|
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Would you support a license fee increase for annual fishing licenses (resident and non-resident) in MN or WI? How much?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | I would have no problem paying more to participate in the activities I pursue outdoors. What the state would do with the additional funds, although mostly out of my control, would worry me somewhat. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| I’ve bought fishing licenses in over a dozen states and Canada, and have had a lifetime permit in my home state since I was 18. I’ve never bought one and thought to myself that they were too expensive. I enjoy the opportunity to fish, and do not mind supporting those who support the fisheries that make those opportunities better and ultimately possible.
Ryan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | $26.00 a year seems inexpensive to me in the grand scheme of things( what you told me a UT license cost). just like I have no problems giving WI $65.00 for my wife and I to fish there. I wish MN would raise fees to get some of these outdoor projected budgets back in the black going forward, and no, not just the ones I participate in, it's not about 1 person or 1 group of people. But all of the programs that exist to enhance outdoor experiences throughout the state. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3516
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hiya,
If it was guaranteed that the extra dollars were to go directly to the DNR for fisheries management/stocking, and more DNR officers on the ground, I'd pay upwards of $15 - $20 each year. If the extra $$ could be tagged by me as to what source of fisheries management it would help, all the better.
Not sure in MN how much of the $$ gained by license fees goes directly to the government first (it might be all, then the DNR is allocated a $$ amount from there...gut says this is the way it happens). If it does happen this way, I would NOT support a license increase since I feel the vast majority of those funds would not make it back to the DNR.
Steve
|
|
| |
|
| How much are you guys paying in WI and MN? |
|
| |
|
| VMS - 12/8/2011 4:03 PM
If it was guaranteed that the extra dollars were to go directly to the DNR for fisheries management/stocking, and more DNR officers on the ground, I'd pay upwards of $15 - $20 each year. If the extra $$ could be tagged by me as to what source of fisheries management it would help, all the better.
I agree 100% here in Michigan. As long as I knew the money was going to the right cause I would pay much more than the $29 currently charged for an all-species license. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | VMS - 12/8/2011 3:03 PM
Hiya,
If it was guaranteed that the extra dollars were to go directly to the DNR for fisheries management/stocking, and more DNR officers on the ground, I'd pay upwards of $15 - $20 each year. If the extra $$ could be tagged by me as to what source of fisheries management it would help, all the better.
Not sure in MN how much of the $$ gained by license fees goes directly to the government first (it might be all, then the DNR is allocated a $$ amount from there...gut says this is the way it happens). If it does happen this way, I would NOT support a license increase since I feel the vast majority of those funds would not make it back to the DNR.
Steve
http://www.dcnr.state.al.us/research-mgmt/sport-fish.cfm
I realize it is Alabama, but it had one of the better write ups I have read. Your license fees directly help the resource. Your fee could not be 'tagged' to be diverted to a special fund.
Edited by Pointerpride102 12/8/2011 4:35 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'd have no issue paying $100 for Sue and I to fish. I'd also pay that for whitetail tags, for us both. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I'd like to hear from some of the no increase votes and why they would not support it. |
|
| |
|
Location: Latitude 41.3016 Longitude 88.6160 | I would support a $15.00 increase 100% !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| |
|
| $50 non resident WI
$31.50 on resident IL
Myself being from IL, already think non resident fishing licenses are high no matter what sate you are in. |
|
| |
|
| I support it cause I already have a lifetime  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| I pay $70 for the WI NR license (includes inland trout and great lakes salmon stamp) That's already high. If I could be assured that any additional money would go directly to muskie efforts and not to stock more walleyes so the Indians can spear and net them all with reckless abandon, I might consider an extra $10. But as it stands now, I'd rather donate my money to my MI chapter, voluntarily, so I know that it's going to stock more muskies in more places. |
|
| |
|
| Not a chance I am paying the government more in the middle of a recession. We all have to learn to live with less and better budget our money.
I voted yes to the Legacy Amendmanet in MN and absolutely regret it. Money for sculptures and possibly to keep the Vikes. What a total joke. One thing is for certain politicians will use the money for whatever they want and the tax or fee increase will never go away. |
|
| |
|
| NY increased their license fees a few years ago and it sucks. For a nonresident it used to be $35, now I pay $70. That's like buying a license every year and never being the water. Who wants that?
I don't know why anyone would want to pay more for anything. I've never went past a gas station and said, "Gee, I wish I could be paying $5/gal, $3.50/gal just isn't enough." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | you guys must not have kids that are 16
raise a license to 50 bucks and you'll run off a big group or turn them into poachers ...
still trying to understand what's so bad about our waters and fisheries ... lots of complaining going on that's for sure. 9 whiners for every 1 happy angler anymore. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | In the big picture of fishing expenses licences are a very small portion of the total cost. If you can keep the Politicians from messing with the fees and somehow get them to go directly to fishery programs than a license fee increase is probably all right. I might be a little concerned that a large increase would prevent some people from buying a license at all and just saying the fishing is getting too expensive and give it up completely. Perhaps a slippery slope? I'm sure it's coming, sooner or later. Doug Johnson |
|
| |
|
| Sled, I would agree with you if the license for a 16 yr old was the same as an adult but if they kept them at a reduced rate like they are now, $7 for 16 and 17 yr old, I would support it. (WI)
I know I have bought a couple of those licenses for friends of my son who didn't fish but came up to our cottage. At least one really got hooked on fishing, making it a good investment in my mind. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | A license increase for the state of MN is inevitable and much needed to fund projects that should be underway. I am 100% for an increase. We discussed this in depth last year amongst the MMPA. I forget the point of diminishing returns and the other stats though.
Edited by kevin cochran 12/8/2011 7:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | is the interest to maintain the level of success that came from the first stocking class maturity or what you end up with in a sustained balance once that's happened?
what is the "goal"???
most of what i hear is so that there's a 50" on every spot ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/8/2011 6:09 PM
is the interest to maintain the level of success that came from the first stocking class maturity or what you end up with in a sustained balance once that's happened?
what is the "goal"???
most of what i hear is so that there's a 50" on every spot ...
A lot of funding for the DNR comes from license sales. License sales are down, thus funding is down. Diminishing funds, diminishing services. I would think maintaining the status quo would be the first goal.
Creek surveys, pop estimates, law enforcement, stocking etc. All cost money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| jonnysled - 12/8/2011 6:16 PM
still trying to understand what's so bad about our waters and fisheries ... lots of complaining going on that's for sure. 9 whiners for every 1 happy angler anymore.
Well... WI is better than it's been any time since I've been fishing there. But that doesn't mean it couldn't be better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | two ways to approach it too ...
1. sell what you sell at a higher price
2. sell more of what you are selling
lean too hard on 1. and you can end up losing money ... 2. is a guaranteed increase in revenue vs. 1. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/8/2011 6:39 PM
two ways to approach it too ...
1. sell what you sell at a higher price
2. sell more of what you are selling
lean too hard on 1. and you can end up losing money ... 2. is a guaranteed increase in revenue vs. 1.
I agree...but how do you stop the downward trend? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| Except when it's a monopoly or when you control what you spend. The DNR is not required to provide resources or exist, they could just close up shop. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That would be an extraordinarily bad thing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| I should have finished, I was just trying to point out simple economics cannot be used in this case. It’s not standard supply and demand also the cost structure is not as simple either. I did not want to imply that people are going to stop buying licenses or DNR will close or any other scare tactics. Also I agree that fishing is good and I guess sustainability would be the main reason to raise rates. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| I don't believe anyone is saying they want to pay more for no reason, which I know of, but if paying more means, assured continued improvements, or it becomes a necessity to keep fishing quality from going down. Then I would pay more without much thought into it. If I’m paying more because the programs are poorly managed or funds are wasted for non-fishing related projects, then I say no thanks. It is the day and age that nothing much is free anymore, like it or not that’s just the way it is. And, also there aren’t too many activities I know of that I can enjoy as much as I do for the amount of time that I do that is even close to as cheap as a fishing license affords me to. People can live in a dream world all they want and think that no one should have to pay to fish, but the reality is that if there were no license requirements and regulations, fishing would not be of much interest to any of them as the quality of the fisheries would be horrendous. I guess some people may think that human population control should be enacted over the fish population control.
Ryan
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
Location: Arpin, WI | I would have to say no on a higher fee. I had a lot of free time this summer and so did many other people and they decided to go fishing also from what i saw there is no decline in license sales. Would much rather the DNR learn how budget like everybody else has to do. I do however support joing a club and making a donation that goes directly to the cause
Edited by kelz 12/8/2011 9:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
| ill pay whatever the cost is because I am on the water 100+ days a year. What about my mother or little sister that comes out with me once or maybe twice a summer? No way they're going to pay 50$ to do that. I think its fine how it is |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Lake surveys past due, enforcement is spread thin, studies cant be completed.
Oh yeah and 50s on every spot. Huh? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | kelz - 12/8/2011 7:55 PM
I would have to say no on a higher fee. I had a lot of free time this summer and so did many other people and they decided to go fishing also from what i saw there is no decline in license sales. Would much rather the DNR learn how budget like everybody else has to do. I do however support joing a club and making a donation that goes directly to the cause
So you're going to go off of you and 5 friends who went fishing a lot versus real data that shows the declining trend in both fishing and hunting license sales?
So far this year Wisconsin is down 1.3 percent in license sales, not as big of a drop as last year. (I'd link you the article but it is archived and you have to pay for it)
Minnesota was down 30% from last year. Lowest sales have been in 12 years.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/17/fishing-lic...
For the most part the trends are the same around the nation. Some of the Gulf Coast states have seen an uptick in the trend, but that is likely due to the low sales in previous years during the oil spill.
Open your eyes man. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | how much money is needed to deliver the past-due surveys?
what do they deliver of value?
how do you define "thin"
how many do you need and what do they cost?
how do you measure their productivity and what has been lost? or will be gained if they are hired?
what "studies"??
give money
raise license fees
install a musky tax stamp
eliminate dark-house spearing
why?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. |
sounds like a problem ...
raising the pricing when your market is down that much??
that would be the last thing to do ... sounds like a recruiting campaign is needed. regaining former license holders will put money in the till. raising fees to the ones who stayed will 1. pee some off, 2. run some more away and 3. not bring back those who chose against it in the previous years.
i'd be careful with those numbers ...
what's Bud Grant doing these days?? somebody get him on TV ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/8/2011 8:37 PM
how much money is needed to deliver the past-due surveys?
what do they deliver of value?
how do you define "thin"
how many do you need and what do they cost?
how do you measure their productivity and what has been lost? or will be gained if they are hired?
what "studies"??
give money
raise license fees
install a musky tax stamp
eliminate dark-house spearing
why?
Population monitoring- does lake X need supplemental stocking because very few age 0 fish were found, likely showing a poor recruitment year, or are there enough age 1 fish to cover a down year. Or, have there been several years in a row with poor recruitment? Do we need to adjust bag limits to keep more adults in the system? The list goes on and on and on.....
Checking anglers- Ensure people are abiding by the law.
Creel surveys- What are people catching? What sizes? Are anglers hammering one particular species? One size class?
Stocking- Some populations aren't sustained by recruitment. It costs money to raise fish and stock them.
What is lost by not doing these? You lose data points, you lose the ability to see what fisheries are doing in lakes. You lose the ability to see what anglers are catching, how many, what sizes. You lose harvest data. You lose catch and release data. This goes for all species. DNR biologists cover more than just muskies. Native fish, sportfish, non-sportfish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/8/2011 8:50 PM
sounds like a problem ...
raising the pricing when your market is down that much??
that would be the last thing to do ... sounds like a recruiting campaign is needed. regaining former license holders will put money in the till. raising fees to the ones who stayed will 1. pee some off, 2. run some more away and 3. not bring back those who chose against it in the previous years.
i'd be careful with those numbers ...
what's Bud Grant doing these days?? somebody get him on TV ...
What if they left because of unsatisfactory fishing?
I'm not advocating a $50 fee hike like some have suggested here. I honestly though more people would support a $5 increase than a >$15 increase. $50 would drive a ton of people away. And you know I don't support a stamp. I didn't vote in this poll, but I'd support a $5 increase.
You've got what 3 or 4 kids? Lets say 4, include yourself and that is $20 extra dollars you spend on licenses. I think you've mentioned a few nieces or nephews, we'll say 3...that is $15 more dollars. So you're up to $35 extra dollars. At $50 those figures would be out of this world! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | so, all that important stuff just stopped getting done? and we need stamps, higher license fees and special club donations and no taking of any fish?? what does the current DNR do? i thought both States had them is there an optimum headcount per licensed angler/lake acre etc... known from history? and a relative number today vs. what it should be? i doubt they've been all of a sudden crippled and unable to do their jobs. in the real world you have to do 2 people's jobs to keep your own anymore ... why should we expect that to be any different in the public-sector?
come to Cruiserfest in Minocqua sometime for the big DNR Vacation Weekend. they come from throughout the State to set traps for tourists who come north for fun. the DNR agents trap people and write tickets during the day and then party at the Waters of Minocqua in the evening ... and we pay for it in our taxes. thankfully last year our Governor Scott Walker put a stop to the nonsense after the visitors stopped coming ...
I'd like to see the DNR leadership clean up their act first before asking for more people and money to lay on the already high tax burdon ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| Sled,
Panic, that's why. You have to look at both sides of the equation. Fewer license sales = less revenue = less availble for building and maintaining the resource. What people fail to think about is that fewer license sales = fewer people fishing = reduced need to put money into the resource.
All of those things we fret about, like angler harvest or delayed mortality, are obviously less of a problem when there are fewer people using the resource. I suspect that we're at a point where a significant portion of the angling public just can't afford to travel around at will and fish whenever they want. In my opinion, bumping the licence fees, adding stamps, etc. is a bad idea during tough economic times, because the amount of anglers you are going to lose all together is going to be greater than the revenue you get from those wo are either wealthy enough or stubborn enough, or stupid enough that they are going to fish no matter what the cost.
Edited by esoxaddict 12/8/2011 10:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Al Gore leading this Agenda? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | The DNR has slowly been improving since Doyle left. No doubt about it. A ton of politics in WI DNR. I know biologists who couldn't do their work because they were restricted on mileage they could drive. So some stuff didn't get done. I don't work for the WDNR so I can't tell you what got done and what didn't. In my region, my manager would love another biologist, but we won't get one. So we all pitch in to pick up the slack.
I agree whole heatedly with your last statement. When you lose the backing from your fan base, you have to win it back before you start selling stock in the franchise. I'm hopeful Walker will survive the recall and turn the WDNR around. Watching what Doyle did to the WDNR, I vowed I would not work for the WDNR until it got cleaned up. I'm slowly seeing some signs of change since Walker got in. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 10:00 PM
[...]
What if they left because of unsatisfactory fishing?
Well, then they're never coming back, because the fishing in WI is better than it's been since I've been fishing, and the fishing in MN is as good as it's ever going to be. Not sure where they went, but if it's anywhere but Canada, they're going to be pretty disspointed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 374
Location: Bemidji | Looked at the MN proposal (2011) and here's some specifics:
Resident angling went up $7
Nonresident angling went up $5.50
Darkhouse angling went up $1
You can read the below link:
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/heritage/index.html
A musky stamp would not gain any steam in MN nor would eliminating Darkhouse angling. Both of which were never proposed by any Muskie/Pike organization.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I'm pretty sure Fisheries folks don't bother much with enforcement.
The DNR Secretary is appointed by the Governor and runs the DNR. Maybe call Mr. Walker and get him to get her on that.
I actually think we have pretty good leadership there these days.
Netting crews, boom shocking crews, hatchery crews, all are down. Health insurance went way up, driving more employees out; yes, they make so little that an extra couple hundred breaks them. No filling of positions emptied by attrition, and way too many hard working folks held to LTE status to save money despite years of top shelf service to the public. It's a mess Sled, and not going to get better soon. Literally a couple bad days because of the short field crews, and several lakes don't get any walleye or muskie stocking and a hatchery may have to close because they have nothing to raise...or worse. I know the hours Keith worked last Spring, and there are very few folks who would do that work for that money short handed...at least not for very long.
It's a really bad recession at fault, and when business sucks, so does revenue, and the DNR ain't alone in their woes. States across the country are broke, and plenty of services have been cut or are suffering.
And I don't think the DNR in WI asked for license fee increases this year...at least I didn't see it if they did. I believe the question was if the public represented here would support a fee increase, and the answers are all tied up if you go to yes and no, and still coming in. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 12/8/2011 9:24 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 10:00 PM
[...]
What if they left because of unsatisfactory fishing?
Well, then they're never coming back, because the fishing in WI is better than it's been since I've been fishing, and the fishing in MN is as good as it's ever going to be. Not sure where they went, but if it's anywhere but Canada, they're going to be pretty disspointed.
Some people base their fishing experience on a few bad days. While you and everyone else may have come great success, they might not have any success. It happens a lot more than you might think. I'm not saying that is the case, just throwing it out there for conversation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | a groundswell of resistance got the Governor involved last year ... it had gone on for years, but 3-4 years it was beyond ridiculous and thankfully they put a stop to it but by the time he cancelled the agents, most visitors had either cancelled their trip or made plans not to attend. it will be a long time before they return to the area the way it once was. unfortunately it is the DNR so local businesses and residents here still have a bad taste in their mouths for what they have done to run off visitors over the past 5 years. Our town has been significantly impacted by the over-regulation done by the DNR (snowmobiling). before anyone goes "there" ... it wasn't all about getting drunks, it was about getting anyone and everyone they possibly could by setting traps for them with an average citation of $350.00 (welcome north!). it wasn't enforcement but harassment. so, using DNR "needs" as a reason to charge visitors even more money to fish won't fly without a fight i would think.
if anything fishing needs to become less expensive and less restrictive than it is now. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You miss the part where I said I doubt Fisheries do much enforcement? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | sworrall - 12/8/2011 9:57 PM
You miss the part where I said I doubt Fisheries do much enforcement?
While I agree with your sentiment, the issue lies in the general public seeing DNR and lumping them all together. Doesn't matter if it is law enforcement, wildlife biologist, fisheries biologist. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I get that, Keith catches that all the time as a creel agent and when operating nets and boom shocking; it's happening right now in this conversation. We were not talking about bad enforcement policies although we could ( and appear to be) if that's relevant, we're talking about whether folks here would support an increase in fees on fishing licenses.
I would, but I am admittedly swayed by having a son who works at the Woodruff Hatchery. I think we also need a new PR campaign for the State. So does MN, IMO. But that costs money too.
Sled, I've heard about what you posted, and kinda thought it was BS that was going on. Still do, but I heard that was in the past. Guess it does beg the question though, what's the difference between that and a cadre of State troopers with one on an overpass with a radar gun on a weekend busting everyone they can for 8 over? (Welcome to HWY 41 South)
Any and all facets of the DNR operating budget, public image, etc. need to be addressed, and I understand our current Secretary has been busy. That said, I believe our fisheries crew could use some help.
I know we are short wardens these days, too. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| That's nothing new Sled. I watched the same thing happen on Silver Lake back in the 70's. The local residents were getting fed up with the "invasion" of FIBS every weekend. One summer they decided to solve the problem. Two patrol boats on the lake, stopping anyone and everyone for anything and everything. They wrote tickets for everything you could imagine, and basically harassed everyone right off the lake and right out of town. The marina went from 60 paid slips one year down to 18 the next. They even arrested a 14 year old kid for lighting ladyfingers, under the supervision of his parents, on the 4th of July. And it worked - the next few seasons there was half as much traffic on the lake.
Now, Steve is right - that wasn't the fisheries folks. That was the local game warden and the local police dept. But the end result was the same - huge numbers of people said "screw this place!" and never came back. And it also greated a HUGE disdain for the DNR. I was young, and I didn't know any better. But I grew up being told that the DNR were a bunch of idiots, morons, and other unmentionables. And when it came to anything the DNR said we weren't allowed to do? We did it, with a vengeance. Unfortunately, that included completely ignoring size and creel limits. We were all harvesting fish and eating them just because the DNR said we couldn't. Come to think of it, we tormented the local law enforcement quite a bit too, but that's a story for another day... They may have run most of us out of town, but the rest of us who stayed did more damage than we would have if they had just left us alone.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Sled...you go to bed early? By the way, did you check out the ice situation? Sue wants to head to Minocqua Saturday. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | I would not support a license price increase. Raising the license fee with diminishing anglers will only attract less people. Also, younger anglers (16-19) will be scared off and not want to buy a license. From a personal stand point, its really hard taking out my college friends fishing to see if they like it telling them you have to pay $17 just to try it out. I know that price is small, but to new anglers, price is a difference. Also, I agree on the statement of what is so bad about our fisheries. We already have a VERY successful stocking program and the metro MN area has fantastic fishing for the location and pressure. If we raise it once, it will raise again. However, I support a non-mandatory stamp for muskies, much like walleyes. This is because those who actually target them will put the money toward the stamp. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | duplicate ... sorry
Edited by jonnysled 12/9/2011 7:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ice situation is looking good steve ... at least the chain absorbed all of the snow and was glazed before the cold came in. give me a call if you are headed to MQA ... david and i plan to be on the ice.
didn't miss the part ... might be best if the fisheries management group were separated by name from "DNR" ... i think a new add campaign for them would be a good thing including recruitment and a message saying what happens when people don't support fishing and hunting through license sales and after they say what happens it's always best to deliver what they say they'll do too. |
|
| |
|
| Just something to think about. My dad always told me when I was little that someday hunting and fishing would only be a rich mans sport. I'm not against licence fees or raising them modestly but you have to remember that everyone should have the right and ability to enjoy these things. The way the economy is going its tough for some people. Raising a family and all is totally expensive now days. I enjoy fishing but don't go as often as I would like because I just plain can't afford it. I'm not trying to start any arguments or anything like that. If the Mods feel this is out of line, please delete it. Thank you  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| I don't know if theres any good way to promote and maintain any of are wildlife programs with todays economy . I dont want to good guy about the economy but there are alot of people out there still struggleing just to feed there familys let alone support any increases on anything . This is totally off the wall thinking but here goes. Could corporate sponsership of the fisheries department work . Could a advertisment of catch and bring home a limit of sun fish for mom to cook up for supper be bad . Catch and keep license pricing with a cheaper catch and release license option . I personaly like the stamp option for lets say trolling and casting , that way you cover walleyes , bass , pike and muskies . All fishing equipment confiscated from violaters rods , reels, tackle boxs ect be donated to a get a kid to fish program . Maybe a on line store were anybody can bid on confiscated equipment. The fines for violators needs to be increased for sure, thats a no brainer . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | MuskieFever - 12/9/2011 12:11 AM
I would not support a license price increase. Raising the license fee with diminishing anglers will only attract less people. Also, younger anglers (16-19) will be scared off and not want to buy a license. From a personal stand point, its really hard taking out my college friends fishing to see if they like it telling them you have to pay $17 just to try it out. I know that price is small, but to new anglers, price is a difference. Also, I agree on the statement of what is so bad about our fisheries. We already have a VERY successful stocking program and the metro MN area has fantastic fishing for the location and pressure. If we raise it once, it will raise again. However, I support a non-mandatory stamp for muskies, much like walleyes. This is because those who actually target them will put the money toward the stamp.
You know implementing a stamp would cost money right? What if the very successful stocking program you mentioned was cut back due to lack of funds? A small license fee increase would generate way more revenue than a stamp, that is a fact. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| I don't know if theres any good way to promote and maintain any of are wildlife programs with todays economy . I dont want to good guy about the economy but there are alot of people out there still struggleing just to feed there familys let alone support any increases on anything . This is totally off the wall thinking but here goes. Could corporate sponsership of the fisheries department work . Could a advertisment of catch and bring home a limit of sun fish for mom to cook up for supper be bad . Catch and keep license pricing with a cheaper catch and release license option . I personaly like the stamp option for lets say trolling and casting , that way you cover walleyes , bass , pike and muskies . All fishing equipment confiscated from violaters rods , reels, tackle boxs ect be donated to a get a kid to fish program . Maybe a on line store were anybody can bid on confiscated equipment. The fines for violators needs to be increased for sure, thats a no brainer . |
|
| |
|
Posts: 582
| I am not sure why anyone would want to increase a fee or tax. Do you really think we don't pay enough now? if you really want to pay more, nothing is going to stop you from writing a check to your local gov't agency or fishery. Please do so if you want to pay more. Otherwise, when you look at the fee's we already pay in Wisc, you would be surprised at just how much you actually pay and you don't even realize it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
Location: Arpin, WI | Pointerpride102 - 12/8/2011 9:36 PM
kelz - 12/8/2011 7:55 PM
I would have to say no on a higher fee. I had a lot of free time this summer and so did many other people and they decided to go fishing also from what i saw there is no decline in license sales. Would much rather the DNR learn how budget like everybody else has to do. I do however support joing a club and making a donation that goes directly to the cause
So you're going to go off of you and 5 friends who went fishing a lot versus real data that shows the declining trend in both fishing and hunting license sales?
So far this year Wisconsin is down 1.3 percent in license sales, not as big of a drop as last year. (I'd link you the article but it is archived and you have to pay for it )
Minnesota was down 30% from last year. Lowest sales have been in 12 years.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/05/17/fishing-lic...
For the most part the trends are the same around the nation. Some of the Gulf Coast states have seen an uptick in the trend, but that is likely due to the low sales in previous years during the oil spill.
Open your eyes man.
Well since I dont have access to the archived stats I was going off what I noticed the last few years and that is when I go out for the day on a monday, tuesday, ect.. by myself not five friends and pull into the boat ramp and have a hard time finding room to park because its full (of rigs I dont know) when normaly in years past its empty.
1.3 percent drop in license sales wow and that would justify an 30 percent (equivalant of a 5 dollar) increace on every individual who still buys a license in your eyes. also that figure was for hunting and fishing license who's to say hunting sales were not down and fishing sales up.
Dont get me wrong I love the great fishing we have in this state and want to see it stay that way im just so sick of seeing all forms of government fix things by throwing more money at the problem and not functioning within thier means
Edited by kelz 12/9/2011 9:51 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That's the issue at hand. If the MNDNR 'functions within it's means' and the economy remains in the tank, there's compelling evidence that future stocking of existing muskie waters, new muskie waters, and the work necessary to even approach the subject is in jeopardy.
Absolute fact? I don't know. Treats and the guys over there are far better informed, I'd take ther word as close to the mark. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3516
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Good conversation here...
I wonder how a "conservation license" or similar idea would go over with people... Similar to what Canada has that for less money, you could buy a license that cuts down on the number of fish you can keep per species.... If memory serves me correctly, MN does not have anything like that, although they do have non-resident limited-day licenses.
Looking at this with the thought that sled had in mind that it lowers cost, which might increase sales and somehow a flow of $$ to help fund things in an economy that is tough (in a nutshell the inverse relationship between cost and demand). The option to buy a full license would still be on the table for those who wish to do more catch and keep for the table fare. I often wonder if more diversity in licensing options would act as a benefit or would it hinder revenue, regulation, etc.
tough call...
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | oddball - 12/9/2011 8:11 AM
I don't know if theres any good way to promote and maintain any of are wildlife programs with todays economy . I dont want to good guy about the economy but there are alot of people out there still struggleing just to feed there familys let alone support any increases on anything . This is totally off the wall thinking but here goes. Could corporate sponsership of the fisheries department work . Could a advertisment of catch and bring home a limit of sun fish for mom to cook up for supper be bad . Catch and keep license pricing with a cheaper catch and release license option . I personaly like the stamp option for lets say trolling and casting , that way you cover walleyes , bass , pike and muskies . All fishing equipment confiscated from violaters rods , reels, tackle boxs ect be donated to a get a kid to fish program . Maybe a on line store were anybody can bid on confiscated equipment. The fines for violators needs to be increased for sure, thats a no brainer .
Fines for violators do not go back to the resource. Stamps cost more,money in administration than they make, especially in a very small interest group. A license fee increase of 5 dollars doesn't cost much of anything. All fishing license revenue goes to the resource. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Wisconsin is down 1.3% from last year, in which sales were down even more. If you aren't going to acknowledge actual numbers, then please drop out of the conversation, anecdotal evidence of you not finding a parking spot isn't good enough. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | VMS - 12/9/2011 9:56 AM
I wonder how a "conservation license" or similar idea would go over with people... Similar to what Canada has that for less money, you could buy a license that cuts down on the number of fish you can keep per species.... If memory serves me correctly, MN does not have anything like that, although they do have non-resident limited-day licenses.
Steve
MN does have a conservation license (for residents). Although I heard speculation that they would be eliminating that license option. Not sure if that is correct or not.
Aaron
Edited by AWH 12/9/2011 10:20 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16
Location: Arpin, WI | I did acknowlege actual numbers and asked for more specific numbers if you cant provide actual numbers please drop out of the conversation. rambling about combined percentages isint good enough.
I kinda sound like a jerk huh.
all I did was post an observation and you told me the numbers and jumped all over me. it was an observation not gospel
Edited by kelz 12/9/2011 10:23 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| If the fishing is good it isn't because of you or me it's the DNR because it didn't fix itself. Not sure how anyone can say that the fishing hasn't improved since even the 90's. I'm sure we could fill up a whole book of remember whens and most of them would be remember when such and such lake didn't have a single fish or the Wisconsin River was so polluted your shorts would change colors when you went skiing.
So they do/did something with that money, maybe not as much or as cheaply as all of us wish, but I honestly don't know the budgets or costs and that information is needed to make a real opinion. If you know the numbers point out the wastes or the needs, otherwise your just saying I want to pay more because I can or I don't want to pay more because I don't want to pay more.
Maintenance is not free so a static price/income is not going to sustain a lifestyle or a fishery. That doesn’t mean raising fees is the only way, but it is a way. Telling others to give extra to maintain the fishery if it’s needed is just as much nonsense as giving extra to the government if it’s unneeded. I know I haven't furthered the conversation any because I can't I don't have the numbers and am honestly to lazy to look them up, but those that do please share or someone less lazy than me look them up and then form an opinion backed by something other than the lot was full of trailers or more money is better.
|
|
| |
|
| guest, if you can afford to be on the water 100 times a year i'm sure you can be a good person and buy your family members licenses. no? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| guest - 12/9/2011 9:01 AM
Just something to think about. My dad always told me when I was little that someday hunting and fishing would only be a rich mans sport. I'm not against licence fees or raising them modestly but you have to remember that everyone should have the right and ability to enjoy these things. The way the economy is going its tough for some people. Raising a family and all is totally expensive now days. I enjoy fishing but don't go as often as I would like because I just plain can't afford it. I'm not trying to start any arguments or anything like that. If the Mods feel this is out of line, please delete it. Thank you :-(
First off if everyone really wanted to fish and did, then everyone would be able to afford it or it wouldn't cost a thing. The problem is that less and less people as a percentage of the population actually want to go fishing each year. Do you honestly think this is because of the price of a fishing license? Sorry, but I sincerely doubt it.
Maybe it is due to the fact that where you go, the resorts you can stay at, the price of boats (even rentals), the tackle to do it “properly”, are so much more expensive than they were when I was a kid and our family took our annual vacation to Minnesota every year. But any of those premium toys and expenses are still optional, last time I looked.
The price of licensing has gone up, but not even close to what the rest of the stuff has. A fishing license is still a bargain in terms of what it allows you to do with the resources that are available. I think that smart pricing as many states employ is necessary with any increase in price, as in cheaper prices for the 16-19 year olds, family rates, senior rates, limited use rates, etc. Raising the price on adults, the main resource users, is not that big of a deal.
As far as kids go, I don’t have any just yet (although many nieces and nephews), but there is no way I would baulk at buying them a license when they hit their teen years, if they’re into it and want to go out and fish. As far as I know, kids under 16 fish for free in just about every state I’ve been to. Can the same be said for getting your kid in for a season of little league or pee-wee football, or any other family fun activity that you could do instead of fishing? How does taking your kids to the movies every now and then compare to a few days on the water in terms of $/hr of family fun?
To be honest, many of my best memories from even my teenage years with my parents and grandparents were either on or near the water, most often in MN. I would pay $100 a year in a heartbeat to provide the possibility of creating those memories with my own children, when they come along.
Everyone wants better management from the DNR, and that’s understood, because the last thing most of us want is money going to waste on bureaucratic bs. That said, we also expect a heck of a lot more from our DNR these days than ever before. That doesn’t happen for free, despite what some people would like to believe.
Ryan
Edited by Fishwizard 12/9/2011 10:35 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Jackson
I am not sure why anyone would want to increase a fee or tax. Do you really think we don't pay enough now? if you really want to pay more, nothing is going to stop you from writing a check to your local gov't agency or fishery.
kelz - 12/9/2011 9:46 AM
Dont get me wrong I love the great fishing we have in this state and want to see it stay that way im just so sick of seeing all forms of government fix things by throwing more money at the problem and not functioning within there means
watch the news on the "occupation" ... plenty of people would love to continue to raise your fees and taxes. a bunch of them within this community would too if they can get away with it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| jonnysled - 12/9/2011 11:00 AM
Jackson
I am not sure why anyone would want to increase a fee or tax. Do you really think we don't pay enough now? if you really want to pay more, nothing is going to stop you from writing a check to your local gov't agency or fishery.
kelz - 12/9/2011 9:46 AM
Dont get me wrong I love the great fishing we have in this state and want to see it stay that way im just so sick of seeing all forms of government fix things by throwing more money at the problem and not functioning within there means
watch the news on the "occupation" ... plenty of people would love to continue to raise your fees and taxes. a bunch of them within this community would too if they can get away with it.
Giving more money to the Feds and seeing things get continually worse is absolute insanity. Giving money to the DNR through license purchases and seeing the opportunities and quality of fishing increase to what it has in my lifetime... Money well spent.
Do you think that the stuff that is going on in Congress and Washington is similar to that within your local DNR office?
|
|
| |
|
|
watch the news on the "occupation" ... plenty of people would love to continue to raise your fees and taxes. a bunch of them within this community would too if they can get away with it.
Sled-
Its hard to take you seriously when you push you conservative talk show agenda with no facts to back it up. Don't you have something better to do with your time than sit on here and argue all day? Like maybe attending a tea party or something... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 227
Location: Maple Grove | Recruitment is an issue as stated. I don't believe it is solely a down economy to blame on reduced license sales. I heard a story on MPR a few weeks back indicating reduced revenue to the MN DNR due to lack of new outdoorsmen and women. A big chunk of that was a lack of youth getting involved. An argument to the reason why was the continued urbanization of the state and lack of outdoors traditions being handed down to younger generations. If that trend continues it won't matter how much the license fees. If you continue to raise them to offset revenue losses you ultimately will create a sport solely for the elite. It also means there will be less competition from anglers on the water. However, I would guess there would be an increase in pressure from pleasure boats, ski boats, and jet skis.
I remember the story well as I tried to use it as evidence to my wife to let me bring my one year old on the ice this year. I'll see if I can track it down. Maybe it was referenced in Pointer's link. I haven't looked at that yet.
Joe Olstadt
Edited by WI_guy_turnedMudDuck 12/9/2011 11:42 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Duck I think you are right on. It is something my agency talks about quite a bit. We do a lot with Take Me Fishing and have also created some urban fisheries to help get kids out and catching fish. This goes with some of sled's ideas about a push to recruit new anglers or get some lost ones back. I think there is some sort of middle ground somewhere. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Joe The Plumber - 12/9/2011 11:17 AM
no facts to back it up.
an increase to revenue is being asked for via 1. increase in license fees and 2. some talking about adding a stamp as well.
who should be responsible for the "facts to back it up" Joe the Bulldozer? those aking for the money? or those being asked to pay? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | Nope. I hate paying for the #*^@ thing now, but do it every year because it's the law. Between all of the bull$hit increased taxes I already have to pay, its insane to throw one more penny at a license fees. I got a license on my bumper too!
If I'm a catch and release guy only and pay my launch fees, pay my taxes and all the other inflated costs to play this game. Why in the hell should I have to pay even more in a down market? I say drop the price for a release license, and see what that does for sales. I'll bet they go way the hell up! A 16 to 23 year old spending money on a fishing license? I just don't see it, when at that age the only thing most boys think about is Women and Women. Drop the fee for catch and release only license and I bet they would at the very least entertain buying a license. Thats where the growth is IMOP.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | jonnysled - 12/9/2011 7:56 AM
duplicate ... sorry
Just stating my opinion...Easy shooter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ToothyCritter - 12/9/2011 12:10 PM
Nope. I hate paying for the #*^@ thing now, but do it every year because it's the law. Between all of the bull$hit increased taxes I already have to pay, its insane to throw one more penny at a license fees. I got a license on my bumper too!
If I'm a catch and release guy only and pay my launch fees, pay my taxes and all the other inflated costs to play this game. Why in the hell should I have to pay even more in a down market? I say drop the price for a release license, and see what that does for sales. I'll bet they go way the hell up! A 16 to 23 year old spending money on a fishing license? I just don't see it, when at that age the only thing most boys think about is Women and Women. Drop the fee for catch and release only license and I bet they would at the very least entertain buying a license. Thats where the growth is IMOP..
And how much of your taxes, launch fees and other inflated costs go to sustaining the fisheries you enjoy?
Have you ever advocated for stocking or increasing musky size limits? |
|
| |
|
| Is it a fee increase for the sake of a fee increase or would the money be used for muskie stocking, habitat restoration/preservation, etc? If it is just an increase and nothing would go toward muskie porgrams then no. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 10
| I miss the good ole days when..
When boat launches paved themselves or maybe it was everybodies tax money even those who did not use it.
When fisherman regulated their own catches to ensure quality fishing for everyone.
When business would use resourses in a responsibile way with nobody needing to check on them.
That's the fairy tale world the non fee people lived in I guess. There is plenty of bad spending by the government, but that's not the question.
If needed to support the level of fishing we have now would you be willing to pay $5-15 more for your license? The question should then be followed by why do they need this increased revenue? What services can we drop? It there other ways we can raise the revenue? Those are the questions and answers that could actually give some useful information or a real opinion. If I hear one more person complain about a $25-$50 fee for a recreational activity when the economy is down I'm convinced I know who purchased those low down payment homes. I catch and eat $50 worth of walleyes in three days. I know that doesn't matter if catch and release. If there is waste in the DNR point it out, but if you are just plain cheap or bad with your money admit that and don't blame a fee. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | 2T Critter - 12/9/2011 1:05 PM
Is it a fee increase for the sake of a fee increase or would the money be used for muskie stocking, habitat restoration/preservation, etc? If it is just an increase and nothing would go toward muskie porgrams then no.
Do you have any idea where your license dollars go? |
|
| |
|
| Before the DNR raises any fees they should have to do what the private sector has been forced to do in recent years is do more with less. With any government agency there is always waste or redundant efforts. I would think there is a whole bunch of dead weight at the top/Madison that could be trimmed before any fees would need to be raised. If you think there is no government waste you're kidding yourself. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | PP
"And how much of your taxes, launch fees and other inflated costs go to sustaining the fisheries you enjoy?"
No clue, but still fees have in fact increased. Is this my fault that a protion of those increases has not been directed to that and should now have to pay even more? I just dont agree, I'm certainly not cheap. Just looking at it from a business persepctive.
"Have you ever advocated for stocking or increasing musky size limits?"
Yes, through MI and several other events I have donated my extra time to. I love it and use these events to educate my two sons.
If everyone thinks raising the price is going to generate more revenue, ask Netflix how that went over...
Edited by ToothyCritter 12/9/2011 2:29 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Bemidji, MN | The government sucks, we all hate taxes, the money isn't spent correctly, yadda yadda yadda......
Bottom line is that it costs more not to maintain a sustainable fishery than it used to. It cost more to buy a shocking boat, it costs more to buy a trap-net, it costs more to buy a gallon of gas to get all that stuff to the lake. I honestly find it hard to believe that someone would fight off an $5 increase in fishing license fees for an entire year, if that is what it takes to maintain our current fisheries. For most of us, that won't even pay for the first bait we throw on opening day. For some of us, that won't even buy us enough gas to get the boat to the other side of the lake. Yes, the inner workings of the state government need to be fixed, but that is not the issue here, its sustainable fisheries, and what they cost.
Ask yourself this. How many 50" muskies did you catch this year? Seems like a simple, pretty common question, where we talk about MULTIPLE 50's in a season. Now back up 20 years, and ask yourself the same question. It was pretty much unheard of. It was more like DID you catch a 50" musky in your lifetime? Point is the DNR here in MN, and WI did something right, and if it costs me less than the price of a bucktail to keep it going like this, I am all for it.
The biggest problem we have right now, is that we don't have a problem. Musky fishing is at probably its all time best. The groups like muskies inc and others were all started because, back then, we HAD a problem. Don't be short sighted, or history will repeat.
As far as kids getting into the sport, I'm not a parent, but those of you who are, try this.... Unplug the little b@$tards from the ipod, take the cell phone away, and make them go outside after school like my parents did. Kids are alot more adaptable than us old people, and will find their way to outdoor recreation if given the chance.
I also believe that throwing your money into a "musky only program" Is throwing your money down the mouth of a dead fish. You have to support the fishery as a system, or you are not going to maintain a healthy musky population. But I suppose that you could also run it like the put-and-take trout streams. Grow them up to 50" in the hatchery, then throw them in the lake for everyone to catch and put on the wall. Hey, maybe one would survive until next year!
Edited by J Nail 12/9/2011 2:59 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
Location: chisago city,mn. | Why should we pay more for money not knowing where it is going.Google Legacy Fund Audit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Very little, if any of your launch fees go to fisheries. Where did the launches come from?
Your lures, tackle etc do help support fisheries. But most of fisheries funding comes from license sales.
Netflix has competitors. Who is going to stock fish, when a state can't afford to produce more due to costs? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | J Nail - 12/9/2011 2:51 PM
How many 50" muskies did you catch this year? Seems like a simple, pretty common question, where we talk about MULTIPLE 50's in a season. Now back up 20 years, and ask yourself the same question. It was pretty much unheard of. It was more like DID you catch a 50" musky in your lifetime? Point is the DNR here in MN, and WI did something right, and if it costs me less than the price of a bucktail to keep it going like this, I am all for it.
there's the answer i was looking for on page 2
"multiple 50's in a season" ...
and need money to get it ... is it that easy? and did the DNR say they could deliver? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | greenejeans - 12/9/2011 1:54 PM
Why should we pay more for money not knowing where it is going.Google Legacy Fund Audit.
There is a very large difference between general funds and federal restricted dollars. It is clear, that very few anglers actually know where there fishing and hunting license dollars go. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | "As far as kids getting into the sport, I'm not a parent, but those of you who are, try this.... Unplug the little b@$tards from the ipod, take the cell phone away, and make them go outside after school like my parents did. Kids are alot more adaptable than us old people, and will find their way to outdoor recreation if given the chance"
Now thats funny ans so true! Ask a 13 year old kid what they want for their birthday, and it's an Ipod or a $140 pair of Air Jordans or a new cell... Mine didn't even mention a new Muskie rod, and that didn't surprise me. My oldest son is turing 13 tomorrow, and the little b@stard is impossible to get off the Playstation when it's cold out. Lots of yelling and I'm the @sshole in the house! I can certainly releate to that comment and agree, and I fight this everyday by spending big bucks on sports fees and driving to Basketball and football practices after work during the week all week, then spending weekends at games. Then there's the team fundraisers every few weeks on top of all that. These kids are the future and it make sense to target them now for growth and development or our fisheries.
Touchy topic when asking hard working folks to spend more, when the income is already stretched so thin for the 99% right..
Good topic! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | jonnysled - 12/9/2011 2:01 PM
J Nail - 12/9/2011 2:51 PM
How many 50" muskies did you catch this year? Seems like a simple, pretty common question, where we talk about MULTIPLE 50's in a season. Now back up 20 years, and ask yourself the same question. It was pretty much unheard of. It was more like DID you catch a 50" musky in your lifetime? Point is the DNR here in MN, and WI did something right, and if it costs me less than the price of a bucktail to keep it going like this, I am all for it.
there's the answer i was looking for on page 2
"multiple 50's in a season" ...
and need money to get it ... is it that easy? and did the DNR say they could deliver?
Did you read his whole paragraph? Your post suggests otherwise. The point is the fisheries are that good where people can talk about catching multiple 50s in a season. You yourself have stated that there isn't much wrong with the fisheries now. Shouldn't the goal be to maintain that? How much did it cost you to fill your boat gas tank in 2005? Could you afford to run that same boat for the same amount of money today? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | "Netflix has competitors. Who is going to stock fish, when a state can't afford to produce more due to costs?"
I know that MI Chapters provide funds for stocking. Is it enough, hell no but it's an answer to your question. Just sayin for argument sake, and I know you like to argue PP.. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ToothyCritter - 12/9/2011 2:18 PM
"As far as kids getting into the sport, I'm not a parent, but those of you who are, try this.... Unplug the little b@$tards from the ipod, take the cell phone away, and make them go outside after school like my parents did. Kids are alot more adaptable than us old people, and will find their way to outdoor recreation if given the chance"
Now thats funny ans so true! Ask a 13 year old kid what they want for their birthday, and it's an Ipod or a $140 pair of Air Jordans or a new cell... Mine didn't even mention a new Muskie rod, and that didn't surprise me. My oldest son is turing 13 tomorrow, and the little b@stard is impossible to get off the Playstation when it's cold out. Lots of yelling and I'm the @sshole in the house! I can certainly releate to that comment and agree, and I fight this everyday by spending big bucks on sports fees and driving to Basketball and football practices after work during the week all week, then spending weekends at games. Then there's the team fundraisers every few weeks on top of all that. These kids are the future and it make sense to target them now for growth and development or our fisheries.
Touchy topic when asking hard working folks to spend more, when the income is already stretched so thin for the 99% right..
Good topic!
I don't envy you one bit with a 13 year old haha. So how do we get them off the playstation? |
|
| |
|
| I don't know how the DNR spends their money, so I am only speaking in generalizations.
This discussion can be equated to raising taxes. Rather than raise license prices (taxes) let's focus on ways of improving the DNR and prioritizing how the money is spent. Again, I know absolutely nothing about how the DNR operates or how they spend their money. But just speaking about our country in general, we would be much better off if money was spent where it needed to be spent, and not spent where it doesn't need to be spent.
I just think raising prices sets a dangerous precedent for the future prices of your state, as well as surrounding ones. You might think you're paying a reasonable amount, or less than that, but what about when the same monetary problems are occurring ten years from now and your license has also gone through significant increases? If you go to $50 in the near future will you be willing to go to $75 when that $50 isn't enough?
Here's the bottom line in my book, even if you would be willing to pay more money, regardless of what that additional fee would be, don't advocate for it. The rates will be raised over time. Don't encourage it.
Here's what I think would be a much better idea, and I am sure it has been done in the past - simply collect donations. Get together in clubs, friends, family, whatever and collect your own money and use it for stocking, research, whatever. By doing this, not every person in the state will have to pay for what you do, and since it is essentially your money, you theoretically should be able to spend it in the areas you wish. That eliminates the concern that the extra money you would spend on licenses is not being used in other areas. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ToothyCritter - 12/9/2011 2:22 PM
"Netflix has competitors. Who is going to stock fish, when a state can't afford to produce more due to costs?"
I know that MI Chapters provide funds for stocking. Is it enough, hell no but it's an answer to your question. Just sayin for argument sake, and I know you like to argue PP.. :)
I do, but I think this has been a good topic to discuss.
MI does fund the stocking, which is great. But what happens when the current stocking schedule becomes too expensive and some lakes get cut? What if your favorite lake gets cut? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | Well I'm a traditional guy so yelling at the top of my lungs seems to work pretty well. LOL!
Then offer A ball and a court as a replacement.. Sitting at the bar with Dad so he can flirt with a cute bartender is NOT an option. Just ask Mom! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/9/2011 2:25 PM
I don't know how the DNR spends their money, so I am only speaking in generalizations.
This discussion can be equated to raising taxes. Rather than raise license prices (taxes) let's focus on ways of improving the DNR and prioritizing how the money is spent. Again, I know absolutely nothing about how the DNR operates or how they spend their money. But just speaking about our country in general, we would be much better off if money was spent where it needed to be spent, and not spent where it doesn't need to be spent.
I just think raising prices sets a dangerous precedent for the future prices of your state, as well as surrounding ones. You might think you're paying a reasonable amount, or less than that, but what about when the same monetary problems are occurring ten years from now and your license has also gone through significant increases? If you go to $50 in the near future will you be willing to go to $75 when that $50 isn't enough?
Here's the bottom line in my book, even if you would be willing to pay more money, regardless of what that additional fee would be, don't advocate for it. The rates will be raised over time. Don't encourage it.
Here's what I think would be a much better idea, and I am sure it has been done in the past - simply collect donations. Get together in clubs, friends, family, whatever and collect your own money and use it for stocking, research, whatever. By doing this, not every person in the state will have to pay for what you do, and since it is essentially your money, you theoretically should be able to spend it in the areas you wish. That eliminates the concern that the extra money you would spend on licenses is not being used in other areas.
So in other words you don't have a clue where your license dollars go? Don't you think it might be worthwhile to find out? Might change your mind or might not. But if we are asking the DNR to make better, more educated decisions about how many is spent shouldn't we hold ourselves to similar standards? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ToothyCritter - 12/9/2011 2:29 PM
Well I'm a traditional guy so yelling at the top of my lungs seems to work pretty well. LOL!
Then offer A ball and a court as a replacement.. Sitting at the bar with Dad so he can flirt with a cute bartender is NOT an option. Just ask Mom!
Mom doesn't need to know everything?
This site led a takemefishing.org pledge, I wonder how many signed up and actually did it? Do musky clubs offer kids outings? Does the DNR in MN or WI have kids fishing days? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | Stocking expensive... Talk about an increase, I got educated on this not too long ago and I was shocked to hear what it cost to stock Muskies now. I still think there is a way to get the younger generation more involved, but you can't hit them in the pocketbook or you lose your help. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 670
Location: Roscoe IL | "Do musky clubs offer kids outings?"
Some do, but I only have insight to our local club. But the visibility to this event is way too limited! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| Out MI Chapter does several kids outings a year. Hayward last year, LOTW this year. There's a Boy Sout event, and a kids fishing derby every summer. I think for anybody who fishes and has kids, it's pretty much automatic that the kids are going to be exposed to it. It's the kids who don't have that in the family who are the ones we need to reach. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 12/9/2011 3:00 PM
Out MI Chapter does several kids outings a year. Hayward last year, LOTW this year. There's a Boy Sout event, and a kids fishing derby every summer. I think for anybody who fishes and has kids, it's pretty much automatic that the kids are going to be exposed to it. It's the kids who don't have that in the family who are the ones we need to reach.
This was what I was getting at. Here in Utah we host several of these events, give away rods, reels, tackle boxes to every kid that comes. We stock the urban fishery prior to the event so the action is fast and furious. The forest service is usually involved as well. All the bait is free, we even help clean the fish for the kids. Does WI or MN offer something similar? |
|
| |
|
| YAWWWWWNNNNNNN...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | guest - 12/9/2011 3:11 PM
YAWWWWWNNNNNNN......
Oh good, the intellect has arrived. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 131
| My kids are grown up now but since the oldest was about 10 they have always reached into there xmas stocking and pulled out rapalas, ice flies or some other form of outdoor stuff. My youngest is now 20 yrs old and they still get tackle box filler, like it or not |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Shimano sponsors a well-attended father's day weekend event here ... really impressive what they do. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Bemidji, MN | Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 3:36 PM
ToothyCritter - 12/9/2011 2:29 PM
Well I'm a traditional guy so yelling at the top of my lungs seems to work pretty well. LOL!
Then offer A ball and a court as a replacement.. Sitting at the bar with Dad so he can flirt with a cute bartender is NOT an option. Just ask Mom!
Mom doesn't need to know everything?
This site led a takemefishing.org pledge, I wonder how many signed up and actually did it? Do musky clubs offer kids outings? Does the DNR in MN or WI have kids fishing days?
Actually, yes, here in MN there is at least one designated Take a kid Fishing day every year when A parent doesn't need to have a license if fishing with a child.It is severely under-advertised, and one day a year doesn't get most kids all that excited about fishing as a life-long activity, but it's a start. We tried to have family fishing seminars and outings in our muskies inc club. The problem is not lack of interest from the community, It is getting volunteers to help out with it.
Edited by J Nail 12/9/2011 5:08 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| No....I wouldn't support it pointer.
this country needs to get it's head out of it's rump, pronto.
I'm really grown tired of all of it...... |
|
| |
|
| http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fish_wildlife/heritage/ |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 3:33 PM
Guest - 12/9/2011 2:25 PM
I don't know how the DNR spends their money, so I am only speaking in generalizations.
This discussion can be equated to raising taxes. Rather than raise license prices (taxes) let's focus on ways of improving the DNR and prioritizing how the money is spent. Again, I know absolutely nothing about how the DNR operates or how they spend their money. But just speaking about our country in general, we would be much better off if money was spent where it needed to be spent, and not spent where it doesn't need to be spent.
I just think raising prices sets a dangerous precedent for the future prices of your state, as well as surrounding ones. You might think you're paying a reasonable amount, or less than that, but what about when the same monetary problems are occurring ten years from now and your license has also gone through significant increases? If you go to $50 in the near future will you be willing to go to $75 when that $50 isn't enough?
Here's the bottom line in my book, even if you would be willing to pay more money, regardless of what that additional fee would be, don't advocate for it. The rates will be raised over time. Don't encourage it.
Here's what I think would be a much better idea, and I am sure it has been done in the past - simply collect donations. Get together in clubs, friends, family, whatever and collect your own money and use it for stocking, research, whatever. By doing this, not every person in the state will have to pay for what you do, and since it is essentially your money, you theoretically should be able to spend it in the areas you wish. That eliminates the concern that the extra money you would spend on licenses is not being used in other areas.
So in other words you don't have a clue where your license dollars go? Don't you think it might be worthwhile to find out? Might change your mind or might not. But if we are asking the DNR to make better, more educated decisions about how many is spent shouldn't we hold ourselves to similar standards?
I'm not from MN or WI. I'm just giving my generic opinion about raising licenses regardless of which state it's in. Regarding the latter half of your arguement, perhaps. I don't think it would be wise to give more money if the money they are currently receiving isn't being used appropriately. Like I said, I have no idea how good or how bad of a job the DNR is doing in either state. That would just be my first approach. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 51
Location: chisago city,mn. | POINTERPRIDE102,I don't know what your job is I'am kind of guessing.But I can see where some peoples tax dollars went today?That is if you were working. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | greenejeans - 12/9/2011 5:36 PM
POINTERPRIDE102,I don't know what your job is I'am kind of guessing.But I can see where some peoples tax dollars went today?That is if you were working.
Good thing I wasn't working. I already had 87 hours in by Thursday afternoon. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/9/2011 5:29 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 3:33 PM
Guest - 12/9/2011 2:25 PM
I don't know how the DNR spends their money, so I am only speaking in generalizations.
This discussion can be equated to raising taxes. Rather than raise license prices (taxes) let's focus on ways of improving the DNR and prioritizing how the money is spent. Again, I know absolutely nothing about how the DNR operates or how they spend their money. But just speaking about our country in general, we would be much better off if money was spent where it needed to be spent, and not spent where it doesn't need to be spent.
I just think raising prices sets a dangerous precedent for the future prices of your state, as well as surrounding ones. You might think you're paying a reasonable amount, or less than that, but what about when the same monetary problems are occurring ten years from now and your license has also gone through significant increases? If you go to $50 in the near future will you be willing to go to $75 when that $50 isn't enough?
Here's the bottom line in my book, even if you would be willing to pay more money, regardless of what that additional fee would be, don't advocate for it. The rates will be raised over time. Don't encourage it.
Here's what I think would be a much better idea, and I am sure it has been done in the past - simply collect donations. Get together in clubs, friends, family, whatever and collect your own money and use it for stocking, research, whatever. By doing this, not every person in the state will have to pay for what you do, and since it is essentially your money, you theoretically should be able to spend it in the areas you wish. That eliminates the concern that the extra money you would spend on licenses is not being used in other areas.
So in other words you don't have a clue where your license dollars go? Don't you think it might be worthwhile to find out? Might change your mind or might not. But if we are asking the DNR to make better, more educated decisions about how many is spent shouldn't we hold ourselves to similar standards?
I'm not from MN or WI. I'm just giving my generic opinion about raising licenses regardless of which state it's in. Regarding the latter half of your arguement, perhaps. I don't think it would be wise to give more money if the money they are currently receiving isn't being used appropriately. Like I said, I have no idea how good or how bad of a job the DNR is doing in either state. That would just be my first approach.
So how do you know if the money isn't being use appropriately if you don't have a clue where the money is going, nor have you bothered to try and find out? Interesting that you have already formed an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 7:06 PM
Guest - 12/9/2011 5:29 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 3:33 PM
Guest - 12/9/2011 2:25 PM
I don't know how the DNR spends their money, so I am only speaking in generalizations.
This discussion can be equated to raising taxes. Rather than raise license prices (taxes) let's focus on ways of improving the DNR and prioritizing how the money is spent. Again, I know absolutely nothing about how the DNR operates or how they spend their money. But just speaking about our country in general, we would be much better off if money was spent where it needed to be spent, and not spent where it doesn't need to be spent.
I just think raising prices sets a dangerous precedent for the future prices of your state, as well as surrounding ones. You might think you're paying a reasonable amount, or less than that, but what about when the same monetary problems are occurring ten years from now and your license has also gone through significant increases? If you go to $50 in the near future will you be willing to go to $75 when that $50 isn't enough?
Here's the bottom line in my book, even if you would be willing to pay more money, regardless of what that additional fee would be, don't advocate for it. The rates will be raised over time. Don't encourage it.
Here's what I think would be a much better idea, and I am sure it has been done in the past - simply collect donations. Get together in clubs, friends, family, whatever and collect your own money and use it for stocking, research, whatever. By doing this, not every person in the state will have to pay for what you do, and since it is essentially your money, you theoretically should be able to spend it in the areas you wish. That eliminates the concern that the extra money you would spend on licenses is not being used in other areas.
So in other words you don't have a clue where your license dollars go? Don't you think it might be worthwhile to find out? Might change your mind or might not. But if we are asking the DNR to make better, more educated decisions about how many is spent shouldn't we hold ourselves to similar standards?
I'm not from MN or WI. I'm just giving my generic opinion about raising licenses regardless of which state it's in. Regarding the latter half of your arguement, perhaps. I don't think it would be wise to give more money if the money they are currently receiving isn't being used appropriately. Like I said, I have no idea how good or how bad of a job the DNR is doing in either state. That would just be my first approach.
So how do you know if the money isn't being use appropriately if you don't have a clue where the money is going, nor have you bothered to try and find out? Interesting that you have already formed an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.
I'm not saying the money is or isn't being used appropriately. I just think it's important to determine what it's being spent on before raising prices. If the money is being spent properly then perhaps the appropriate thing to do is spend more for licenses. I wouldn't be in favor of that as I feel people are paying "enough". However, if the money isn't being used properly then what good is paying more for a license? If license money is going towards non-fishing/boating related funds, being spent on items that aren't necessary, et cetera, then giving more money for licenses only hurts anglers. It takes more money out of our pockets without providing a positive result.
This is why I would feel it would be better to implement private donations for research, stocking, anything. With private money (not state money) you can spend it at your discretion. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/9/2011 6:19 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 7:06 PM
Guest - 12/9/2011 5:29 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/9/2011 3:33 PM
Guest - 12/9/2011 2:25 PM
I don't know how the DNR spends their money, so I am only speaking in generalizations.
This discussion can be equated to raising taxes. Rather than raise license prices (taxes) let's focus on ways of improving the DNR and prioritizing how the money is spent. Again, I know absolutely nothing about how the DNR operates or how they spend their money. But just speaking about our country in general, we would be much better off if money was spent where it needed to be spent, and not spent where it doesn't need to be spent.
I just think raising prices sets a dangerous precedent for the future prices of your state, as well as surrounding ones. You might think you're paying a reasonable amount, or less than that, but what about when the same monetary problems are occurring ten years from now and your license has also gone through significant increases? If you go to $50 in the near future will you be willing to go to $75 when that $50 isn't enough?
Here's the bottom line in my book, even if you would be willing to pay more money, regardless of what that additional fee would be, don't advocate for it. The rates will be raised over time. Don't encourage it.
Here's what I think would be a much better idea, and I am sure it has been done in the past - simply collect donations. Get together in clubs, friends, family, whatever and collect your own money and use it for stocking, research, whatever. By doing this, not every person in the state will have to pay for what you do, and since it is essentially your money, you theoretically should be able to spend it in the areas you wish. That eliminates the concern that the extra money you would spend on licenses is not being used in other areas.
So in other words you don't have a clue where your license dollars go? Don't you think it might be worthwhile to find out? Might change your mind or might not. But if we are asking the DNR to make better, more educated decisions about how many is spent shouldn't we hold ourselves to similar standards?
I'm not from MN or WI. I'm just giving my generic opinion about raising licenses regardless of which state it's in. Regarding the latter half of your arguement, perhaps. I don't think it would be wise to give more money if the money they are currently receiving isn't being used appropriately. Like I said, I have no idea how good or how bad of a job the DNR is doing in either state. That would just be my first approach.
So how do you know if the money isn't being use appropriately if you don't have a clue where the money is going, nor have you bothered to try and find out? Interesting that you have already formed an opinion on something you know absolutely nothing about.
I'm not saying the money is or isn't being used appropriately. I just think it's important to determine what it's being spent on before raising prices. If the money is being spent properly then perhaps the appropriate thing to do is spend more for licenses. I wouldn't be in favor of that as I feel people are paying "enough". However, if the money isn't being used properly then what good is paying more for a license? If license money is going towards non-fishing/boating related funds, being spent on items that aren't necessary, et cetera, then giving more money for licenses only hurts anglers. It takes more money out of our pockets without providing a positive result.
This is why I would feel it would be better to implement private donations for research, stocking, anything. With private money (not state money ) you can spend it at your discretion.
Why don't you look into where your fishing license dollars go to? I agree with some of what you wrote.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 208
| I would without hesitation pay what ever (within reason) was required to be able to continue to enjoy what many can not! look at inflation and then compare that to our current fees and expectations. I would love to see a Musky Stamp!
This is all under assumption that the money actually goes where it is needed! |
|
| |
|
| Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change." |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Word - 12/10/2011 10:08 AM
Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change."
Word |
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| Word indeed...... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Word - 12/10/2011 9:08 AM
Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change."
For a stamp or fishing license dollars? |
|
| |
|
| I would support the increase for MN or WI as that is where I do my fishing. If the $$$ goes to help maintain the fishery , then I would certainly pay more to enjoy my favorite summer activity. Maybe as I get older it's a little easier for me to approve of such increases as I seek as much enjoyment as I can get in my favorite things to do. If the $$$ is well spent then I would have no problem paying for it. JIMooduchw Inuit |
|
| |
|
Posts: 23
| Provided the money went to the resource I would pay more to fish. What I really would like is to take the my money they use to build the god@&?m lightrail and put it towards the fisheries. At least then it would go to something I would use. Subsidized transportation of a bunch of mostly empty train cars, you wanna talk about waste. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 203
Location: Alexandria, Minnesota | Wow.......I know that in Minnesota we have been very lucky to have the DNR that we have. They have helped to build some of the top Muskie Fishing oppurtunites in the country and if any of you did your research into what it cost them to stock each and every fingerling that they do, Then I believe that you would be supportive of license increase. I know that I am. |
|
| |
|
| Guides support license fee increases, shocker.
I also love how pointer keeps assuming it's dedicated funding and could never be diverted to say a bike trail. The same dedicated funding hogwash is how they got the Legacy amendment passed and now we are giving grants to dirty hippies so they can do interpretive dance to whale sounds in some shiney new downtown builing and pretending it's part of our cultural heritage.
More money solves everything! Look at our schools if you don't believe me. They have never been better. LOL |
|
| |
|
|
The fact that so many of you are against an increase because you assume that it won't go to anything useful or is being wasted speaks volumes.
Not having a clue about actual budgets, how money is spent and what it actually costs to keep our fisheries at the standard they are and yet you won't support an increase.
Maybe eduacating yourself to the situation before taking the stance of "all the money is going to waste and I'm not gonna pay no more" would be an effective approach?
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DJS - 12/12/2011 5:55 AM
Guides support license fee increases, shocker.
I also love how pointer keeps assuming it's dedicated funding and could never be diverted to say a bike trail. The same dedicated funding hogwash is how they got the Legacy amendment passed and now we are giving grants to dirty hippies so they can do interpretive dance to whale sounds in some shiney new downtown builing and pretending it's part of our cultural heritage.
More money solves everything! Look at our schools if you don't believe me. They have never been better. LOL
Have you read up on where you license fees go? Or how there is a Federal match? Or what a state needs to do to be eligible for that Federal dollar match?
I didn't think so. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 899
|
Just skimmed over this whole thread and noticed nobody mentioned the month long shutdown in MN in June/July. Think that has something to do with these numbers? I'd guess so.
I'm for an increase assuming the money goes to fisheries.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | whynot - 12/12/2011 9:26 AM
Just skimmed over this whole thread and noticed nobody mentioned the month long shutdown in MN in June/July. Think that has something to do with these numbers? I'd guess so.
I'm for an increase assuming the money goes to fisheries.
I'd guess not. Consider the date on the article. Probably why no one mentioned it. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 12/10/2011 10:49 AM
Word - 12/10/2011 9:08 AM
Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change."
For a stamp or fishing license dollars?
I'll use one of your smart responses now. It says no license increase.
I didn't stutter.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 899
| Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 10:29 AM
whynot - 12/12/2011 9:26 AM
Just skimmed over this whole thread and noticed nobody mentioned the month long shutdown in MN in June/July. Think that has something to do with these numbers? I'd guess so.
I'm for an increase assuming the money goes to fisheries.
I'd guess not. Consider the date on the article. Probably why no one mentioned it.
Didn't read the article, just your post which I took as recent numbers. Wonder how the numbers are now? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Word - 12/12/2011 9:29 AM
Pointerpride102 - 12/10/2011 10:49 AM
Word - 12/10/2011 9:08 AM
Sorry NOFEAR.
That doesn't work under a redistribution regime. Your tax dollars go where they want them to go. Period.
No license increase from me unitl things "change."
For a stamp or fishing license dollars?
I'll use one of your smart responses now. It says no license increase.
I didn't stutter. ; )
Ok, thanks for confirming that you have no clue how license revenue works and/or is used. |
|
| |
|
| foo. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Foo?
I'm just stating what you confirmed. |
|
| |
|
| Fishing license revenues fund 75 percent of Fisheries’ $35 million annual budget. These dollars are used to manage 5,400 fishing lakes and 15,000 miles of rivers and streams.
But rising costs for items such
as fuel - which has doubled in
price - have led to tight budgets. To address this, DNR has cut the number of lake and stream and creel surveys, affect- ing the ability to evaluate regulations and stocking. Fisher- ies also has reduced the number of trucks, boats and field equipment, and implemented other cost-saving measures to stretch license dollars.
Game and Fish Fund balance nearing critical stage
Your hunting, angling and trapping license fees go into a dedicated account called the Game and Fish Fund. This fund pays for core fish, wildlife and law enforcement work, plus other essential ecological and business functions.
Despite many cost-cutting and efficiency measures, this fund no longer covers expenditures. It is projected to “go negative” by 2014, because costs have increased in the last 10 years while the basic prices of fishing and hunting licenses have not.
Without adequate funding, core fisheries, wildlife and enforcement work will go undone, and hunting and angling are likely to decline in quality.
What about Legacy Amendment funding?
Legacy Amendment dollars (generated from a constitutionally dedicated .375 percent sales tax) go into a separate dedicated account. Both Legacy dollars and Game and Fish Fund dollars can be spent only for their intended purposes. License dollars fund the staff, science and infrastructure of natural resource management. Legacy Amendment dollars pay for major landscape-level projects that restore, protect and enhance natural resources.
Legacy Amendment dollars do not go directly to the DNR. The Minnesota Legislature distributes them to many different organizations based on project proposals that usually are developed with assistance from DNR staff, who are funded by license revenues.
In short, DNR experts funded by license revenues are vital to maximizing the benefits of projects funded through the Legacy Amendment sales tax. |
|
| |
|
|
Have you read up on where you license fees go? Or how there is a Federal match? Or what a state needs to do to be eligible for that Federal dollar match?
I didn't think so.
-----
Mike Bolinski
I am not a member of Mensa.
"ly" it's the new buzz word. "serious"
Some people are clowns.
So if I trust the government on what it costs to run the fisheries monopoly I should then be for a fee increase? You have got to be kiding me? They have no incentive to bring down the cost of doing any fisheries related activities since there is no competition. No matter what BS cost number they give me the bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money.
Edited by DJS 12/12/2011 12:42 PM
|
|
| |
|
|
A majority of the muskie stocking in MN is done by private business, hired by the DNR. Get educated before you start in on problems that you are making up in your head.
A license is not a tax FYI. It's what you pay to use the resources that belongs to everyone in MN. It's a user fee, you pay it if you want to. It's not a tax.
For those of you who have the attitude that your money is currently being wasted and your not getting what you are paying for, please quit fishing in MN.
JS
|
|
| |
|
| And we all know the government does a stellar job of contracting out bids no possible favorites being played or money being wasted there. You have got be kidding me! |
|
| |
|
|
Put your money where your mouth is and come up with some numbers of all this waste.
Otherwise whatever you have to say is pretty much meaningless.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Good job Guest.....now, couple the Game and Fish fund with the Dingle-Johnson (Wallop-Breaux) Act aka Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration Act.
http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/FASPORT.HTML
Interesting little tidbit in the link.....
"To be eligible to participate in the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration program, states are required to assent to this law and pass laws for the conservation of fish which include a prohibition against the diversion of license fees for any other purpose than the administration of the state fish department."
Hmm.....
I don't know much about the Legacy Amendment, but from what I can tell there is no Federal Aid attached to it which is why Legislators could divert the funding where they see fit.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/news/features/amendment.html
Legacy Amendment appears to have some pretty broad definitions as to what the money can be used for. |
|
| |
|
| I'll come up with waste numbers when you can give me a run down of the competitive bid process the MN DNR used in picking the private company that did their muskie stocking. Until then all you have to say is just as useless. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | "bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid. |
|
| |
|
| Not sure how the MN DNR selects bids but it's a fact the company that rebilt 35W bridge did not submit the lowest bid.
Do MN DNR employees collect a pension and what is the average age of retirement? (rhetorical) No waste there.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ppretben.pdf |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | DJS - 12/12/2011 12:43 PM
Not sure how the MN DNR selects bids but it's a fact the company that rebilt 35W bridge did not submit the lowest bid.
Do MN DNR employees collect a pension and what is the average age of retirement? (rhetorical ) No waste there.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ppretben.pdf
Is the lowest bid always better?
|
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 1:13 PM
Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid.
So your bid process requires you to select the lowest bid...but you question if the lowest bid is always better? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8879
| Seems like common sense to me - the lowest bid is lowest for a reason, and it's usually not because that particular company has figured out a way to provide the same level of service as everyone else at a cheaper price. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 186
Location: West Chicago, IL | Not supportive of an increase and I also think this is absolutely the wrong forum to get the right anwsers. Why? Well, for starters, musky fishermen tend to have money. We pay a lot for baits and travel to fish so an extra 25-50 bucks isn't really a big deal.
However, what about the 18 year old kid that likes to fish a few times a year but the extra 25 bucks is too much so he gives it up. What about the person living on a fixed income that can't afford the extra money to enjoy fishing 2 or 3 times a year. Guess what, more people fall into these categories that buy licenses than do "hard core" fishermen.
If the cost increase ends up putting enough people off and deciding that buying a license to fish isn't worth it to go a few times a year, your reveue will actually drop and our fisheries departments will actually have less money.
It's not quite the "no brainer" that most of you seem to think that it is..... |
|
| |
|
| Mr Pointer, I'm not at all surprised that 62% don't want an increase. Now is really not a good time to ask for more money from the outdoorsmen of Wisconsin. The DNR there has a terrible mis-management track record lately with deer, wolves, and spending in general. The Cruiserfest example is another one....what a joke that was, as mentioned. I've witnessed wardens overstepping and acting all high and mighty many times.....but another subject altogether.
Overall, the Wis. DNR has a bad reputation and a bad image, one that they have earned over the years. Repair with the general public is in order....or you can expect that 62% against shown above to be even higher. I think we all hope that the new governor has a plan that may straighten things out some, but for starters you folks should think about dropping the bad attitude. That would be a good place to start. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | But asking a kid to pay $50 for a video game they'll get sick of in 3 days is OK? Or jeans they outgrow or soil in 6 months? Fishing is a relatively cheap hobby, fairly expensive to manage to the level of quality people desire. So if the choice is spending less for a lower quality product or spending more for a higher quality product I'll choose the latter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Amused - 12/12/2011 1:42 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 1:13 PM
Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid.
So your bid process requires you to select the lowest bid...but you question if the lowest bid is always better?
Sure, seen it happen where lower bids have been selected and work subpar compared to other guys worked with before who came in with a higher bid. Not rocket appliances there. |
|
| |
|
|
I'm not the one making claims on the internet that the DNR is spending to much on stocking because they are wasteful and the bid process is crooked.
Seems to me that my statements stand on thier own, and anybody who knows me knows the I have a pretty good handle on what goes on in the MNDNR.
I've been involved in stocking efforts from the egg collection up to the actual stocking of walleyes and muskies. I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to do it.
I've never had a feeling of wasted effort or money by the DNR in that process.
The MNDNR comes to our MI club annually and is very forthright in talking about expenses and future needs.
If you want to keep flinging baseless statements about how wasteful and useless the MNDNR is than you should put some effort into getting some experience or facts that can back up what you say.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| Good points by Jerry.....
Maybe we should have separated MN and WI ???........I think that MN has done a much better job over the years, and it shows....so maybe I wouldn't be so quick to say no to an increase up there, they sure have some great musky fisheries....and maybe my money would be better spent by those folks. ?
Alot of guys keep driving these days...just to go a little bit further for better and bigger fish. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 400
Location: North/Central WI | Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 3:44 PM
Amused - 12/12/2011 1:42 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 1:13 PM
Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid.
So your bid process requires you to select the lowest bid...but you question if the lowest bid is always better?
Sure, seen it happen where lower bids have been selected and work subpar compared to other guys worked with before who came in with a higher bid. Not rocket appliances there.
So if you the lowest bid isn't the "best"...why does your bid process require you to select it? Shouldn't a little more thought be put into the decision?
Edited by NateOz 12/12/2011 4:24 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 186
Location: West Chicago, IL | So find a more specific way to "pay to play". make the people who use the resource more pont up more $$. A general increase in a license fee is a bad idea for many reasons. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | NateOz - 12/12/2011 3:19 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 3:44 PM
Amused - 12/12/2011 1:42 PM
Pointerpride102 - 12/12/2011 1:13 PM
Flambeauski - 12/12/2011 12:09 PM
"bottom line is the private sector could do it better for half the price and thus the DNR is wasting money."
That's funny! Hey Pointer, you gettin rich working for the DNR? Could someone in the private sector do your job at half your salary? Would that even be minimum wage?
Filthy!
I can't speak for MN, but our bid process requires us to select the lowest bid.
So your bid process requires you to select the lowest bid...but you question if the lowest bid is always better?
Sure, seen it happen where lower bids have been selected and work subpar compared to other guys worked with before who came in with a higher bid. Not rocket appliances there.
So if you the lowest bid isn't the "best"...why does your bid process require you to select it? Shouldn't a little more thought be put into the decision?
See this thread. With all the government waste that is out there, could you imagine if we took the highest bid if there was a cheaper option? |
|
| |
|
| LOL. The questions get better, and the answers get weaker, and weaker.
I hope that someday we can get someone on here from DNR who knows what they are talking about. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Word - 12/12/2011 4:43 PM
LOL. The questions get better, and the answers get weaker, and weaker.
I hope that someday we can get someone on here from DNR who knows what they are talking about.
What has gotten weaker? What questions have been "better"? |
|
| |
|
|
Word;
You are obviously confusing accusations with questions.
MN fishery speaks for itself. What answers do you want?
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32979
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Perhaps we need to actually look in to where fishing license fees and excise taxes on fishing gear from the manufacturer go.
http://dnr.wi.gov/invest/conservation/money_spent.htm
http://dnr.wi.gov/invest/conservation/fwreports/fwbrochure08_09.pdf
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/05/20/dnr-hunting-and-fishing-li...
Only took me 5 minutes.
http://outdoornews.com/minnesota/news/article_c32e145c-7b1d-11e0-9d...
http://wjon.com/fishing-license-fees-go-directly-to-support-fisheri...
http://www.mnbound.com/rons-ramblings/2011/4/7/license-fee-increase...
Google it.
How's that material for an answer, NWM?
----
'I think that MN has done a much better job over the years, and it shows'
As uninformed a comment as has ever been posted here. Look to the 'it's the fish' debate that raged here for three years.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 566
Location: Elgin, IL | Nicely done Steve. Thanks.
After reading alot of this, I have all of the answers I need right here.....
and more importantly, out there. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 12/12/2011 3:52 PM
I'm not the one making claims on the internet that the DNR is spending to much on stocking because they are wasteful and the bid process is crooked.
Seems to me that my statements stand on thier own, and anybody who knows me knows the I have a pretty good handle on what goes on in the MNDNR.
I've been involved in stocking efforts from the egg collection up to the actual stocking of walleyes and muskies. I have a pretty good idea of what it takes to do it.
I've never had a feeling of wasted effort or money by the DNR in that process.
The MNDNR comes to our MI club annually and is very forthright in talking about expenses and future needs.
If you want to keep flinging baseless statements about how wasteful and useless the MNDNR is than you should put some effort into getting some experience or facts that can back up what you say.
JS
So you've"never had a feeling". Now I am ready to support that fee increase! Bring it on!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Since my computer had herpies for the last week I never saw this one until today. I don't have time to read the whole thing but I will give my $.02 concerning the MN licenses and the fee increase and why it's needed in MN.
The resident license fee in MN hasn't gone up in over 10 years. In fact since the conservation license was introduced, more money was lost (I think someone was talking about a conservation license, we've had it for years). The only other change was that there was a nonres license increase that offset the no license needed for portable fish houses (pet peeve here).
Anyway, the MN DNR's fish and game fund has been going down for many years now due to everything else going up in price. Paper, gas, rent, etc have all gone up over the last 10 years and the license fee has stayed the same. The DNR has done a lot to mitigate these cost increases by doing things like turning over it's fleet to more cars with a few more capable trucks for example. At the end of the day the cost to provide the current level of fishing will out pace the income generated from license and federal dollars. In the past if there was a project that needed money the DNR could often times get that money out of the general fund. That money is now gone so they're on their own.
So what we really have to ask ourselves is do we want $18 fishing or $23 fishing? If you say $18 fishing then get ready for stocking cuts and forget about ANY new lakes. Personally I think you're either making things better or worse because NOTHING ever stays the same.
Our DNR came out with a pretty comprehensive plan to increase license fees last year. It took into consideration people who were full time, part time and once and a while anglers and made price point licenses for them. So for that kid/college buddy who just wants to get out for the weekend, they killed the 1 day license and made a 2 day license. For the grandpa that wants to take the kids out fishing during the summer on his cabin they had a 90 day license which was less then the year round one. To make it short, the MN DNR did their homework and made "products" that would fit more peoples needs and budgets and at the end of the day people still good guyed and got it shot down so we were left with an across the board hike that got buried. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 832
Location: Maple Grove, MN | The MN yearly fishing license costs $17. Lets see:
- I spend at least 4 times that just in gas for a day trip to Mille Lacs.
- It costs me about 5x times that to fill the boat with gas.
- Most Muskie lures cost more than that.
I actually buy the combination sportsman/wife license for $38.50. And for that I get:
- A year fishing license for myself.
- A year fishing license for my wife.
- A small game license for myself.
That is way to cheap.
I am all for a license fee increase. I'm thinking ten dollars for the individual and fifteen dollars for the combination license sound about right.
You don't get something for nothing. Well, those on welfare do.....................
Edited by Herb_b 12/13/2011 11:54 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 127
| I would rather keep my money out of the control of government. I would prefer to choose where my money is allocated, and if I was so inclined to pay more to support fisheries, I would donate to causes that support stocking, education, ect.
If we'd be willing to pay more for a licsense to support fisheries, why not donate that to private organizations that support those innitiatives?
That being said, if there was a true need to raise prices to maintain the status quo, then I would gladly comply.
Edited by RStien321 12/13/2011 12:53 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | I'd be OK with a modest increase. As I purchase my license in Wisconsin and have read (thanks Steve) that all of the fees can only be used to support the resource so I'd pony up another $10 or $15 to help. The thing that gets my goat is I don't see any direct effect on the waters I fish. Stocking support is essential as the walleye population is plummeting, yet they haven't done anything in years. Though I'm sure it would be an administrative nightmare, it would be nice to be able to direct your "additional dollars" to a specific body of water.
Edited by dfkiii 12/13/2011 12:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 30
| In WI, not unless the money was earmarked for Nat Resources or DNR use only, and I mean all of it, not just the increase.
I think the non res in Michigan is pretty reasonable.
I pay out over $100 for boat launch fees in SE WI a year. The price is getting steep. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 366
| I agree with many of the big bloated mismanaged sentiments about most of which the government “provides” especially at the federal level, but as far as the DNR goes I think they’re a bit off base. I can’t speak on what’s going on in WI DNR management, but I’d say MN does an outstanding job. No price increases in 10 years, to the funds that they’ve been working with, well that is quite incredible with the current condition of the fisheries.
You want privatization of our fisheries; because you think it is too expensive? Seriously? Take all the state owned fisheries and make them privately owned and managed. How much do you think it would cost you to fish them after that, if you’d even be allowed to purchase some sort of access to the private lakes? Do you think $20-$30 is going to allow you to launch where ever you want like you can now? Do you think the quality of lakes statewide would be the same or possibly even increase?
Honestly, it seems as though this discussion can’t really go anywhere at this point, because most people have their mind made up going into the argument.
Ryan
|
|
| |
Would you support a license fee increase?