|
|
| We've been hearing from the anti-Muskie folks how bad Muskies are for their lakes as well as the property values, so we did a little looking into this and so far it looks like if you have Muskies in your lake on average the property is worth $28,805.00. So congratulations to all those haters who cost themselves and their neighbors a fortune.
Much More to come
Property Values
Edited by Muskiefool 10/29/2011 9:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| And how does that compare to the average property values on non-muskie lakes?
Ok, I looked at your attachment. Muskie lake property is on average worth $28,805 more than non-muskie lake property. Very interesting, but certainly not surprising.
Edited by Fishwizard 10/29/2011 9:55 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Its all there |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3920
| No muskies in this lake and $29K might cover the cost of my driveway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | 29k was the cost of my lake property 26 years ago. Without Musky in Palmer/Tenderfoot I doubt I'd have built a home on it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | I looked at the attachment also guys. He's not saying that $28000 is the value of the property, but that property on muskie lakes is averaging $28000 MORE than property on non-muskie lakes. The average values appear to be over $200,000 for both types muskie and non-muskie, he's just pointing out that values are higher, property moves quicker also it appears on muskie vs non-muskie waters.
Great info MuskieFool!! |
|
| |
|
| Awesome info! A little more ammo to use against the "haters". *WHY DO ALL THE "passwords" TO MAKE A POST HAVE TO BE SO HARD TO READ! DRIVES ME NUTS!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Register and login.
Or get a bigger monitor, or hit Ctrl +. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | look at the cash cost of taxes on the same homes vs. losses taken as the real-estate bubble continues to burst. $28k more in market value vs. what? they get to pay 2x the taxes to hold onto it while they try to figure out how upside-down they are in today's market. real-estate/investment/value are words that don't seem to go together so much anymore ... unless you've owned it as long as GMG has.
but, honestly do you really think it's because muskies are swimming in it? what if it were lakers? or any other combination of quality bio-mass???
i get it but holy cow sometimes you guys really stretch the argument beyond logic ... |
|
| |
|
| so an additional 28 grand value on a 250,000.00+ house doubles the taxes and makes you more upside down? you got some mad skills of perception sled. God Bless You........ I'll pay the difference in those taxes. and furthermore you dont have to pay property taxes at all, go live in a card board box and save all those evil taxes. 
Edited by Muskiefool 10/30/2011 12:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | show me the house on prime water that goes for $250k
next, do a search on the tax bill for those homes vs. today's value and then compare it to what it was worth 5 years ago ...
then tell me about all the money that's being made ...
you're a genious ... |
|
| |
|
| I have looked at alot of property here in MN on both Muskie lakes and non Muskie lakes that are equal in other fishing and water quality, beauty etc.. and I completely agree that the Muskie lakes carry a higher price tag and more demand and and seem to be holding their values a little better.
Alot of the people grumbling about muskie stocking have had the cabin in the family for decades and passed down and want to continue to pass it down and they hope to never have to even think about selling so they want their value as low as possible. If their assessed values go up then alot of those people can't afford the property taxes and the gas to get to the cabin. They also don't want more people on their lake etc etc..
All I have to say is boo F'ing Hoo.. The demand for more Muskie fishing opportunities and the money it brings to the small towns in northern MN and Wis far outweighs the $$$ concerns of the people that think they own the lake.. If it is a problem, sell the place and go somewhere else. There are 23,000 other lakes Mn and Wis that don't have evil Muskies in them.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| Muskiefool - 10/30/2011 12:04 PM
so an additional 28 grand value on a 250,000.00+ house doubles the taxes and makes you more upside down? you got some mad skills of perception sled. God Bless You........ I'll pay the difference in those taxes. and furthermore you dont have to pay property taxes at all, go live in a card board box and save all those evil taxes.
Tell that to the Vilas County Tax assesor's office. There's nothing but trees on my lot and I'm still paying a pretty substantial property tax bill every year. And Sled is ABSOLUTELY correct - Real Estate vaues chave changed in the Northwoods - down by about 30% in the last 4 years. If you bought in the last 7-8 years, and if you sell now (that is presuming you CAN sell it), you're still going to lose a hefty chunk of change. Even if you paid cash, you're looking at a loss that amounts to most folks annual salary. If you have a mortgage? All said and done, over a hundo just to get out from under it.
All of this is completely irrelevant to the discussion, however.
You have to look at WHY real estate is more expensive on those lakes. While we'd all like to think it's because of muskies in the lake, there aren't enough muskie anglers to affect real estate prices for one. Second of all, the folks who are buying these lakefront homes? Not sure about your area, but in my area of Vilas, these are NOT ordinary joes. Not by a long shot. These are business owners, CEO's, people who are wealthy by anybody's measuring stick. And they don't care what is IN the lake. They care about what's ON the lake, and the size of that lake. For a lake to support a substantial muskie fishery, in most cases, it has to be larger and deeper, or connected to bodies of water that are. And that's your real estate premium right there. It just so hapens that the lakes that are most desireable to people also happen to be the lakes likely to support a population of muskies. Then you have to look at accessability, whether the lake has a public launch, what sort of topography bulders have to deal with, zoning restrictions, covenants, fire service, waste management... What are the lot sizes? How much development is on the lake? What direction do these properties face? What sort of septic systems are allowed? How is the tap water? Are there invasives in the lake? What about mercury? Is the lake clear or stained? Is it weedy? There are just too many other factors going into lakefront real estate prices, factors that are important to everyone whether they fish or not, to presume that the presence of muskies has any effect whatsoever on the value of those properties.
Edited by esoxaddict 10/30/2011 1:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Do you think the average John Q. Public really cares if there are muskies in the lake they are looking to purchase lake property? Doubtful. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Who purchases vacation property on lakes? Often times fishermen. What is the area of freshwater fishing that is growing the most? Muskie fishing.
MN unlike WI has a very limited amount of waters that have muskies so therefore there should be a larger demand for waterfront property that has muskies. I have several friends that have purchased waterfront cabins and the determining factor of which lakes they looked at was muskies. Now it isn't going to matter in the majority of cases, but if there's a 10% increase in demand for a muskie lake vs. a non-muskie lake that's $25,000 on a $250,000 house. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Most would just call it scramblin' ... A for effort tho. LOL |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | I think the point is that a majority of people against muskies point to the negative effect that muskies will have on a fishery for a variety of reasons. When you see that property values on lakes with muskies are at the same level or higher than those that do not have muskies, what does this tell us? I agree that there are many more factors than just muskies. But it sure points to the fact that muskies aren't going to have the detrimental impact that many try to make people believe. To those that try to paint that picture, where is the evidence that backs up their claims?
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Posts: 342
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | You should be able to appeal your tax rate or assessed value for a drop in value of 30%. That could save you thousands of $$$ a year to buy more muskie baits. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| AWH - 10/30/2011 4:58 PM
I think the point is that a majority of people against muskies point to the negative effect that muskies will have on a fishery for a variety of reasons. When you see that property values on lakes with muskies are at the same level or higher than those that do not have muskies, what does this tell us? [...] Aaron
AWH, there are two factors at work here in my opinion:
1. Those folks actually believe that the presence of muskies in their likes WILL have a negative impact on their fisheries. Where is the evidence of that? I'd suspect most of them can't present any. And they don't need to. That belief, true or not, is very common among anglers of other species. It could be overharvest, but nobody wants to believe that their Friday night fish fry is the case of the decline in other species. It could be a natural cycle in the system, a few year classes experiencing a major die-off, for example. But it's far easir to blame those #*^@ muskies.
2. It's been my experience in dealing with my own lake association, that the REAL reason that these folks are oppsed to muskies in their lakes is that they don't want muskie ANGLERS on their lakes. That opinion is much more prevalent than any of us want to believe. I've heard it all - too many boats at the launch, too many out of state anglers (sound familiar?) the big rangers with the loud motors, people flinging muskie lures around their boat and their dock. For many, I think if you could quietly sneak muskies into the lake and not bring the likes of US along with it, they'd me much more excited about the idea. Thankfully I am in a muskie friendly area, which is mostly a product of local history and lore. But even in my area there is an animousity towards the muskie angling public at large.
But few are willing to admit that, and even fewer will admit to it publicly. So they paint a different picture. Muskies are bad, they eat all of our walleyes.
Back to property values... I supect there are the crazy few who bought their properties based on whether there are muskies present. But I still think it's a pretty big stretch to say that muskies are affecting the property vaules. Our lake association has a few avid muskie anglers. The rest bought there because development is low, the lake is clear, and it's one of the larger lakes in the area.
Of course we've got 100 muskie lakes within an hour, so it might just be different in an area with relatively few lakes.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 541
| lakes that effectively hold muskies are typically healthier lakes and are usually better walleye fishing lakes as well as other species. It takes a healthy lake to hold muskies and muskies keep the lakes healthier as well! in my opinion. Probably a good reason why these properties are worth more being on higher quailty bodies of water! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | I'll suggest it has little to do with muskies, but what type of body of water it is. A lake that holds muskies very well be a more appealing body of water due to size, depth, type of frontage, etc. The pool of musky fishermen/home buyers that would have their buying decision affected by whether muskies are in a lake would be so small as to be statistically meaningless.
Show me some figures of properties on two almost identical lakes with identical frontage, one with muskies and one without, and your figures would have more meaning. That's a paired sales analysis.
It's possible it makes a difference, but the way you're going about it is too general. It is interesting that you think the figures "defiantly" show a difference.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MuskyHopeful - 10/31/2011 12:52 PM
I'll suggest it has little to do with muskies, but what type of body of water it is. A lake that holds muskies very well be a more appealing body of water due to size, depth, type of frontage, etc. The pool of musky fishermen/home buyers that would have their buying decision affected by whether muskies are in a lake would be so small as to be statistically meaningless.
Show me some figures of properties on two almost identical lakes with identical frontage, one with muskies and one without, and your figures would have more meaning. That's a paired sales analysis.
It's possible it makes a difference, but the way you're going about it is too general. It is interesting that you think the figures "defiantly" show a difference.
Kevin
Quit trying to be so smart! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | It's the pizza. Brain food for sure. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Real estate. The only thing I know anything about.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | "Back to property values... I supect there are the crazy few who bought their properties based on whether there are muskies present. But I still think it's a pretty big stretch to say that muskies are affecting the property vaules. Our lake association has a few avid muskie anglers. The rest bought there because development is low, the lake is clear, and it's one of the larger lakes in the area."
We just had one lot open up on Palmer about 1.5 years ago, owner was asking $385,000.00 for 500' of frontage and 2.125 acres. Some lady from California bought it without ever seeing it. Has zero clue what fish are in it. Price? $245,000.00. Bought it as an investment with no thought to building on it. Pretty ballsy I'd say. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1184
Location: Iowa Great Lakes | Wow thats cheap for 500', here that would cost you a couple mil....Going rate now is around $10K a foot of lakeshore....Was up around $15K a few years ago.... Bare lot, 75' shoreline in the paper last week, $650K...And this is in Iowa.... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| Those prices aren't really that far out of line, believe it or not. In my area of Vilas, you'll pay about $1,200 per linear ft of frontage and/or $160k/acre just for the land. Add a house to that and you're in the range of $450-$700k. Nowhere near what is was 3-4 years ago, but it's still not cheap. |
|
| |
|
| These are paired analysis from a broker in north central MN, I have every listing with photos; many of the lakes with Muskies present the listing states "Muskie Lake", "THIS CABIN IS LOCATED ON CLEARED LOT ON ONE OF THE AREA'S PREMIER MUSKIE LAKES!", "Sunfish to Muskies abound in this great fishery." or "premium lake and priced to sell! Can anyone say MUSKY FISHING!". This is not a Wisconsin deal where there are far more Muskie lakes. In MN Muskie lakes represent just over 100;and WI has 780+ Lakes and Rivers.
All of the lakes in this area sampled are similar; all have the same fish aside from Muskies. This doesn't not include any of the super lakes such as Mille Lacs, Miltona or Vermilion. There was statements in the Star Trib a few years ago how in one area Muskie opener was bigger money wise than Memorial or Walleye opener. These economic impacts are important because they show that the fish being present is not doing any damage and its quite simply the opposite. This is one piece of a huge puzzle that no-one has addressed to date. |
|
| |
|
| http://realestatetwincities.net/muskie-lakes/ http://realestatetwincities.net/muskies-milfoil-and-minnetonka/ http://www.customboardwal
il-and-minnetonka/ http://www.customboardwalks.com/forsale-lake-miltona/170.html http://www.trulia.com/property/42313990-2481-N-Lake-Milto
www.trulia.com/property/42313990-2481-N-Lake-Miltona-Dr-NE-Miltona-MN-56354 Just
a few examples of Muskies not detracting from home sales..MN is full of them.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Minnetonka real estate is driven by muskies? You're seriously using tonka
as a comparison of home value and claim vs non-musky lakes?
Edited by jonnysled 10/31/2011 5:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| If you say it is, it must be. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey, you brought this topic to the folks here for review. If the folks you are looking to support you are challenging your assessments or asking you to back up your claims, it's incumbent upon you to do so without alienating every one of us in the process, wouldn't you say? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | Variables from lake to lake are so great, that the effect on price based on whether a lake contains muskies is most likely impossible to quantify. Can your "broker" provide any data as to the number of homeowners on those lakes that are musky fishermen? What percentage of buyers in the marketplace make their purchase decisions based on the existence of muskies in a body of water? How many buyers make their decision based on the quality of fishing in general?
As someone mentioned previously, lakes that hold muskies are probably good fisheries in general. Lakes with good fisheries generally have better water quality. Most likely that's your difference. There are also many other characteristics that can drive property values that would be much more important than what fish swim in what lake. Building restrictions, tax rates, school systems, proximity to support facilities, whether Sled lives nearby or not, the quality of housing already existing on the lake, likelihood of future development, etc. How all other differences in location affect sale prices would need to be quantified before you could even begin to attribute higher prices to a fish.
The effect on price of one species of fish in a body of water is near impossible to pinpoint. I understand how the chart you posted might contain numbers exciting to those fighting for more stocking or the abolishing of spearing, but the rational would be easy to dispute.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| I dont think I brought any ostentatious claims or intentions to the discussion such as 2X the taxes for 10% increase in value but I could be wrong. As fish were being stocked into the Horseshoe Chain last week one of the haters stopped to make insane claims about how the fish have already destroyed the property values. I showed how folk's selling real estate across the state are talking about Muskies, I dont think I made any claims that fish are the driving force on Tonka. The same things happen every time we've posted info on Muskie interactions with fish, stocking, actions to help the fish or C&R research. Someone is always put out, singled out or offended. I dont mind the Muskie haters. We all need and get something; I'll take the B.S. and deal out pocket deuces when I have to. I am only providing info that was given to me by a broker, along with his comments. Not Mine or any Muskie interest. No-one is trying to abolish spearing.
Edited by Muskiefool 10/31/2011 5:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | All I'm suggesting is that if you bring that information to a hearing and try to use it to your advantage, it's validity can be easily brought into question. In the reverse, I say the person that says muskies are detrimental to values also has an argument that is impossible to prove.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2865
Location: Brookfield, WI | My mistake on the spearing comment. That was just a general comment stating how someone who is pro-musky, and anti-anti-musky crowd could be excited about the data you posted. But should be cautious about that excitement.
Kevin |
|
| |
|
| I agree 100% Kevin, it takes multiple facets to help people understand Muskies and how they effect the water and our lives; because its a multi-edged sword (that I fall on 363 times a year, we all need a couple days away; lol). This is the first hint of info showing that Muskies do not destroy property values. I'm surely not qualified to conduct an economic impact study, but my real world discussions with folks from Fox Lake to Vermilion have told me they do have a positive influence on many things. Muskies dont suck,
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | You ever seen real-estate on Tonka? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 342
Location: Passaic, NJ - Upper French River, ON | How can 102 sales on 10 lakes be a statistically significant sample ? |
|
| |
|
| Purify yourself in the waters of Lake Minnetonka! LOL, I get what you mean sled. |
|
| |
|
| i'd pay 10% more for a comparable home on a muskie lake than on a non-muskie lake in MN. in fact, i fully intend to do just that approximately one day after i retire. (i got a few years yet to save up.) i'm confused why folks are being so harsh on this. John doesn't pretend to be a real estate expert, but he does present compelling information that at a minimum demonstrates muskies do not negatively impact home values, might possibly augment them, and definitely is being used as a positive marketing angle. those are good things, and good info to be able to use when you hear some nonsense from someone claiming muskies are monsters. keep up the good work, John, and thanks for passing the info along to us.
Edited by lambeau 10/31/2011 8:09 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ... with lake minnetonka in the study comparing musky lake properties against others nowhere near the metro and making the claim that "if you have Muskies in your lake on average the property is worth $28,805.00 ... no schidt?!
keep editing dude ...
compelling information indeed ... some might consider it sensationaled b.s. |
|
| |
|
| some might consider it sensationaled b.s. go to the primary sources listed. is the "houses are worth more" bit over-stated? yes.
is the presence of muskies being used as a positive marketing angle? yes. is it evident that the presence of muskies does not negatively effect value? yes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | lambeau - 10/31/2011 8:49 PM
is it evident that the presence of muskies does not negatively effect value? yes.
I think thats kinda the whole point Underhill was trying to get across.
Edited by kevin cochran 10/31/2011 9:13 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | does the embellished message of a zealot get lost in b.s. and lose credibility for the cause? ... yes |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Actually, all good points. One needs be conscious of the entire landscape, and all...
The landscapers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| It's a marketing sales pitch promotional tool! Not a scientific fact mission about creating the best possible lake property pricing algorithm known to man. Some of you guys sure nitpick the life out of everything. Perception is all that really matters in this discussion, and whether a negative perception towards muskies is valid and warranted doesn’t really matter to its own existence. Perception is what drives housing prices, nothing more, nothing less.
Edited by Fishwizard 10/31/2011 9:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3509
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | It'd be interesting to track property values on the newly stocked lakes in MN. If property values go up at a higher rate without much improvement in the homes/cabins etc, there might be an argument there that muskies have made a positive impact on property values. I do think it would be a huge stretch, though in my humble opinion.
I do think I understand where Muskiefool is coming from, though... Take a look at some of the real estate websites in northern MN. Many of them have it listed in the ads of being on prime muskie waters (some even list them separately) and as such, I would not be surprised at all that the prices listed are set a bit higher. All in the marketing to get the highest price. The realty sales associates know the area, what is popular, etc...so it would only be natural to advertise it. I know for when my time comes a few years down the line, I will narrow my search based upon whether or not muskies are in the lake. If it means paying a little more, I guess that is what I will have to do...
Steve |
|
| |
|
| One last time for your sake sled this does not include any Metro lakes, like I said its a area in North Central MN. I hope this helps you understand it does not include Tonka, Vermilion, Miltona, DL, or Mille Lacs. Edited for your pleasure
Edited by Muskiefool 10/31/2011 10:21 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks for thinking outside the box, Muskiefool, and providing this data. Its not your fault it rubs some folks the wrong way and I am not alone in appreciating your angle. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| I don't think it has "rubbed anyone the wrong way", but there are a lot of us out there who either own lakefront real estate, are shopping for lakefront real estate, or in Hopeful's case, have actually made their living in the real estate business. When someone makes a a claim that real estate on muskie lakes sells for $28k more than on non-muskie lakes, and that's because of muskies? Well, it's a noble agenda. Encouraging people to see the positive influence that muskies can have on a lake is a good thing. But we have to be careful not to make ourselves look foolish in the process. It's difficult enough to convince someone of something when they believe otherwise, especially when they WANT to believe otherwise. But when you're using reasoning that might not be sound reasoning, it defeats your cause.
We have an agenda, and everyone knows it. The only way to convince people that our way is the better way is to make sure we are right, and that we have sound evidence in our favor that can't be reputed. When you make a claim that real estate on muskie lakes is more expensive, and 10 people can give you 20 other reasons why that real estate might be more expensive, none of which have anything to do with the presence of muskies in the lake? Maybe that's not an argument that's going to gain us any ground in our pursuit of new muskie waters.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 444
| I'm no Real estate mogue or anything but seems to me that the more a lake has to offer, the more buyers or potential buyers it would attract, driving up demand and increasing price....
I could easily see more demand for a lake that has Bass, Muskie, Walleye, Perch and crappie fishing VS a lake that has say just blue gills, crappie and bass....
Edited by thescottith 11/1/2011 11:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis, MN | We have been considering/looking for a place on a muskie lake in MN for years. If you spend any time looking at lake property in MN you will quickly notice that the value of "muskie" lakes is higher than non-muskie lakes. However, I caution everyone before positioning that there is a cause of muskies in a lake creating the effect of higher property values. I would suggest that in general it is a coincidence not a cause based on most of the great muskie lakes in MN are just great lakes to begin with. For example, the lakes out west are very close to money/population in ND, Vermilion is one of the most beautiful shield lakes we have in the state, Bemidji is right in the middle of town, Minnetonka is the biggest lake in the Metro, etc. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 19
| Its the only reason i would ever want to live on tonka. or any other lake for that matter.
Edited by clm 11/1/2011 4:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | There are a lot of valid arguments here. It seems that we can agree that Muskies do not drive lake property values down.
I do know that Little Boy and Wabedo seem to have higher property values than other lakes in the Longville area that do not have Muskies. In fact, a number of the area lakes seem to have better multi-species fishing than either Little Boy or Wabedo and yet the Muskie lakes seem to have higher property values. At least they did when my in-laws were looking at lake property in 2003. The difference in value then was actually more in the 30k to 50k range over similar properties on nearby lakes. So, despite my begging and pleading, my in-laws bought less expensive property on a nearby lake without Muskies.
Although, one could also make the argument that the deerflies drive up property values. At least the deerflies seem a lot worse around Wabedo than anywhere I have ever been. 
As for me, I do plan to buy lake property before I retire. I wouldn't consider buying lake property on a non-Muskie lake and would gladly pay only 28k more to be on a lake with quality Muskie fishing.
Just my two cents.
Edited by Herb_b 11/1/2011 5:33 PM
|
|
| |
|
| it was an interesting and obvsiously debatable post but i don't think muskiefool ever represented himself as case-schiller. I've never done an analysis but to me it seems like cabins on musky lakes seem to be a little more pricey...just an observation looking around. they also seem to be bigger, deeper lakes or a chain of lakes. which i think attracts more of the boating crowd. you know the boating crowd that will buzz through a weedbed at 50MPH with a 250+HP engine. same crowd that complains of musky stockings. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 596
Location: deephaven mn | jonnysled - 10/31/2011 5:12 PM
Minnetonka real estate is driven by muskies? You're seriously using tonka
muskies in minnetonka may not effect property values,
it is interesting that a realator will use muskies to promote sales.
so it must help to mention muskeis in the listing
Edited by kap 11/2/2011 3:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
| I think part of the reaction here is to muskiefool and not necessarily the report (which I agree is quite limited in value). Muskiefool has consistently proven to be a blind zealot with horrible English skills. And to think this guy claims to represent muskie fishermen to the MN legislature -- he fits the stereotype perfectly.
It's been said before: muskie fishing will be just like trout fishing someday if we keep this up. Fly fishermen look down at the guy who throws spinners and says awful things about the guy who fishes worms. So a bunch of us are half way there because of the sucker fishing debate. The idea that we'll take this sport away from the masses by making it an elitist activity makes me want to puke. |
|
| |
|
| So dispelling myths and working on the problems of Muskie stocking are taking away fishing opportunity from the masses and leaving them to the "elite" like myself?
I throw spinners for Trout does that help my status  Your point of not having a point is so typical Enjoy
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | I am the other co-chair of the MN Muskie and Pike Alliance and my boat got two fish on suckers today. Does that make me an elite trout fisherman? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 454
| What I want to know is how the Wind was up there Kevin? Would have been tough to stay on the water around here. Nice work with the 2 sucker fish!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Wind was blowing hard out of the southwest from 7am to 7pm. Even more wind tomorrow. Can you sense my enthusiasm? |
|
| |
|
| Just bought a property in a small town near Hayward, WI. Within 15 minutes of Chippewa Flowage plust all the other muskie lakes for 25,000. That included aplliances. Not a palace but was ready to move into and do the changes the old woman wanted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 541
| I was telling a guy the other day about a nice muskie I caught on such and such lake I knew he was a big time real estate guy and I dint think anything of it but when he heard this lake had muskies in it he seemed kind of intrigued like a weird kind of intrigued espicially when he is not a muskie fisherman. It really made me wonder about the property advertisement and such. Then shortly after this thread was started and I learned that real estate guys advertise this so it makes sense why he was so intrigued then. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | Guest - 11/6/2011 7:32 PM
Just bought a property in a small town near Hayward, WI. Within 15 minutes of Chippewa Flowage plust all the other muskie lakes for 25,000. That included aplliances. Not a palace but was ready to move into and do the changes the old woman wanted.
Good deal. What would the same property go for had it been "on" the Chippewa Flowage ? I would imagine much more than an additional $25K....
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| Off water properties are typically about 10% of the cost of properties that actually have frontage. Then you have the weird ones in-between. Frontage that you own, and can build a pier on, with a road that runs through the edge of the lot that you don't own, lots with frontage where your building site is 200 feet from the water, deeded access to some nearby lake that your property doesn't actually touch...
If you're talking about a buildable lot with 100 feet or more of frontage, where you can actually see the lake from your house and actually walk out of the house and go down to the lake without having to build 35 stairs or a boarwalk that runs through a swamp, I'd expect $200,000 and up.
|
|
| |
|
| Just wishin' I had such problems |
|
| |
|
| I would be surprised that property on Muskie Lakes has more value...considering all of the kids that get attacked by Muskies when they dangle their feet off the ends of docks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32954
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | It's true, you know kids are fourth on the list of things muskies love to eat. Right behind bald eagles, walleye and dogs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| Funny you mention that. I know a guide who refuses to swim in the lake he guides on because of some of the muskies he has seen come out of there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 134
| Just an observation from a person who is lucky enough to own lake property in Oneida Co. and muskie fish in Vilas and Oneida Co. The people that can afford lake property are the ones buying and in general do not seem to be fisherman. They come with their jet ski's and Ski Nautiques. They are more interested in entertaining and playing with toys rather than fishing. To each his own, but the blue collar dream of owning a cabin on a lake to fish and relax is going away or has become not affordable to most. Going away, just like all the lake resorts that dotted most lakes in northern Wisconsin. I am not a fan of jet skis or extravagent ski boats, but at least these people are not muskie fishing and putting more pressure on the fish. It is like one of the members comments " I love golfers, keeps them off the water on weekends" To many other factors in this equation to raise property values than the presence of old essox. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 667
Location: Roscoe IL | Outside of Holiday weekends during the Summer, we don't see that many Jet skis or water skiers on Lake Nokomis. Lots of Bass & Welleye fisherman, we get a few regulars that love fishing our dock in the back bay. For the most part it's quiet during the week, I would be more concerned about water levels effecting property values than anyting else. It can get quite low at times. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8862
| I was up on "my lake" in Vilas last year on the 4th of July. RRRRR!!!!! kids screaming, people laughing, dogs barking...
"What is all that racket?!" I thought....
As it turned out, it was one pontoon boat pulling kids around on inner tubes, dogs in the boat barking away. I guess one boat on the lake on the 4th of July isn't too bad... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | dh buc - 11/9/2011 12:18 PM
Just an observation from a person who is lucky enough to own lake property in Oneida Co. and muskie fish in Vilas and Oneida Co. The people that can afford lake property are the ones buying and in general do not seem to be fisherman. They come with their jet ski's and Ski Nautiques. They are more interested in entertaining and playing with toys rather than fishing. To each his own, but the blue collar dream of owning a cabin on a lake to fish and relax is going away or has become not affordable to most. Going away, just like all the lake resorts that dotted most lakes in northern Wisconsin. I am not a fan of jet skis or extravagent ski boats, but at least these people are not muskie fishing and putting more pressure on the fish. It is like one of the members comments " I love golfers, keeps them off the water on weekends" To many other factors in this equation to raise property values than the presence of old essox.
The dream doesn't have to die. Just have to spend your money more wisely, and save for the things you really want. |
|
| |
Real estate on Muskie Lakes