nobody is talking about here, I believe, is the in-state/out-of-state angler issue and the feelings that go along with it. We (as Minnesota anglers) have noticed a huge influx of out of state anglers over the past 10 years or so. Reefs and weedbeds that we had to ourselves are busy places - too busy to fish and bother with at many times. The North Dakota resident waterfowl hunters felt it (out of state hunter pressure - much from Minnesotans) and complained enough that duck opener just for residents was acted on in their state's congress.
I'll be honest - I rarely fish stocked lakes any more due to the fact that I just don't like taking a number to fish a spot. I fished Lake Vermillion and never saw another muskie angler for the first four years I fished it. Pressure started to come and eventually it was common to be on a reef that is about a hundred yards long and someone with another state's letters/license pulls up on it and starts fishing their way towards you (and you are already more than half way across it).
After this happens a number of times on a three day trip - it was time to not come back. We have been spoiled here in Minnesota - but as increased fishing opportunities (stocked lakes) became reality - so came the anglers. I remember when three boats on Pelican Reef of Leech Lake was plenty of traffic. That reef is about half a mile long. Look at the 'Conga Line' on the north end of Mille Lacs a few years ago - a boat every forty yards. Boats pulling in front of you (100 yds) on a weedbed when you are obviously working that way. Migrant workers, as many folks call them, (out of state guides) do cause animosity in the local guide pool where-ever and whatever species one discusses.
The examples go on but my point is this - we are talking, once again, about allotment (who 'gets' the fish) and the feelings that go along with the issue. We talk about it with commercial fishing vs. sport fishing on the Kenai River, we talk of it with the Native American fishing/spearing on Mille Lacs and now we are talking about it within the muskie world...
In the 70's few folks fished for muskies - they were too hard to catch, few in density even in the best of muskie lakes. Folks like Dick Pearson and Mark Windels fished for 30 years before catching a 40 pounder - 40 lbers are fairly common these days - manufactured fish... Like stocked stream trout, they aren't hard to catch any more so more people do it. Sometimes I wish for those days, again.
Before stringing me up, ask yourself the tough question - how often do I fish for "real" muskies any more - wild fish rather than stocked fish? All I'm saying is that these sentiments never came up prior to the stocking issue. Allotment...
Dan Craven | |
| | |
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | With all due respect, where did Minnesotans fish for muskies before they had their stocking program? Didn't the Lindner's shoot a show on Deer Lake where they caught 23 muskies in a day and air it nationally? For untold years, the Polk County lakes were pounded beyond belief and the overstocking to meet demands hurt the fisheries badly in the long term. Hayward Lakes, too. Even today, North Metro Muskies Inc. holds June Jam, their largest fundraiser on 7 lakes in Polk County.
But the extra money non-residents pay in Minnesota is now suddenly not enough? Where did this elitism come from? | |
| | |
Posts: 366
| Mr. Resort Owner,
The issues that you’ve observed and are presenting here as justification for a $100 NR Stamp makes little to no sense what so ever. None of those issues, how ever severe they may be, will be solved by this stamp proposal. In fact having out-of-stators pay another $100 for their week vacation would only increase the odds that they will completely ignore water temp issues, ect. and fish anyway. Since what you are proposing is unfair, because it targets only out of state anglers, then it would be up to you to show and prove with real math and numbers that it isn't unfair. It isn't the responsibility of people who aren't proposing it to prove that it is unfair beyond pointing out the fact that you are addressing it only to NR muskie anglers. In fact if you can show in actual numbers and real math that NR anglers don't pay their fair share I doubt that many of them would have much issue paying the difference. The problem is that there are countless advantages that resident anglers have over NR travelers that you don't address what so ever in terms of use of the resource, besides the comparison of an hour fish a lake by the either group of anglers. The blanket notion that all NR anglers, especially experienced muskie anglers, are much harder on the resource isn't accurate. I see a lot more dock photos and dead fish from non-muskie anglers, resident and otherwise, who wouldn't have paid your $100 fee, and which wouldn't have saved those fish no matter the intention.
While each of your arguments have a sense and basis to them, none of which are help in the stamp argument with out real facts and figures, and even those can't cover all the intangibles of living down the road versus traveling from out of state.
Ryan | |
| | |
Posts: 619
| i dont think the out of stater thing is needed. it seems like there is already less out of staters fishing in MN already. i am assuming it will keep decreasing....fishing will never be like it was in the past 10 yrs or so....the pressure is so immense it doesnt matter, any fish that actually does become active gets a cowbell in its mouth 24hrs a day/7days a week, after a enough cowbells it will run into a guy w/o a net or release tools and becomes a floater or sinks to the bottom. there are alot better waters to fish now like LSC and other areas IMO. i think WI has alot nice waters that are being kept a little hush hush for good reason too.
Edited by Slow Rollin 7/23/2010 1:30 PM
| |
| | |
| As the gentlemen indicated above, call the MDNR to determine which Minnesota musky lakes have had their stocking fund activities reduced from previous levels.
The current economic situation is further reducing these monies. Are these not the facts and figures one really needs to find other ways to restore these necessarily expenditures, especially to continue the quality and sustain the ever increasing demand?
A floater is a floater is a floater. The increase over the last several years in my locale is hard, cold facts. What else can be said that is observed with one's own eyes? | |
| | |
Posts: 619
| Guest - 7/23/2010 1:27 PM
As the gentlemen indicated above, call the MDNR to determine which Minnesota musky lakes have had their stocking fund activities reduced from previous levels.
The current economic situation is further reducing these monies. Are these not the facts and figures one really needs to find other ways to restore these necessarily expenditures, especially to continue the quality and sustain the ever increasing demand?
A floater is a floater is a floater. The increase over the last several years in my locale is hard, cold facts. What else can be said that is observed with one's own eyes?
agree, FLOATER is a FLOATER, POOF - its gone | |
| | |
Posts: 3160
| not to open a whole nuther can of worms but if you DID have an out of state muskie angler stamp what would you put on it,,,FIB with Italian features,,sconie in watercolor because their mostly well diluted anyways when they fish,,Iowan in charcoal because thieir personality is black and white,,or an Indianan and just insert a outtake shot of Jed Clampett | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JS,
'There seems to be a theme that spending money as a tourists is a positive for both the tourism industry and the fisheries.
That is not correct. '
Seriously?
I am being clear. If the rest of the economy wasn't down so badly, the increasing tourism dollars collected in MN from us out of stater Muskie Anglers would be recognized as having much more impact. It's not the fault of Muskie anglers visiting MN and spending discretionary dollars the overall budget is suffering, which is why the state DNR budget is suffering; it would suffer more if those anglers chose to fish elsewhere. it sounds like you want to blame it on out of state anglers...which is ridiculous.
As to our resort owner friend, I asked him to back up his statements, and get more meaningless rhetoric like this
"I haven't talked about delayed mortality in an expansive manner, just Minnesota where the balance of fishing pressure upon muskys prior to the current wave of angling interests demonstrated furtherance in the viable musky population. '
I sure as hell didn't cause his observed 'floater'...maybe it was one of the 96% of his guests who are NOT dedicated muskie anglers. I've heard this sort of misdirected tirade that is not much more than a condemnation of fisheries management for years from resort owners even in WI, so it's no surprise.
We 'tourists' get it, Dan said it clearly. I'm very familiar with what he's saying; been there and done that when Pelican was 'hot', then Enterprise, then...
'agree, FLOATER is a FLOATER, POOF - its gone'
If you fish muskies, you inadvertently will kill a few over your career, and that includes MN residents. The overall average post CPR mortality is in the 10% range according to most of what I've read from the experts. Follow the logic...you want fewer CPR post capture moralities, or want every fish killed replaced, and are telling us out of staters we need to fund that effort because we fish there a week a year, yet you do not reduce your time on the water or try to catch fewer muskies 'for the cause'. Show me they are not at 1800 stocked in Bemidji every year; use the data available right here in the research forum and from surveys and estimates the MN DNR offer, and then we can talk about whether the sky is truly falling. If the stocking was stopped there...sure, many would step up... if they weren't told their participation is worthless and unwelcome. | |
| | |
Posts: 1516
| I wonder why the DNR started stocking muskies in the first place was it for the citizen muskie angler or to help attract the tourist fisherman and his family? | |
| | |
| "I am being clear. If the rest of the economy wasn't down so badly, the increasing tourism dollars collected in MN from us out of stater Muskie Anglers would be recognized as having much more impact. It's not the fault of Muskie anglers visiting MN and spending discretionary dollars the overall budget is suffering, which is why the state DNR budget is suffering; it would suffer more if those anglers chose to fish elsewhere. it sounds like you want to blame it on out of state anglers...which is ridiculous."
Like Mr. Craven mentioned, the increase in non-resident Musky pressure has for the most part, diverted the local musky fisherman to other, less competitive choices. I hear the extra drive is worth the efforts along with the tranquility associated with less pressured environments. Yet the floaters are continuing more and more each season as reported by those non-musky fishing locals who still remain. I view it as cause and effect, blame does nobody any good.
"As to our resort owner friend, I asked him to back up his statements, and get more meaningless rhetoric like this
I haven't talked about delayed mortality in an expansive manner, just Minnesota where the balance of fishing pressure upon muskys prior to the current wave of angling interests demonstrated furtherance in the viable musky population.
I sure as hell didn't cause his observed 'floater'...maybe it was one of the 96% of his guests who are NOT dedicated muskie anglers. I've heard this sort of misdirected tirade that is not much more than a condemnation of fisheries management for years from resort owners even in WI, so it's no surprise."
And, I've replied with surveying the results from creel surveys over the last several years and correlate to the reduction of stocking activities and the increase in out of state musky fishing pressures and the transitioning of the local element to other, hopefully to remain unknown, musky waters requiring a more distance travel effort. Sorry, I just do not see the rhetorical response as do you. Perhaps it's time to reduce the anxiety level and focus upon the readings and interpreations to their communicated meanings.
"We 'tourists' get it, Dan said it clearly. "
Which, if you retrace my previous responses, backs up the overflow to my area and the slowly, but surely rise in non-resident musky angler traffic. | |
| | |
Posts: 1767
Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Would you mind sharing what resort you own/work at? I would like to do my part to ensure that you are never burdened again by the evil out of state tourist, and I can surely point my friends in other directions as well to further help you out | |
| | |
Posts: 366
| If you were serious about all these issues you complain about you would realize that they stand a much better chance of being fixed by using your in-state angler vote and voice, and combine that with the power of your 200 resort association membership to address solutions. Which doesn't include throwing other peoples' good money at bad problems to hope that they are overcome, cause unless you actually fix the problems they'll never go away, but the money certainly will.
| |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | guest,
I wasn't addressing you in the first paragraph. Nonsense responses to what I had to say to JS don't help clear up anything.
'And, I've replied with surveying the results from creel surveys over the last several years and correlate to the reduction of stocking activities and the increase in out of state musky fishing pressures and the transitioning of the local element to other, hopefully to remain unknown, musky waters requiring a more distance travel effort. Sorry, I just do not see the rhetorical response as do you. Perhaps it's time to reduce the anxiety level and focus upon the readings and interpreations to their communicated meanings. '
What?
Post a reference on the MNDNR website to the reduced stocking numbers and the lakes involved, and let me know what office I can get the creel study results from. let's hear the exact number of reported floaters, and when those fish appeared.
'The last several years'... are the numbers of YOY/stocked fish and fish to 35" way down from previous years? Any boom shocking surveys and fyke netting surveys to back that up? Just curious. | |
| | |
| irony ...
the discussions of musky fishermen ... and the feeling you get when you go fishing | |
| | |
Posts: 32944
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | sled, ain't it the truth. | |
| |
|
Lake Bemidji cut from MN stocking list