|
|
Posts: 164
Location: Bloomington,MN | Up here in Minnesota we have the chance to get a walleye stamp when we buy our license and that goes to the dnr stocking our lakes and what not. Why arent we doing this for muskies?? It would only help and i feel like more people would do this, compared to spending the 35 dollars to join muskies inc. Im sure this idea has been brought up before and i just missed it but when I was thinking about it, it just seemed like common sense. Any thoughts? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1638
Location: Minnesota | i would buy the stamp but would the extra money go to the muskies or into a slush fund |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| rumbler - 4/28/2012 9:34 PM
Im sure this idea has been brought up before and i just missed it but when I was thinking about it
Nope, it's never been brought up anywhere before. Completely original idea. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2390
Location: Chisholm, MN | ulbian - 4/28/2012 10:02 PM
rumbler - 4/28/2012 9:34 PM
Im sure this idea has been brought up before and i just missed it but when I was thinking about it
Nope, it's never been brought up anywhere before. Completely original idea.
Cute....
I would buy one |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20281
Location: oswego, il | I know the trout sta.p in illinois goes 100% into that program. I am ok with a musky stamp but mushrooms, forget it! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Do a search on it as this has been hashed out many times before. In short it's a bad idea IMOP as most people wouldn't buy one and the DNR has no plans to use the money for what we'd want (more lakes). Is if that's the case it wouldn't be a good idea.
If you want to give back you can join the MMPA ($25) where everything goes back to MN muskies or just donate it to the local MI club for use in stocking, research, etc.
Shawn |
|
| |
|
Posts: 582
| Just donate money or join your local musky chapter. At least that way you know the money is going where it belongs. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| im pike fishing I dont need a musky stamp,,,prove me wrong
now you dont have a handle on how many actual muskie fisherman there are and the politicians,darkhouse can point to the actual number of stamps sold and say its a small interest group.
Edited by happy hooker 4/30/2012 9:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Cost of implementation vs revenue from stamp, which one is higher. I'll go with the one on the left.
You want more money for fisheries, raise the license fee.
Most on here don't know where their license dollars go anyway so that is usually met with much resistance. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1224
Location: Okoboji | rumbler - 4/28/2012 8:34 PM
Up here in Minnesota we have the chance to get a walleye stamp when we buy our license and that goes to the dnr stocking our lakes and what not. Why arent we doing this for muskies?? It would only help and i feel like more people would do this, compared to spending the 35 dollars to join muskies inc. Im sure this idea has been brought up before and i just missed it but when I was thinking about it, it just seemed like common sense. Any thoughts?
i wouldnt spend a nickle to stock any lake that gets netted. that is the program we should roll with |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | So Mille Lac should cease to be stocked? Sorry brother but I think that's a bad idea. MANY more fish were killed by Cowgirls night fishing then the indians have killed. If anything we need to stock MORE into that lake to compensate for the delayed mortality and netting, especially when you look at how little is done per surface acre there. |
|
| |
|
| happy hooker - 4/30/2012 9:56 AM
im pike fishing I dont need a musky stamp,,,prove me wrong now you dont have a handle on how many actual muskie fisherman there are and the politicians,darkhouse can point to the actual number of stamps sold and say its a small interest group.
I think it's illogical to think that musky fishermen will not buy the stamp even though they know full well they would be scrutinized by game wardens because they have large nets lures and even figure 8 after a cast. I personally do not know any musky fishermen who would even hesitate buying a musky stamp and the vast majority would comply it's just plain silly to think otherwise. As a matter of fact I would venture to guess that a lot of recreational fishermen would also buy one “just in case”.
Before somebody jumps on that saying that Joe weekender would kill one because they bought a stamp the bottom line is either way they would be just as predisposed to keeping one with or without a stamp. I don't even think there would be much need for enforcement either pretty much would police itself and if somebody wants to musky fish and say they're pike fishing like so be it. It’s a complete non-issue to try to argue that more muskys will be kept with a stamp.
My opinion is that if revenue generated from the stamp goes toward the musky exclusively and just as importantly does not take the place of money already allocated a stamp would be a no-brainer for us as a group. ***********I think every state should have one*****************
Perhaps we should do a poll that if you were a musky fishermen would comply and buy the musky stamp, or be willing to lie to a game or if asked?
|
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 4/30/2012 11:38 AM
Cost of implementation vs revenue from stamp, which one is higher. I'll go with the one on the left.
You want more money for fisheries, raise the license fee.
Most on here don't know where their license dollars go anyway so that is usually met with much resistance.
I'll go with the one on the right, and why not raise the license fee and have a stamp? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | How many times have MN sportsmen & women stepped up and put their money forward only to have the funds dipped into by the legislature or spend on brick & morter??
The only thing the stamp would really do for MN is show the Legislature & DNR how many anglers really fished Muskie in this State, a number of true surprise! Therefore it would have to be a mandatory purchase to get true numbers. But they would never use the funds the way they are intended or desired by the anglers. Wish this was not the case!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| hey we got this already,,,,the lotto has "musky money" google Minn state lottery for details  |
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis, MN | jakejusa - 4/30/2012 12:25 PM
How many times have MN sportsmen & women stepped up and put their money forward only to have the funds dipped into by the legislature or spend on brick & morter??
The only thing the stamp would really do for MN is show the Legislature & DNR how many anglers really fished Muskie in this State, a number of true surprise! Therefore it would have to be a mandatory purchase to get true numbers. But they would never use the funds the way they are intended or desired by the anglers. Wish this was not the case!!
+2 Jake is right on! There are countless examples of MN legislature raiding accounts for other uses. Stamp or increased license fee, just the same, they will raid either account if they feel like it. Hooker is dead on too. We're much better off with the number of muskie anglers unknown.
The only way you can be sure that more of your money will go to the resource is to donate to the MI chapters that are able to make investments in the local fishery. Take your extra money you want to pay for a stamp or license increase and donate it to a dedicated stocking & rearing fund of your local chapter. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI | If the stamp is written up right the politicians cannot get there hands on it along with where the money goes. That is key as we all know we can always trust politicians ;), excuse me while I wake up from my dream. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| has Minn muskie interest peaked???
Id say it has among residents maybe not has much among non residents but think about the posts youve seen here over the past year,,, "Im goin to Lake St Clair instead of Vermilion this year"
" muskies dont figure 8 like they used to they just flash off"
Minnesotas days of 'easy' fishing are past its more WORK now,,been on Mile Lacs lately??? its a ghost town compared to what it was a couple years ago serious muskie guys are still out elsewhere but what about all those central Minn residents who found out they could go out after work on Big Point or an afternoon and have a great big fish follow are they still with it or did they go back to their walleye rods now that the fishing got tough.
10 years ago was Minn even on most peoples radar are we positive we know what the interest will be the next 10 years with places like Green Bay,Lake St Clair, and the new higher minimum size limits in wisconsin.
Start a muskie stamp and what if sales go down some year, what if you have two years of decreasing sales??? you dont think the darkhouse and Politicians wouldnt be ALL over that!!!
A musky stamp is the potential death of muskie stocking,,hope you like leech and cass has a vacation spot
Edited by happy hooker 4/30/2012 3:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | stop making sense Hook ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | What? - 4/30/2012 11:04 AM
Pointerpride102 - 4/30/2012 11:38 AM
Cost of implementation vs revenue from stamp, which one is higher. I'll go with the one on the left.
You want more money for fisheries, raise the license fee.
Most on here don't know where their license dollars go anyway so that is usually met with much resistance.
I'll go with the one on the right, and why not raise the license fee and have a stamp?
It has been noted here several times that very few would actually buy the stamp. |
|
| |
|
| What costs, EXACTLY, would there be in implementing a stamp?
This is a stampless stamp. Literally, there IS no physical stamp. You create an actual fund type place for the $ to go, and the gal at fleet farm has to check the box that says "Yes, I wanna buy a muskie stamp" when you buy your license, and that's where the extra money goes. She then hits "print" and your green license magically comes out with another line that says you bought a stamp.
Argue all you want about whether or not the idea of a stamp is a good idea. Fair argument.
But seriously, where's this big cost? How many bureaucrats and messengers and peons does it take to implement a stamp. Some computer nerd had to go in and adjust the license template to allow one more line of 6pt font. Gotcha.
Someone please feel free to jump in and stop me at the point where I get confused. |
|
| |
|
| Ummmmm..... - 4/30/2012 9:01 PM
What costs, EXACTLY, would there be in implementing a stamp?
This is a stampless stamp. Literally, there IS no physical stamp. You create an actual fund type place for the $ to go, and the gal at fleet farm has to check the box that says "Yes, I wanna buy a muskie stamp" when you buy your license, and that's where the extra money goes. She then hits "print" and your green license magically comes out with another line that says you bought a stamp.
Argue all you want about whether or not the idea of a stamp is a good idea. Fair argument.
But seriously, where's this big cost? How many bureaucrats and messengers and peons does it take to implement a stamp. Some computer nerd had to go in and adjust the license template to allow one more line of 6pt font. Gotcha.
Someone please feel free to jump in and stop me at the point where I get confused.
Yep free money! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Ummmmm..... - 4/30/2012 8:01 PM
What costs, EXACTLY, would there be in implementing a stamp?
This is a stampless stamp. Literally, there IS no physical stamp. You create an actual fund type place for the $ to go, and the gal at fleet farm has to check the box that says "Yes, I wanna buy a muskie stamp" when you buy your license, and that's where the extra money goes. She then hits "print" and your green license magically comes out with another line that says you bought a stamp.
Argue all you want about whether or not the idea of a stamp is a good idea. Fair argument.
But seriously, where's this big cost? How many bureaucrats and messengers and peons does it take to implement a stamp. Some computer nerd had to go in and adjust the license template to allow one more line of 6pt font. Gotcha.
Someone please feel free to jump in and stop me at the point where I get confused.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA........breath......HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Oh man, you're beyond help. It is anything but "free" to add in a new regulation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I believe the "management" of the walleye stamp is currently around $30k annually. So if that's the case and we charge $5/stamp we're looking at 6000 people buying it to break even.
Or we could stock all the lakes in the metro on an every other year basis with that money... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't get it. Why would you want to stamp a muskie? They are slimy and wet by nature, and a stamp wouldn't work anyway, no matter what kind of ink one uses. If you are talking about a 'stick on' stamp, that's just plain silly, it would fall off almost right away in the water. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 23
| big mistake with the walleye stamp was advertisement, with the first year revenues ending up being just barely over ad costs.
Atleast thats what i had read in outdoor news a while back. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI | Steve - Thanks for my laugh today. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Is the stamp idea one where you have to possess a stamp just to fish for muskies or to keep one? If yes...
1a) How do you enforce it? It's tough as it is to enforce fishing regulations, now there's yet another one?
1b) You encounter a guy who you think is "muskie fishing." You report him but how do you prove it? I've fished in bass tournaments and have done very well throwing muskie sized baits. Is the guy pike fishing? This is different than a trout/salmon stamp. You know a guy isn't in the middle of Lake Michigan dragging boards for Alewives and you know a guy isn't poking around a stream pitching flies for chubs. Huge, huge gray area with warm water fisheries.
2) How do you get around administrative costs? If money is pooled into a central location what percentage of your $5 or $10 actually gets kicked back into the resource as opposed to defraying admin costs? I've heard that almost all of WFT dues go to their central office and only a very small fraction go back to the local chapters. We have this already with Muskies Inc. Why create and pay for another top heavy organization to function when you want to see results quickly?
3) We need to strongly assess how many muskie anglers there are. On sites like this and MH and others you can get the sense that everyone loves muskies and fishes for them. Once you break outside of that box you'll see that by percentage there are not as many of us as their are bass anglers, walleye anglers, etc. You'd be looking for funds from a small group to begin with and inside of that small group you have a considerable amount of folks who wouldn't buy a stamp anyway. We're dealing with a small piece of the pie to begin with and it's going to be cut down even more.
If a muskie stamp would simply be a donation in good faith, then....
4) Why should I spend that extra 5 or 10 bucks in hopes of creating a panacea when I can get more out of my investment by sticking it into a local organization where you can see tangible results?
If you want to raise money to improve the fishery the local route is the way to go. You get connected with other anglers, you see a direct impact with your money, and more importantly you create a lobbying group that can put the pressure on the MDNR or WDNR. You have the war chest, you approach them for help, if they balk because of funding...you've got it. Creating a governmental fund is opening up a pandora's box that we don't need opened. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ulbian - 5/1/2012 7:27 AM
If you want to raise money to improve the fishery the local route is the way to go. You get connected with other anglers, you see a direct impact with your money, and more importantly you create a lobbying group that can put the pressure on the MDNR or WDNR. You have the war chest, you approach them for help, if they balk because of funding...you've got it. Creating a governmental fund is opening up a pandora's box that we don't need opened.
Or increase the fishing license fee. |
|
| |
|
|
The MN liscence fee is going to be increased, but that is just to keep the status quo.
If you want to benefit the MN Muskie program than join or donate to the MMPA or a local MN MI chapter.
That is the way to support the MN muskie program, plain and simple.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | There are lots of people already at their limit with license cost. Increasing it may just hurt you in license sales. Plus that increase in license fees doesn't mean the money goes to muskies like a stamp would guarantee.
Hooker you bring up valid points as far as darkhouse spearing goes. However there seems to be just plain apprehension on what everyone wants. One minute we are being asked to write and call our represenatives, and show up at a meeting, to show that we have the numbers of musky anglers to make our arguements valid. The next minute we want to keep our numbers "hidden".
Perhaps as a community we need to decide if we want others to know our true numbers or not, and not just when we have an agenda. Part of the problem with musky management and deciding if a program is worth it is knowing the true amount of anglers that would benefit from it. That was one of the main reason for a stamp proposal in WI as to get a pulse on the numbers of anglers, as well as a pulse on harvest.
So it comes down to do we want to take small baby steps towards managment with potential of staying stagnent and at status quo, or take large steps towards it with the potential of some backlash if our numbers don't prove out to be large enough to prove we have valid concerns? There are risks with both routes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| CiscoKid - 5/1/2012 12:07 PM
There are lots of people already at their limit with license cost. Increasing it may just hurt you in license sales. Plus that increase in license fees doesn't mean the money goes to muskies like a stamp would guarantee.
Hooker you bring up valid points as far as darkhouse spearing goes. However there seems to be just plain apprehension on what everyone wants. One minute we are being asked to write and call our represenatives, and show up at a meeting, to show that we have the numbers of musky anglers to make our arguements valid. The next minute we want to keep our numbers "hidden".
Perhaps as a community we need to decide if we want others to know our true numbers or not, and not just when we have an agenda. Part of the problem with musky management and deciding if a program is worth it is knowing the true amount of anglers that would benefit from it. That was one of the main reason for a stamp proposal in WI as to get a pulse on the numbers of anglers, as well as a pulse on harvest.
So it comes down to do we want to take small baby steps towards managment with potential of staying stagnent and at status quo, or take large steps towards it with the potential of some backlash if our numbers don't prove out to be large enough to prove we have valid concerns? There are risks with both routes.
It could also end up losing money and distroy any type of options in the future. H |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i don't know Homer ... i think Travis threw that cast at structure.. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 4/30/2012 8:31 PM
What? - 4/30/2012 11:04 AM
Pointerpride102 - 4/30/2012 11:38 AM
Cost of implementation vs revenue from stamp, which one is higher. I'll go with the one on the left.
You want more money for fisheries, raise the license fee.
Most on here don't know where their license dollars go anyway so that is usually met with much resistance.
I'll go with the one on the right, and why not raise the license fee and have a stamp?
It has been noted here several times that very few would actually buy the stamp.
This is simply not true pointer. What you're saying is that the majority of musky fishermen would be willing to take a chance and not buy the mandatory $10 stamp to musky fish. Really? Then they would have to lie to a game warden if he asked if they were musky fishing. Let's see big kahuna net, 80lb line, d13s, figure 8s, that's right sir, we are fishing for northern pike. "very few would actually buy the stamp" LMAO!
I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find. As far as enforcement of the stamp? It would police itself, there be no need to run around and check everyone for a stamp, just check for it during a routine stop. Dude, at least argue from a reasonable point of view if you're going to argue it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | "What"
you're the one on 2nd, right?
why hide?? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| Travis
I like the points you raise too
weve played the numbers game with the dnr and everybody screaming "LOOK how big were getting" Minnesotan muskie angler numbers have risen we did need an increase in water. But alot has changed in the last couple years,, fishing got tougher,,maybe its second generation fall off like alot predicted but I think that will mean second generation fall off from band wagon jumping Minnesoatan anglers too.
I think Minnesota resident Muskie interest has plateaued and even now starting to fall off slightly but still much bigger then it was 10 years ago.
If it sounds selfish we now have our 8 new lakes promised and some identified, were not getting more then that for at least 10 years no matter how optimistic we think anybody who doubts that has not sat in with dnr reps at a meeting where their present.
At this point Identifying our numbers isnt going to get us anything If the trend suggests were falling back and were not going to get much anyways even if we show they are slightly rising.
I think weve got "all were gonna git" from playing the growing sport card |
|
| |
|
| jonnysled - 5/1/2012 1:06 PM
"What"
you're the one on 2nd, right?
why hide??
"What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid? Should we just assume that you couldn't come up with a reasonable argument against so now you want to change the focus? I'm really tired of you guys coming on here and arguing this without valid arguments.
Quote from Happy Hooker, page 1 "im pike fishing I dont need a musky stamp,,,prove me wrong". I think I just did, or at least you've figured out by now that not buying a mandatory musky stamp wouldn't be too bright.
*How about some legitimate questions*
How many other fishing stamp programs have failed?
Can the legislation be written in such a way that the state can't touch it?
Could the MN musky stamp revenue be delegated towards new lakes and their management only?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | What? - 5/1/2012 12:31 PM
jonnysled - 5/1/2012 1:06 PM
"What"
you're the one on 2nd, right?
why hide??
"What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid? Should we just assume that you couldn't come up with a reasonable argument against so now you want to change the focus? I'm really tired of you guys coming on here and arguing this without valid arguments.
Quote from Happy Hooker, page 1 "im pike fishing I dont need a musky stamp,,,prove me wrong". I think I just did, or at least you've figured out by now that not buying a mandatory musky stamp wouldn't be too bright.
*How about some legitimate questions*
How many other fishing stamp programs have failed?
Can the legislation be written in such a way that the state can't touch it?
Could the MN musky stamp revenue be delegated towards new lakes and their management only?
How much do you plan on bringing in vs. administrative costs?
You can't pike fish with musky gear? I beg to differ, I do so quite a bit in Canada. You've hardly proven anything to the contrary.
Why would the general, non-musky angler, buy a musky stamp? They wouldn't.
How many stamp programs are there? Trout stamp vs musky stamp is apples to oranges. All I've heard about the walleye stamp in MN was it lost money for several years. I'd venture to guess the walleye angling base is much larger than muskies.
How much do you plan to charge? $5? Even if 10,000 people buy it that is only $50,000. That wont get you very far, especially once administrative costs are taken out.
Why is a musky stamp necessary? You can't guarantee that the funds generated wont be touched.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| What
In your opinion what ARE the biggest issues facing Minnesota muskie fishing that a musky stamp program will now solve??
the darkhouse spearing assoc and their selfish kamikaze wont negotiate all I wanna do is destroy you stance,,,'would Musky Stamp funds help with that???
Will the DNR lets us stock muskies over and above their quotas for what they think is the correct balance for the lake -'throw an extra 100 grand worth of fingerlings in West Battle we'll pay for it" will musky stamp funds do that??
If we want to push the size limit up to 54 do we need muskie stamp funds for that?
new lakes??? The Minnesota MI chapters have shown their ready to kick in for cost to help stock
what major issue do you see musky stamp funds solving???
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | Why is muskie stamp and trout stamp apples to oranges? |
|
| |
|
| First things first Happy Hooker. can you honestly say you would *NOT* buy a mandatory $10 stamp if it was enacted? Anyone else here willing to go on record that they would not buy the stamp, even though it might mean you would have to lie to a game warden.
Pointer quote: "You can't pike fish with musky gear? I beg to differ, I do so quite a bit in Canada. You've hardly proven anything to the contrary."
I never said you couldn't fish for pike with musky gear, I only said it wouldn't be *smart*, and I'm tired of that argument. You're trying to switch things around pointer. How about just answering the question? Seriously, are you saying you would not buy the stamp, even though you know you would be musky fishing? Keep in mind that your basic argument is that the average musky guy is not going to spend the extra $10 when he takes his annual trip to musky fish on Vermillion? How about a local guy like Happy Hooker, do you really think he won't buy the stamp too?
Lets ask this hypothetical question, HH? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 321
| There are not enough muskie fisherpeople to generate a positive return on something like this. It would just lose money. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| What
if its mandatory then I have to buy it and would???
My point is some people cheat
Muskie season dosent open till the first sat in June but you see alot of guys out tossing muskie lures in may 'pike fishing' since they disrespect the sport already you dont think they will in other ways too, has in Im pike fishing I dont need a stamp,,I dont want the true musky fishing population represented in a smaller number then what it is
I would HAVE to buy a new mandatory muskie stamp because I fish muskies,, NOW tell me what major Minn muskie issues will these funds now solve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | What? - 5/1/2012 1:37 PM
First things first Happy Hooker. can you honestly say you would *NOT* buy a mandatory $10 stamp if it was enacted? Anyone else here willing to go on record that they would not buy the stamp, even though it might mean you would have to lie to a game warden.
Pointer quote: "You can't pike fish with musky gear? I beg to differ, I do so quite a bit in Canada. You've hardly proven anything to the contrary."
I never said you couldn't fish for pike with musky gear, I only said it wouldn't be *smart*, and I'm tired of that argument. You're trying to switch things around pointer. How about just answering the question? Seriously, are you saying you would not buy the stamp, even though you know you would be musky fishing? Keep in mind that your basic argument is that the average musky guy is not going to spend the extra $10 when he takes his annual trip to musky fish on Vermillion? How about a local guy like Happy Hooker, do you really think he won't buy the stamp too?
Lets ask this hypothetical question, HH?
I wouldn't buy one. I no longer live in that region so it wouldn't be worth it. If I was out in that area, I would go pike fishing. If a musky hit my pike bait, so be it. I plan on releasing it anyway, the musky that is.
Can you prove that we were not, in fact, pike fishing? Can the same gear not be used for pike? I like to eat pike so it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to fish for them.
What is the need for the stamp?
I'll support a license fee increase. But I won't support a stamp.
Edited by Pointerpride102 5/1/2012 2:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 941
Location: Freedom, WI | An estimate from 2006 for anglers is 1.4 million in WI, an estimate from Simonson in 2008 was 25% fish for Muskies. For round numbers take 300,000 x $10 = 3 million, not chump change. Those are numbers I have on hand and I am sure it is a little off but just to point out the dollars that could be generated if the $ went just to Muskies. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | h2os2t - 5/1/2012 2:41 PM
An estimate from 2006 for anglers is 1.4 million in WI, an estimate from Simonson in 2008 was 25% fish for Muskies. For round numbers take 300,000 x $10 = 3 million, not chump change. Those are numbers I have on hand and I am sure it is a little off but just to point out the dollars that could be generated if the $ went just to Muskies.
That is assuming no administrative costs and every single musky angler buying one.
Now, take that $10 and apply it to the 1.4 million anglers in the form of a license fee increase. That money cannot be touched. There is no guarantee of that with a stamp. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/1/2012 3:49 PM
Now, take that $10 and apply it to the 1.4 million anglers in the form of a license fee increase. That money cannot be touched. There is no guarantee of that with a stamp.
How can that money not be touched? From my understanding there is nothing saying what the fee increase of license would go to. A stamp, if written correctly, clearly indicates what the money has to be used for. It CANNOT be touched for anything else. This was all hashed out last year. Sure there was a year money out of one of the stamp funds was taken, but there was legal action to correct it.
License fee increase guarantees nothing other than the possibility that more money is taken in IF license sales don't drop. So why keep promoting a license fee increase that can be used anywhere, and not specifically for muskies?
What the stamp is needed for is a good question to start out with, and here in WI I thought we did a pretty good job of clearly defining what that stamp would accomplish if it became reality. Reasons to have one in MN may or may not be for the same reasons, and like Hooker stated in MN you have the darkhouse spearing to worry about in using angler numbers against you.
Pointer I thought Flambeauski raised a good question, and that being why is a trout stamp and a musky stamp comparing apples to oranges???
The trout stamp was and still is a huge success. The Sturgeon stamp is a huge success. I haven't found the numbers yet for the walleye stamp in MN, but that doesn't sound to be too successful. However that stamp is different in that it is NOT mandatory for anglers to purchase it. There in lies the problem. Most anglers won't pay extra if they don't have to. It sounds like that is being seen in MN. So lets not use the excuse of the walleye stamp in MN not working unless the Musky stamp would also be mandatory.
I say until a stamp becomes reality in MN, and you want to see improved managment then I would do as Skarie suggested and join the MMPA.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find.'
I pretty much guarantee you they wouldn't.
Stamps traditionally have been for harvesting or fishing/hunting with the intent to harvest different species of fish and game, and there's your difference when looking t the intent for Great Lakes management, and habitat improvement (stream reclamation) when talking about steam trout fishing.
The idea of requiring a stamp for fish that are released at the rate of over 90% or more is probably not going to fly, it's strictly an increase in fees, raises costs in enforcement and administration, and definitely will reduce the numbers of folks fishing for muskies, especially the newbies. There are precious few waters in WI or MN that have muskies and NO Pike, and many have both in numbers and quality. The enforcement nightmare would be reason enough to can the idea. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | You clearly have no clue where your license dollars go, do you Travis. It's ok, very few here actually do. Go do some research and find out.
No, not all license dollars go strictly to musky management, but they do go to the fisheries. Improving fisheries benefits all species. More money for fisheries=more money for muskies.
Where do you think most of the trout stamp money goes? Why do you think the walleye stamp has had such problems?
(Hint: they are very different. Different like apples and oranges.)
The sturgeon tag...now we're adding in a kumquat.
Create a stamp for muskies and it has potential to become the sole source for funding musky programs. That is how the legislature would look at it. Bye, bye any general fund money that could be intended for muskies. Now what happens if the stamp fails or is marginally successful? Uh oh. |
|
| |
|
| I'm 100% against the stamp unless one thing happens first. When that happens I'll be for it.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/1/2012 5:32 PM
You clearly have no clue where your license dollars go, do you Travis. It's ok, very few here actually do. Go do some research and find out.
No, not all license dollars go strictly to musky management, but they do go to the fisheries. Improving fisheries benefits all species. More money for fisheries=more money for muskies.
I know where the money goes. Better than others I am sure.
For example (readily available links... you get the picture):
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/greatlakes/coregonus.html
http://dnr.wi.gov/invest/conservation/fwreports/fwbrochure08_09.pdf
What makes you think I have no clue? Because I pose statements for a stamp and against license fee increase?
I am all for improving fisheries. I am just stating what you seem to be ignoring and that is the person that started this wanted to improve the musky fishery, and not specifically the fisheries as a whole.
License fee increases will improve fisheries as a whole.
Most of trout stamp money goes to habitat improvement, but I am sure you know that and am just testing me. Same can hold true for muskies (remember the leech lake spawning ground deal years ago???), or whatever other projects a group wants to request funds for from a stamp. Quit thinking that the stamp is just for stocking.
Yes I agree with your last paragraph. However when your funds decrease yearly that are allocated to muskies there gets to be a point that if you lose it you really aren't losing anything because it is so little. Also who is to say that if the stamp fails that the DNR cannot go back to budgeting for muskies if they ever stopped? Another reason the stamp was proposed for WI was because of the money is dwindling. The stamp would ensure there would be money there to continue supplementing the musky management.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | When money gets taken away by legislators, it takes an act of God to get it back.
You know more than most where your dollars go, for that I commend you. Though the sport fish dollars cannot be touched, at all.
Lots of slippery slopes with a stamp. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 5/1/2012 5:31 PM
'I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find.'
I pretty much guarantee you they wouldn't.
Stamps traditionally have been for harvesting or fishing/hunting with the intent to harvest different species of fish and game, and there's your difference when looking t the intent for Great Lakes management, and habitat improvement (stream reclamation) when talking about steam trout fishing.
The idea of requiring a stamp for fish that are released at the rate of over 90% or more is probably not going to fly, it's strictly an increase in fees, raises costs in enforcement and administration, and definitely will reduce the numbers of folks fishing for muskies, especially the newbies. There are precious few waters in WI or MN that have muskies and NO Pike, and many have both in numbers and quality. The enforcement nightmare would be reason enough to can the idea.
Steve,
I would hope you could have better appreciated that I'm just tired of that lame argument that only a few would buy the stamp to begin with. I think this can be summarily dismissed as demonstrated with happy hooker changing his mind and saying he would buy the stamp. I contend that the vast majority would comply and buy the stamp in the same manner.
Getting back to these finer points; you're contending that if a musky stamp was mandatory it wouldn't raise a game wardens eyebrow if he was just out doing a routine check and pulled up to 2 guys who were figure 8ing d13s claiming to be fishing for pike? Really? Well, in my world typically people in that type of position do not like it when people lie to them, plain and simple. Normal human nature would be for the game warden to “maybe” look for something else he could ticket.
BTW, I totally agree that law enforcement would have no recourse to prove they were musky fishing, heck they could even say they were fishing for bluegills with d13s rattling on the end of their rods for that matter, ridiculous but not provable. But I still feel that those pike fisherman would get checked out a little closer than normal, and you don’t. Maybe I'm wrong, but it really doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your claim that this would be an “enforcement nightmare”. I don't see it because if that same game warden finishes his routine check and everything else is cool, he simply issues no tickets. This would be his mandate, no enforcement nightmare that “cans the idea”. Fair enough?
Extra law enforcement costs would be minimal (maybe writing a ticket that would pay for itself?) because they would already be checking the fishing license etc. anyways and not be specifically looking for a stamp infraction. This thing would basically police itself , a perfect example is that happy hooker wouldn't buy the stamp on page 1, but then changed his mind and said that he would buy it on page 2. I'm confident the vast majority are law abiding citizens and would and buy the stamp, contrary to what pointer is trying to sell. I'm also confident that there would be a percentage of non-musky fisherman buying the stamp “just in case”. A good example is me, yep I bought my WI license and also brought the trout stamp even though I rarely fish for them. Why did I buy it? Because it was only $10 bucks, wouldn't want the hassle if the occasion arose, it goes for a good cause, and basically “just in case” I catch one while I'm “pike” fishing.
For the sake of argument let's hypothetically say that a stamp for a fish with a 90% rate of release would fly just for kicks. How are you coming up with $10 “definitely” reducing the number of folks fishing for muskys? Do you really believe that anyone would take that extra $10 into account before becoming a musky fisherman? Really? I don't see where this should even be tabled for intelligent discussion because people decide to go fishing, then by the license and stamp. Let's also hypothetically assume that we could work this thing in such a way that the money would be guaranteed to only go towards musky fisheries. Maybe that slope isn't so slippery, and maybe some people should do some research into the legalities of this before pooh-poohing the stamp. It sounds like Travis has, or is willing to his homework? How about giving him the chance, see what he comes up with?
|
|
| |
|
| What? - 5/1/2012 1:31 PM
"What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid?
will you be providing a valid point? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | 1. There is no way to ensure that the money will be used for expanding the muskie program. As seen with the walleye stamp, the money is just supplanting what they were going to spend on stocking otherwise. The walleye guys are a goof right now because of this.
2. Lack of money is not what's holding back the MN muskie program. Between the MI Chapters and the Hugh C Becker foundation we could fund the entire states stocking program if we wanted. The check book has always been open to our DNR to fund any stocking, rearing or research project they've wanted to do. In fact, the MN MI chapters just spent around 10k to buy them a new feeding system that was supposed to increase their muskie yield so we could have fish for expansion.
3. The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that would buy this are maybe 10-20% of the total that designate themselves as fishing muskies. The vast majority of people who "muskie fish" are out to catch what they can catch and throw muskie on the questionnaire and would be unlikely to buy the stamp. So if you look at it that way we would sell a max of around 20,000 licenses MAYBE, and probably less. Now that would be a great number to go to war with at the Capital next spring. Being that I'm one of about 3 muskie guys that does this all I can say is No Thank You!
4. The DNR doesn't want the stamp. They don't want it to get to the point that every angler has to buy a stamp for every single fish species they want to fish. That's what the license is supposed to be for.
Edited by Muskie Treats 5/2/2012 7:28 AM
|
|
| |
|
| When - 5/2/2012 6:48 AM What? - 5/1/2012 1:31 PM
"What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid?
will you be providing a valid point?
Valid points are:
1) Most people are law-abiding citizens and would buy the stamp as demonstrated with happy hooker. If pointer wants to maintain that few would buy it - Poll?
2) There is no enforcement nightmare if the game wardens mandate is not to write a ticket unless the pike fishermen confess, or they are fishing in a musky tournament. A stamp program would police itself if outlined properly, there is no need for wardens to chase around specifically checking for the stamp.
3) Administrative costs, they would certainly be some involved, and this should be looked into it we get past points 1-2. When I bought my WI salmon stamp even though I do not plan on fishing salmon this year BTW), it was a $10 mouse click in a box on their website.
Can we move on to the meat and potatoes now? Like can these funds put in a lock box that guarantees they will only be used for musky, and will there be enough stamps purchased to make this a viable program. I vote to move this discussion to focus on WI, mainly because that is where Travis and company appears to be more knowledgeable.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your claim that this would be an “enforcement nightmare”. I don't see it because if that same game warden finishes his routine check and everything else is cool, he simply issues no tickets. This would be his mandate, no enforcement nightmare that “cans the idea”. Fair enough? '
Exactly, there would effectively be no enforcement. If attempts were made to enforce, the time in court and inevitable loss would be costly. So in effect, the stamp would not be needed.
'For the sake of argument let's hypothetically say that a stamp for a fish with a 90% rate of release would fly just for kicks. How are you coming up with $10 “definitely” reducing the number of folks fishing for muskys? Do you really believe that anyone would take that extra $10 into account before becoming a musky fisherman?'
Yes I do. If the general fishing population know they don't HAVE to buy the stamp, they won't, and if they are worried about enforcement, will be less likely to try the sport. If it's a 'harvest' stamp, quite a few muskie fishermen will not as a matter of course, and some will not because there's no way they WILL harvest one. And if it's not a harvest stamp, it's just an increase in fees and won't fly anyway. I wouldn't pay the fee because I know it's not 'needed' under the current program. If money IS needed for the fisheries program, a license fee increase would be the way to go.
As to the 'homework', my son works for the Woodruff Hatchery as a fish tech. His crew nets for the Muskie and a portion of the Walleye propagation program, and currently for the suckers they will feed them for the Northern portion of Wisconsin. He knows a fair amount about how things work in the stocking program, and his statement parallels Treat's above. Most of the lakes with NR are not being stocked now as part of the ongoing Muskie program in the north, and that has nothing to do with whether muskies are available from the hatcheries to stock. They are. More influence comes from Lake Associations than the Muskie fishermen at large, and stocking decisions are made based upon population studies/estimates and creeling, not because there's 'extra money' available or not available. If that 'extra' was available, the money going there now equaling the amount raised form the tag, which would be a very small portion of the budget, would be spent elsewhere.
What Pointer is attempting to get through is the stamp revenue IF it passed and was written into law wouldn't change a thing. He's right.
Back a couple years ago this came up, and the Madison office of the WI DNR responded to my questions about a stamp. The comments paralleled Treat's above.
A poll here wouldn't give an accurate sample of any segment other than the hard core Muskie angler.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | I think probably 75% of trout fisherman release 100% too. I can't imagine a warden having any issue at all as long as there isn't a muskie in the livewell of an angler who doesn't have a stamp. I can fish trout streams without a trout stamp as long as I'm not fishing for trout. But I keep a trout and I get fined with no stamp.
Trout stamp's revenue makes up about half of what the DNR spends on trout management, so to say they'll stop funding muskie management because there is a stamp hasn't been historically true.
I don't buy the stamp encouraging harvest, either. Guys who harvest will whether or not they're paying an extra $10 and guys who don't harvest will keep releasing. Maybe a few guys like Sled and Pointer won't buy one just on principal, but I think the majority of muskie anglers would buy one. |
|
| |
|
| sworrall - 5/2/2012 8:09 AM
'The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your claim that this would be an “enforcement nightmare”. I don't see it because if that same game warden finishes his routine check and everything else is cool, he simply issues no tickets. This would be his mandate, no enforcement nightmare that “cans the idea”. Fair enough? '
Exactly, there would effectively be no enforcement. If attempts were made to enforce, the time in court and inevitable loss would be costly. So in effect, the stamp would not be needed.
'For the sake of argument let's hypothetically say that a stamp for a fish with a 90% rate of release would fly just for kicks. How are you coming up with $10 “definitely” reducing the number of folks fishing for muskys? Do you really believe that anyone would take that extra $10 into account before becoming a musky fisherman?'
Yes I do. If the general fishing population know they don't HAVE to buy the stamp, they won't, and if they are worried about enforcement, will be less likely to try the sport. If it's a 'harvest' stamp, quite a few muskie fishermen will not as a matter of course, and some will not because there's no way they WILL harvest one. And if it's not a harvest stamp, it's just an increase in fees and won't fly anyway. I wouldn't pay the fee because I know it's not 'needed' under the current program. If money IS needed for the fisheries program, a license fee increase would be the way to go.
As to the 'homework', my son works for the Woodruff Hatchery as a fish tech. His crew nets for the Muskie and a portion of the Walleye propagation program, and currently for the suckers they will feed them for the Northern portion of Wisconsin. He knows a fair amount about how things work in the stocking program, and his statement parallels Treat's above.
Back a couple years ago this came up, and the Madison office of the WI DNR responded to my questions about a stamp. The comments paralleled Treat's above.
Okay, I respectfully disagree with a few of your points same as you disagree with mine, but I'm done also done with it then.
Are you seriously in favor of increasing the fee in WI and MN? If so, let's work on that then. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| What? - 5/1/2012 2:00 PM
This is simply not true pointer. What you're saying is that the majority of musky fishermen would be willing to take a chance and not buy the mandatory $10 stamp to musky fish. Really? Then they would have to lie to a game warden if he asked if they were musky fishing. Let's see big kahuna net, 80lb line, d13s, figure 8s, that's right sir, we are fishing for northern pike. "very few would actually buy the stamp" LMAO!
I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find. As far as enforcement of the stamp? It would police itself, there be no need to run around and check everyone for a stamp, just check for it during a routine stop. Dude, at least argue from a reasonable point of view if you're going to argue it.
If our courts would function under a preponderance of responsibility then you could make this argument....the problem is, they don't. How in the heck do you prosecute something like this and make it stick? Enforcement is a huge issue but prosecution is an even bigger one. So many ways to work around it that the Wardens are going to simply say; "screw it, I'm not wasting my time writing a citation that won't hold up."
Pig rubbed down with STP Engine Treatment slippery is the type of slope we're talking about.
During the spring sucker runs I'll have my big net and heavy rods and reels in the boat and I'll use them. Is it a combination of all things? Net, rods/reels, bigger baits that tips it into that "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? What about the guys who are still using that crappy 10 dollar Kmart net but have the rest of the equipment to suggest they are muskie fishing? Oops, you don't have a Big Kahuna, but you have everything else, I guess you aren't muskie fishing..you get off on this one.
Enforcement would be a headache, prosecution would provide the night terrors. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Are you seriously in favor of increasing the fee in WI and MN? If so, let's work on that then.'
No, I'm not in WI. If someone can tell me why we need the money in WI, and what it would go to, I'd be interested. More fish techs hired? More administration hired? New equipment? Where is this money supposed to go? Increase the wages of the DNR employees in the field? That I'd support, but the general public won't. If the answer is 'stocking muskies', then it's not needed here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | If everything Treats is saying is true (not questioning him by the way) then I would have to agree MN doesn’t need a stamp. It also sounds like they do not need a license fee increase. What MN needs is a strong group/organization, which by the way has been formed and am working towards being “strong”, to fight the battles of darkhouse spearing and such.
WI is in a much different scenario in my opinion. Steve perhaps they changed their tune in the DNR, but two years ago they were in support of the stamp program being proposed. Well at least one person was. In fact I believe that person was helping in how exactly wording should be and such so that it made the most sense. Not sure what statements of your sons parallel Treats as far as stocking goes. My question is are we stocking at a rate now that is similar to what we were 5 years ago? Has it declined? Is there more money now for musky management than 5 years ago, and if not why not? I thought it was either last year or the year before you mentioned the DNR was short staffed for doing what your son was helping do. If there was a stamp that could be a non-issue as a portion of the funds from the stamp could be used for the salary of additional staff.
I understand why Steve and others may be in favor of a license fee increase as the additional money can be used for the WI fisheries as a whole, and not just muskies. Makes sense for anglers that target more than just musky. However if your main concern is to improve/maintain our musky fishery then a general license fee increase makes zero sense as that money can be used for anything fisheries related, and not strictly musky related. Let’s not confuse musky fishery management with fisheries management.
Is the trout stamp law enforcement a headache? How about the Sturgeon tag/stamp? Turkey or pheasant stamp? Aside from WI I believe there are other states as well that have stamps including I thought I saw something in Canada. Enforcement is as easy as it is for a general license. Common sense will prevail with the law enforcement. I don’t go jump-hunting ducks with lead, and when a Warden checks me just say I was hunting grouse. This law enforcement point has been blown out of proportion.
Also the enforcement for this would be no different than the enforcement of the correct license in MI for instance. My understanding is in MI if you are fishing on a class A trout water , as well as a few others, then you have to have the correct license that allows you to fish for trout.
Look at page 3 of the regs.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DNRFishingGuide2012_377884_7....
If a stamp went into effect the same rules could be written into the regs for WI or another state.
Edited by CiscoKid 5/2/2012 8:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | In case someone never saw the stamp proposal in WI last year.
http://worldmuskiealliance.com/static/pdf/WMA_WI_muskie_stamp.pdf
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yes this is trout, but a breakdown of how the trout stamp money is spent. Similar could hold true for musky albeit I know the habitat deal with musky could be a bit harder to tackle.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/troutstamp0407_web.pdf
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My question is are we stocking at a rate now that is similar to what we were 5 years ago? (yes) Has it declined?(no) Is there more money now for musky management than 5 years ago, and if not why not? (no) I thought it was either last year or the year before you mentioned the DNR was short staffed for doing what your son was helping do (they are, that's an employee issue, not a muskie management issue, BIG difference. Keith works the nets for a couple months for Muskie AND walleyes, then moves on to other projects, including winter creeling, which is paid for by GLIFWC) He knows exactly how many quarts of eggs he needs to meet the demand for stocking, and if everything goes well, they always get what they need. More money won't increase the number of muskies raised unless the money is spent to 'increase stocking', and that has been discouraged by the DNR Muskie Team and Dr. Sloss so we can increase size to meet modern trophy muskie angling expectations...again, look to the current management plan in place. Pelican, for example, has not been stocked in a decade, and I'm happy with that.
'Let’s not confuse musky fishery management with fisheries management.' There are walleyes, bass, pike, panfish, and other fish that command management in all those lakes of which none are being managed ONLY for muskies. Lakes that need stocking are receiving the fish now, and those are the 'put and take' waters with no NR or very little NR or lakes where the population needs a boost. Read the Muskie management plan put in place a decade ago and Dr. Sloss's recommendations for insight.
I'd say let's not try to isolate Muskie management in WI as if there are not other gamefish management issues and social issues to deal with. That is exactly why the Pike/Muskie activists in MN organized, to offer a strong voice.
Trout and salmon stamps are harvest stamps, as are the Sturgeon and Turkey....etc.
Much of the trout stamp goes to stream reclamation and reintroduction of stream trout, an obviously needed and fairly accomplished though very rigorous and expensive process reclaiming trout streams that have sediment or other issues screwing up the current. (Keith did that for a few years, too)
SO if habitat improvement is too ethereal to accomplish specifically for muskies (and it is), and stocking levels are not threatened, why do a stamp unless the money raised frees up money already coming in for other management or budgetary issues...which I suspect is what would be the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | "Is the trout stamp law enforcement a headache? How about the Sturgeon tag/stamp? Turkey or pheasant stamp? Aside from WI I believe there are other states as well that have stamps including I thought I saw something in Canada. Enforcement is as easy as it is for a general license. Common sense will prevail with the law enforcement. I don’t go jump-hunting ducks with lead, and when a Warden checks me just say I was hunting grouse. This law enforcement point has been blown out of proportion."
So is this going to be a musky harvest stamp then? Or is this just a stamp to fish for them? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3166
| trout stamp ????
I'll refer to a concern that sworrall raised earlier in this thread if a stamp wont stick to a musky how would it stick to a trout factor in too that it live mostly in an environment that has current to simply make the stamp slide off how much of these trout stamp funds are wasted on glue and replacement stamps
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Meant to be both IMO Pointer. But only a “harvest” stamp in terms of being able to get a better handle on the harvest numbers in WI to better make management decisions on specific water bodies. That was mentioned in the stamp proposal link in a previous post. As mentioned by another there are lots of trout fisherman that buy the stamp, but are still almost 100% catch and release like most musky anglers.
Steve I do not disagree with needing to manage other species. I am all for it. Heck I would support a license fee increase and a stamp if that means both musky management/fisheries and the other species management/fisheries improve! I have no problems paying for my recreation. I am a strong believer in put and take. Reason being is the alternative really would suck if I couldn’t enjoy the outdoors and what it has to offer. Not everyone has the same viewpoint as me and I can honor that.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So musky fisherman who are strictly catch and release should pay $10 extra on top of their license for what reason?
What is this money going to go to? Give me some specifics. Steve has already established that stocking hasn't declined. There isn't a shortage of muskies in the state. What, specifically, is wrong with musky fishing that the stamp is needed?
I'm not trying to be snarky here. I haven't fished muskies in Wisconsin in 2 years now. Reports I get from friends back there is musky fishing is just as good as it was when I left for Utah. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | sworrall - 5/2/2012 8:27 AM
'Are you seriously in favor of increasing the fee in WI and MN? If so, let's work on that then.'
No, I'm not in WI. If someone can tell me why we need the money in WI, and what it would go to, I'd be interested. More fish techs hired? More administration hired? New equipment? Where is this money supposed to go? Increase the wages of the DNR employees in the field? That I'd support, but the general public won't. If the answer is 'stocking muskies', then it's not needed here.
Very good post.
Put me down for no stamp......this doesn't mean I won't support a healthy musky fisherie, as I do, but one doesn't just improve musky fishing with out improving the overall fisherie for each water.
Here is a thought...... to improve fisheries hire more fish techs with an increase in salary for the men in the field, including biologists. These men work insane hours, are short staffed and essentially control the direction "your" favorite lake is headed.
Do you want your lake to stay as a "numbers" lake or sustain it's trophy potential without dipping the population too low to still allow a fishable population of musky to target? How is this attainable?......population estimates must be performed and with the vast amount of lakes in northern WI it takes years and years to cycle thru the quanity of lakes to study.
Spend some time with the men in the field within the DNR....they are quite full of information and are more than likely fisherman too. With an increase of manpower the general public could see quicker results regarding more lakes studied per year, which in turn helps to sustain our overall musky fisherie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 10:11 AM
So musky fisherman who are strictly catch and release should pay $10 extra on top of their license for what reason?
What is this money going to go to? Give me some specifics. Steve has already established that stocking hasn't declined. There isn't a shortage of muskies in the state. What, specifically, is wrong with musky fishing that the stamp is needed?
I'm not trying to be snarky here. I haven't fished muskies in Wisconsin in 2 years now. Reports I get from friends back there is musky fishing is just as good as it was when I left for Utah.
Same reason trout anglers buy a stamp.
Perhaps there is not a problem, yet, Pointer. Or there could be. Isn’t it better to be proactive than reactive? MN hasn’t lost the darkhouse spearing issue, yet. Isn’t it better for them to maintain that than lose the battle, and then try and decide how do they get back what they currently have? For not having any problem with the fisheries in WI there sure seems to be a lot of grumbling and complaining about it as well as a lot of people jumping to MN for muskies rather than staying here.
I understand people want to see specifics on what the stamp money would go to. Keep in mind it is better to have it written up vaguely to what the money would be used for rather than very specific. Reason being is if you are very specifc you then are locked into having to use the money for that. It’s better to be vague so that the money can be disbursed as different needs arise, and other needs diminish. Read up on how the trout moneys is used, and what has to be done to get approval to use it on a project.
The reasons Hodag brings up on what money could be used for are good ones. I will not list items money could be used for as someone will just find reasons, in their opinion, it shouldn’t be needed for that. Ultimately it should be up to the musky management team, along with organizations, on what the money is used for…in direct connection with muskies. I understand this is where a lot of animosity is coming from in terms of the stamp as people want to know what exactly it will be used on. However what we list today will likely be different than what it should be used for 5 years from now.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | Here's where I think we can use money: Grants to study this fish we know almost nothing about. Genetics research. More timely lake surveys. Educating the public on misconceptions they have. Enhancing the hatcheries to include more than 2 or three strains of fish. Rebuilding populations that have had their native strain decimated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I know all about how money has to be used. I run my own state budget. General funds, dedicated credits, sportfish dollars, etc.
So if there isn't a problem, why are we needing a tax just to fish? What are we being proactive about? What is it that has the musky populations in Wisconsin in jeopardy that we need to come to the rescue with a tax?
Fisherman grumble, about anything and everything. I deal with it every day. To the old timer, fishing is never as good as it was "back in the day". To a young adult angler, fishing is better than it has ever been. You can never please everyone, but I think a stamp pleases a very small percentage within the musky community and would be a big complaint to the rest of the angling public.
I completely agree with Hodag on what money could be used for. This would be accomplished much easier with a license fee increase than it would with a stamp. If this was done with a musky stamp fund, then does the biologist pulling nets and doing the population estimate have to ignore the bass, walleye, pike etc he catches because he is working solely with musky stamp funds?
Musky fishing has survived how many years without a stamp? Some would argue that musky fishing in Wisconsin is pretty darn good.
Your passion for the sport is there, which is great. I just don't see a stamp benefiting the sport or the fishery. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 11:44 AM
I know all about how money has to be used. I run my own state budget. General funds, dedicated credits, sportfish dollars, etc.
Thus why I am sure you push so hard for a license fee increase rather than a stamp fund. You have more to work with to get get various tasks done in a year in terms of balancing a budget to improve fisheries as a whole. Not a bad thing...Just not what musky anglers like to hear.
Mind you I am not syaing musky fishing sucks in WI. There is a reason I don't travel outside the sate. However it can always be better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | CiscoKid - 5/2/2012 11:03 AM
Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 11:44 AM
I know all about how money has to be used. I run my own state budget. General funds, dedicated credits, sportfish dollars, etc.
Thus why I am sure you push so hard for a license fee increase rather than a stamp fund. You have more to work with to get get various tasks done in a year in terms of balancing a budget to improve fisheries as a whole. Not a bad thing...Just not what musky anglers like to hear.
Mind you I am not syaing musky fishing sucks in WI. There is a reason I don't travel outside the sate. However it can always be better.
The problem is, there is a very limited amount you can do to "improve" musky fisheries. I think you could get a lot more done but improving the fishery as a whole as opposed to having a designated musky fund. I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck if you increased license fees by $10 dollars as opposed to offering a stamp for $10. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Guaranteed you would sell less licenses then, and in the end may not gain anything. At least with a stamp you would still hold status quo on license sales.
Lots of young anglers may not spend the extra $10 to fish. Yep we may lose them to musky angling with a stamp, but we wouldn't lose them to fishing all together.
$30 in WI would be the cost with the additional $10. Heck I can get a non-res, restricted (similar to WI without trout stamps) in MI for $34.
I do agree though $10 to a license fee increase would give you more bang for the buck for fisheries as a whole.
Edited by CiscoKid 5/2/2012 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 12:16 PM
The problem is, there is a very limited amount you can do to "improve" musky fisheries. I think you could get a lot more done but improving the fishery as a whole as opposed to having a designated musky fund. I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck if you increased license fees by $10 dollars as opposed to offering a stamp for $10.
No way all the non-musky anglers are going to go for a $10 license fee increase here Mike. A resident fishing license is only $20 now, and a husband/wife one is $31. So increasing it to $30 and $41 (or $51, if you make both spouses pay the extra fee to fish 'skis) is NOT going to go over well here at all in my humble opinion.
You'd have a better chance of getting the stamp accepted, in terms of the added fee. There are definitely pro's and con's to each argument in this thread--and I really don't have a firm opinion on the matter. There have been some rumblings over the past couple years about such a stamp here in WI, but to date I haven't been involved other than to provide some background data that I gathered back in 2007/2008 while preparing to submit a request on behalf of the Green Bay fishery. So I don't have enough information to speak with authority in either direction--other than to tell you that it seems that every time I go to the Spring CC hearings, the topic of fees comes up...and people inevitably complain. Thus I can't imagine you'd ever get all anglers to agree to such a fee increase, when the majority (reportedly) don't fish muskellunge.
This is a complicated issue, to be sure.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | It will be interesting to see what happens in Wisconsin. I'd venture to guess that we'll see a license fee increase before a musky stamp.
Both would be met with opposition, no doubt. But I think the DNR would have a much easier time justifying to anglers a license fee increase vs a musky stamp. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | how bout an internet user fee that would cause people to type less and fish more? more time on the water might create a little more success and less complaining about how bad it is? it's possible that fishing might be really good???
or open up baiting for fish? ... bucket a corn under your favorite tree so the fish will be on your bait-pile come saturday??
edit:
love the word-sensoring selections ... lol ... signed "sweetness bag"
Edited by jonnysled 5/2/2012 12:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | TB, CK, Pointer,
Interesting issue though. I know I'd like to see some new faces working hard for the DNR (which isn't likely until the economy picks up), and see some LTEs reclassified to permanent status. The State uses LTE status to save money, and the commitment to the employee is minimal when compared to a full timer. A TON of the work done on the water is tasked to the LTEs. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 5/2/2012 12:34 PM
how bout an internet user fee that would cause people to type less and fish more? more time on the water might create a little more success and less complaining about how bad it is? it's possible that fishing might be really good???
or open up baiting for fish? ... bucket a corn under your favorite tree so the fish will be on your bait-pile come saturday??
edit:
love the word-sensoring selections ... lol ... signed "sweetness bag"
I'm not sure I follow your logic here Sled... You do know that the season is closed right now, right? Pretty much rules out the "fishing more, typing less" part of your argument I'd say. And I am really not sure who's complaining or what they are complaining about, to be honest. Catch records do indeed show that the average fish size is increasing--all one has to do is peruse the MI Lunge Log (or, god-forbid, read the musky forums...) to see that.
I think the effort is to get a true read on just what sort of pressure is being applied to these fish--both in terms of angling effort, and in harvest. When you're trying to manage a population of animals subject to exploitation by a user group, what better information could you ask for? So I really don't follow the logic of your objection to this effort.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I believe the best place for MY money is to go where the rubber meets the road. The Muskie Chapters themselve's. The DNR can be both pro & con, the legislature always seems to chase the money. The Chapters are more pure at heart they focus on outcomes not on manipulation of funds and budgets. Good Chapters show a history of action and hard work for the resource often despite the govermental agency's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | jakejusa - 5/2/2012 12:56 PM
I believe the best place for MY money is to go where the rubber meets the road. The Muskie Chapters themselve's. The DNR can be both pro & con, the legislature always seems to chase the money. The Chapters are more pure at heart they focus on outcomes not on manipulation of funds and budgets. Good Chapters show a history of action and hard work for the resource often despite the govermental agency's.
This is true, but MORE can be done by the DNR than a club. Usually a club has to get permission from the DNR to do something. There are some things biologically that the DNR would think of doing that a musky club may not think of because of their knowledge. Again it's not all just about stocking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | tcbetka - 5/2/2012 12:42 PM
I'm not sure I follow your logic here Sled... You do know that the season is closed right now, right? Pretty much rules out the "fishing more, typing less" part of your argument I'd say. And I am really not sure who's complaining or what they are complaining about, to be honest. Catch records do indeed show that the average fish size is increasing--all one has to do is peruse the MI Lunge Log (or, god-forbid, read the musky forums...) to see that.
TB
Escanaba Lake = open without restriction
Crappies = been biting for 2 months now ... great way to learn and be on the water
Salmon = Coho's been going on Superior in 6'-12' of water
Smelt = drunks biting heads and cleanin' with scissors at least around here
there are more fish and fishing opportunities than muskies, and they all help you become a better musky fisherman. i'd say the fisheries are in great shape and the season is going for many and more things coming as you mention. it's a good time to be a fisherman!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Here's where I think we can use money: Grants to study this fish we know almost nothing about. Genetics research. More timely lake surveys. Educating the public on misconceptions they have. Enhancing the hatcheries to include more than 2 or three strains of fish. Rebuilding populations that have had their native strain decimated.'
So far, if we are talking muskies, all of this has already been done, and there were no strains 'decimated', see Dr. Sloss's findings and recommendations. As far as 'more timely lake surveys' there are always a bunch underway, doing more might be OK, or might or might not be needed. As to the rest, that falls within the 'Educating the public on misconceptions they have' bracket, and that will be a rough one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4342
Location: Smith Creek | I read Dr. Sloss's recommendations from 06, he goes into some detail about about the difficulties in maintaining broodstocks and even mentions that funds aren't availabe for the pit tags he required. He also points out that there is a lot more research to be done. Think a few extra bucks could solve some of those problems? Why is education a "rough one"? I see signs at a lot of landings explaining why it is important to release SMB, I never see signs that say rough fish make up the majority of a muskie's diet. Or signs that say muskies are present in a low density and need to be handled with care.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Flambeauski - 5/2/2012 2:37 PM
I read Dr. Sloss's recommendations from 06, he goes into some detail about about the difficulties in maintaining broodstocks and even mentions that funds aren't availabe for the pit tags he required. He also points out that there is a lot more research to be done. Think a few extra bucks could solve some of those problems? Why is education a "rough one"? I see signs at a lot of landings explaining why it is important to release SMB, I never see signs that say rough fish make up the majority of a muskie's diet. Or signs that say muskies are present in a low density and need to be handled with care.
Agree. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Here is a link to a plethora of information on Muskies in WI. Reading through the various links you can start forming ideas of where additional money could be used in the world of muskies that a stamp could provide. You will also see what has already been accomplished.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/muskymanteam_products.html
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | You are all discussing a $10 Muskie stamp? I spend that on gas in a couple hours of fishing. It costs me almost that just to trailer the boat to the nearest Muskie lake - never mind if we're fishing somewhere else.
How about $10 for a bumper sticker and then have the proceeds go to Muskie stocking? We could give it to someone like Paul Hartman who knows all about that sort of thing. A few possible bumper stickers could read:
- "Muskie fishermen have bigger rods".
- "Get slimed - go Muskie fishing"
Anything other ideas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Here is a link to a plethora of information on Muskies in WI. Reading through the various links you can start forming ideas of where additional money could be used in the world of muskies that a stamp could provide. You will also see what has already been accomplished. '
There's a big difference between what 'would be nice' and what is needed. If you are going to suggest the State REQUIRE the stamp, the funding better go where its needed and not be deflected to some other area of management or replace money in use now. If it's on the 'want' list, then Herb_b has it right.
Paying for posters like the ones mentioned above other than the 'legal size and bag limit' posters the State puts out from the fisheries budget is not likely to happen; what the fisheries managers would say and what we, as muskie activists, might say are not necessarily the same thing. Those sort of posters come from groups like MI. Pay the $10 to some organization to place educational posters at every landing; sure, I'd kick in for that. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Steve ... could you please start invoicing me for the use of Muskiefirst ... i mean, it's worth $15.00 ... he!! i pay that much driving back and forth to work in a week.
please make this a paid site ... it would make me feel much better. |
|
| |
|
| Ya gotta hit em when their willing to pay for anything Steve even if it isn't better fishing  I think MN Muskie anglers would be very unhappy with their Muskie harvest stamp by the time the legislature got done dealing the death blow to the fishery.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I do believe you are right. Way more politics in this than anyone wants to know. |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 The problem is, there is a very limited amount you can do to "improve" musky fisheries. I think you could get a lot more done but improving the fishery as a whole as opposed to having a designated musky fund. I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck if you increased license fees by $10 dollars as opposed to offering a stamp for $10. A+
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | sworrall - 5/2/2012 3:40 PM
I do believe you are right. Way more politics in this than anyone wants to know.
Unfortunately some of us have to know some of it....... |
|
| |
|
| Perhaps a franklin mint collectable muskie coin! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | BenR - 5/2/2012 7:54 PM
Perhaps a franklin mint collectable muskie coin!
Will there be a strict limit of 20 per customer? |
|
| |
|
| Embossed with Seal Team 6 holding a Muskie and on the reverse the ghost of Luis Spray reloading his .32 for another run at the WR.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 272
| Pointerpride102 - 5/1/2012 3:49 PM
That money cannot be touched. There is no guarantee of that with a stamp.
Uhh, what's stopping "them" from touching it? (You were referring to $ generated by a $10 fee increase.)
How much money of that hypothetical $10 increase goes to muskie fishing? Who decides?
What are we going to tell the other 75% of anglers that they're paying an extra ten bux for? What will they get? Who's gunna sell it? (figuratively) Are we to convinced 3 out of our 4 friends who don't muskie fish that they should go along with it, for us?....so we get what we want?
Just for the record, you're talking about a 50% increase of the cost of a resident fishing license in WI. That would be just great if the 75% who don't muskie fish now refer to us as "those #*^@ muskie fishermen who convinced the DNR to increase everyone's license fee."
Back to the point....Why cannot a stamp rule be written as so to earmark the money? |
|
| |
|
| jonnysled - 5/3/2012 6:04 AM
muskie-addict - 5/2/2012 11:48 PM
....Why cannot a stamp rule be written as so to earmark the money?
read that one 3 times fast and tell me what he's asking.
Nobody's perfect, I read that it time though and understood exactly what he meant. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i got dizzy
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | muskie-addict - 5/2/2012 10:48 PM
Pointerpride102 - 5/1/2012 3:49 PM
That money cannot be touched. There is no guarantee of that with a stamp.
Uhh, what's stopping "them" from touching it? (You were referring to $ generated by a $10 fee increase. )
How much money of that hypothetical $10 increase goes to muskie fishing? Who decides?
What are we going to tell the other 75% of anglers that they're paying an extra ten bux for? What will they get? Who's gunna sell it? (figuratively ) Are we to convinced 3 out of our 4 friends who don't muskie fish that they should go along with it, for us?....so we get what we want?
Just for the record, you're talking about a 50% increase of the cost of a resident fishing license in WI. That would be just great if the 75% who don't muskie fish now refer to us as "those #*^@ muskie fishermen who convinced the DNR to increase everyone's license fee."
Back to the point....Why cannot a stamp rule be written as so to earmark the money?
There is nothing to say it can't be written that way. But, there would be no penalty in the event the legislator decided to say screw what was written and divert funds.
You clearly don't have a clue where your license dollars go or what would happen if "they" touched them. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Go figure it out for yourself.
The other anglers would likely be an easy sell. It is the musky fisherman that are generally the most difficult. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/3/2012 8:47 AM
There is nothing to say it can't be written that way. But, there would be no penalty in the event the legislator decided to say screw what was written and divert funds.
You clearly don't have a clue where your license dollars go or what would happen if "they" touched them. I'm not going to do your homework for you. Go figure it out for yourself.
The other anglers would likely be an easy sell. It is the musky fisherman that are generally the most difficult.
In your words Pointer you apparently have no clue what the "other" anglers in WI think. Musky anglers don’t have a problem buying a $30 bait, and suggesting fee increases as is being discussed here. “Other” anglers for the most part have a hard time justifying buying a rapala bait at $6:00 let alone a license fee increase. When was the last CC meeting you attended in WI where you get a true pulse of the “other” anglers attitudes? Musky anglers are a pretty open bunch in my opinion.
Pointer have you done your homework on stamps? It doesn’t seem like it when you say “But, there would be no penalty in the event the legislator decided to say screw what was written and divert funds.” By law it CANNOT happen that way. It happen back in 2005-2006 timeframe (don’t remember exact year now) with the turkey stamp, and the courts were all over it and corrected the situation. I also believe they changed the law a bit after that to make sure it didn’t happen again the way it did then.
|
|
| |
|
|
My question is why water down your money by getting the state to collect it and distrubute it??
Fund your local clubs and get your donated money to be 100% put towards what you intend it to go for.
JS |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | As I understand it, there would be a statutory requirement (at least in WI) that any monies generated from the sale of such a stamp, go into the conservation account, specifically ear-marked for use in the musky management program in the state of Wisconsin. Ergo, it could not be touched. But I'll admit that I was just provided with the working documents for the WI stamp this morning, and have only read through them once now. I haven't had the time to make some calls to verify these things, but it seems quite clear that anyone would have a very difficult time successfully raiding those funds. Not that they couldn't try mind you, but they'd have a problem keeping the funds.
There is some precedence in Wisconsin that I am aware of, for protecting ear-marked funds against those trying to raid them. Non-fisheries case-in-point: The Wisconsin Patient Compensation Fund. This is a special fund set up in WI to cover the cost(s) associated with a malpractice claim against a health-care provider. Every practitioner in the state of Wisconsin is required to make an annual payment into a general fund of money. Then, any malpractice claim in excess of that practitioner's insurance limit won by a plaintiff is covered by this fund. For example, my malpractice insurance limit is $1 Million. I get sued and lose, and the jury awards the plaintiff $2 Million. My insurance pays $1 Million, and the patient compensation fund pays the rest. It's a pretty good system as I understand it, and one of the main reasons it's easy to get affordable malpractice insurance here in the state. This has resulted in *good* doctors wanting to practice here in Wisconsin. But as you might imagine, a LOT of money accumulates in the account, especially since we don't have all that many malpractice suits in this state. So the fund was targeted by Governor in 2007, and he basically "reallocated" about $200 Million of those funds. Oops. The Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered the State to pay that back, with interest. Here's some more info:
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/senate/olsen/PressReleases/Pages/A-BILL-...
The point of this is that there is indeed a precedence in Wisconsin to protect special funds from raids. While the Patient's Compensation Fund is (as near as I can figure) somewhat different than a potential fund established for management of muskellunge in the state, I think there would be significant disincentive to attempt such a raid...simply based upon the precedence already established.
Bottom line: I really don't think we'd see much of a problem keeping the money where it belongs. In principle anyway, I think the musky stamp would be very good--we would just need to work out a few issues, many of which have been mentioned and discussed in this thread.
TB
Edited by tcbetka 5/3/2012 9:49 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | Guest - 5/3/2012 9:30 AM
My question is why water down your money by getting the state to collect it and distrubute it??
JS
Yup!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | JS good point. However if you are part of a club that isn’t motivated and ambitious in what you do your money may just sit, or get spent on something that you don’t want it spent on. Also as I mentioned before there are some things I think the DNR can accomplish that a club just can’t tackle. The DNR has the resources to be able to get larger projects done. Also being assigned a project to do in the DNR would result in a much different commitment than if a person from the DNR is “helping” a club to accomplish a project.
It’s just my opinion but I feel clubs are good at accomplishing some projects, usually small, but larger projects that would cost more money are better off in the hands of the people with greater resources. That being the DNR. I could be wrong since I haven’t been part of a club yet that tackled some large projects, and am currently not part of any. Maybe just me being naïve but it seems most clubs concentrate on stocking in terms of improving a fishery, and has been mentioned here that isn’t what would be needed currently in WI.
I am sure there are some great clubs out there that accomplish some great things. Kudos to them. However I bet there are many more that don’t get too much done outside of stocking and being a great social group. Nothing wrong with that either. So how do you go about finding the “correct” club for you to join based on your motives???
Also by doing a stamp, and making it mandatory for musky anglers to get it, you can generate a much larger sum of money than you can in any individual club. Thus allowing you to tackle projects that would cost more.
Edited by CiscoKid 5/3/2012 10:10 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I guess I was getting at the point that there could be an attempt to divert the funds. It has happened before and will likely happen again. At some point it will be successful. Maybe it would never happen with the musky stamp. It would all depend on how the law was written. I believe Minnesota had problems with their Clean water, land and legacy act that was passed.
Who is going to implement these large projects, Travis? What are these large projects? Is the DNR going to increase their staff with these funds, or are we going to ask the biologists to do even more on top of their "normal" work load?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/3/2012 10:34 AM
Who is going to implement these large projects, Travis? What are these large projects? Is the DNR going to increase their staff with these funds, or are we going to ask the biologists to do even more on top of their "normal" work load?
Fair questions.
I would think they could possibly increase staff, paid for by the stamp fund, that would work the musky projects. That is a good point in that without staffing projects couldn’t get worked on. Also means a limited amount of projects could be worked on dependant of course on staffing. Again the trout stamp could be used as a model and in how that work gets done. I doubt anyone knows but does anyone know if there were additional staffing made available when the trout stamp went into effect and started doing projects? Does this mean that some staffing that works the trout projects may be re-allocated to work on the musky projects?
Wouldn’t those that already spend time on the musky management with the DNR already be part of your staffing? It would just be a matter of they would have more money to work with versus what they have now. So rather than that staffing that may look for, I’ll say little things to do, they would be working on larger more significant projects that could have a larger impact? I’ll use the example of a workplace. Work too fast and to run yourself out of work so you either find some little things to do, or are given some $hit work to do. However if you know you have a hefty workload you aren’t concerned with the little pittily work that just keep you busy.
I don’t know anything about how the DNR operates. Is everyone of the employees up to their eyes with work do to short staffing, or is it just certain departments within it that are short staffed and there are others that are not always overly busy (like most workplaces)? Does the DNR operate with the basis of if they can prove they have the work to increase staff that they are allowed to, or under the basis of under no circumstances can they add any warm bodies.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Problem with adding staffing is you start digging into your funds. So now you have to cover the administration costs of the stamp, enforcement of the stamp, hire workers/technicians with the stamp, buy supplies with the stamp, charge truck miles to the stamp, monthly truck costs to the stamp, gas for said trucks to the stamp........
The common theme in most DNR agencies/biologists I've talked to is "do more with less". Which is fine. I don't mind a heavier work load as we are always busy with something interesting. But we also have to pick and choose what are the most important projects that need to get done. Some stuff doesn't get done. Sometimes extra bodies could help, but sometimes they need extra training and babysitting as they don't know what to do. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well like anything, there HAS to be a budget. And there HAS to be a priority list. And they have to both be followed...
We're not talking about an infinite, never-ending stream of money here. We're talking about a few hundred thousand dollars per year, maybe more. If you start hiring a bunch of people and paying their salary and benefits, you're going to burn through that very quickly. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't make the effort to procure the funds through the stamp--it simply means you need to have a good plan as to what work you need to do with it, and also the best way to get the work done.
To some degree, this is a "if you build it, they will come" affair. As I understand it, we have a good idea as to the types of things the money would help pay for. But we don't yet know how many of those things we could get done...or even how much money we'll be able to raise. However once we start to get that information, the plan can be refined to suit the level of available funding. As to the degree that plan is completed now though, I am not sure.
But I certainly intend to find out.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| Pointerpride102 - 5/3/2012 12:07 PM
Problem with adding staffing is you start digging into your funds. So now you have to cover the administration costs of the stamp, enforcement of the stamp, hire workers/technicians with the stamp, buy supplies with the stamp, charge truck miles to the stamp, monthly truck costs to the stamp, gas for said trucks to the stamp........
Going off on a slight tangent here related to staffing costs. The salaries are one thing but when you start hiring people for positions like this it's not just the paid salary that will be coming out of the funds generated by a stamp. You also have to take into consideration the cost of benefits and those are not cheap.
A bit of irony with the cost of benefits....I'm working on a seven figure grant proposal and when we were putting together the budget for this thing we overestimated the cost of filling two new positions. I can't believe I didn't pick up on this but we were using figures based on an older, pre Act 10 grant. Now with public employees paying more into their retirement and insurance it freed up a ton of funding that we can use as indirects for other departments associated with the proposal. It was a win-win.
Back on point....regardless of what a biologist would be paying in for his/her benefits, those things still cost quite a bit of money and if a position is created to oversee this type of a program the state costs associated with that will have to come out of that pool of money raised by the cost of a stamp. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Mike it doesn’t matter to me if truck gas money is taken from the stamp as long as it is because it is a cost of musky fishery work. Thus the reason for a fund…to aid in the cost of the projects. Simple balancing of the budget, and determining what projects can get done with the money like you mentioned. Like Tom says a stamp doesn’t mean all of a sudden you have infinite funds and resources to use. Once again look at the trout stamp and work done. The projects may be different, and there may be challenges in staffing, but the system works.
All those things you listed may be a reason under current budget certain projects don’t get addressed. However with the supplemental funding of a stamp it may just be enough to start tackling projects they cannot under the current budget.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ulbian - 5/3/2012 11:31 AM
A bit of irony with the cost of benefits....I'm working on a seven figure grant proposal and when we were putting together the budget for this thing we overestimated the cost of filling two new positions. I can't believe I didn't pick up on this but we were using figures based on an older, pre Act 10 grant. Now with public employees paying more into their retirement and insurance it freed up a ton of funding that we can use as indirects for other departments associated with the proposal. It was a win-win.
wait a minute, did you just say that Wisconsin has a budget surplus with available funding without the need to increase any revenue streams?
how in the he!! did that happen??
 |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Right. And you also have to remember that our biologists *might* be able to take on more projects, or fund some more graduate students (more or less cheap labor, by all accounts), if they simply had some more funds. So while you might need to hire full-time staff at some point...maybe you wouldn't. That would have to be all part of the plan developed before the effort to implement a stamp was undertaken.
TB
(Edited after I realized I had forgotten to quote Sam's last post...lol)
Edited by tcbetka 5/3/2012 11:45 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| jonnysled - 5/3/2012 12:40 PM
ulbian - 5/3/2012 11:31 AM
A bit of irony with the cost of benefits....I'm working on a seven figure grant proposal and when we were putting together the budget for this thing we overestimated the cost of filling two new positions. I can't believe I didn't pick up on this but we were using figures based on an older, pre Act 10 grant. Now with public employees paying more into their retirement and insurance it freed up a ton of funding that we can use as indirects for other departments associated with the proposal. It was a win-win.
wait a minute, did you just say that Wisconsin has a budget surplus with available funding without the need to increase any revenue streams?
how in the he!! did that happen??
; )
Easy there Sled....the money is there but you have to know how to ask for it. It isn't simply given out anymore. You want to fund things in this economic climate start brushing up on your grant writing skills. And yes, within those grants it is a little easier to create positions because of the costs saved, but those are inside of those grants and not in the general tax revenue that is taken in by the state.
The grant writing thing....the money is there. Build the partnerships and go after it. You might be surprised at what some of us might be able to pull in for the WDNR to work with as long as it's justified correctly and you provide reachable outcomes and goals. But nope, a problem here is that here we are bickering over a stamp issue. When we aren't doing that we're bickering over a world record, tournament trails, benefits of MI membership, etc., etc. We, the muskie angling community is small in numbers. It seems much bigger than it is if all you do is spend time interacting with one another on this website. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | CiscoKid - 5/3/2012 10:37 AM
Mike it doesn’t matter to me if truck gas money is taken from the stamp as long as it is because it is a cost of musky fishery work. Thus the reason for a fund…to aid in the cost of the projects. Simple balancing of the budget, and determining what projects can get done with the money like you mentioned. Like Tom says a stamp doesn’t mean all of a sudden you have infinite funds and resources to use. Once again look at the trout stamp and work done. The projects may be different, and there may be challenges in staffing, but the system works.
All those things you listed may be a reason under current budget certain projects don’t get addressed. However with the supplemental funding of a stamp it may just be enough to start tackling projects they cannot under the current budget.
I get what you are saying. I guess my point was that once you start adding on expenses, the size of the fund diminishes rapidly. What happens when none of the waters you fish ever see a dime of the stamp money because there simply isn't enough to go around? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | ulbian - 5/3/2012 1:08 PM
The grant writing thing....the money is there. Build the partnerships and go after it. You might be surprised at what some of us might be able to pull in for the WDNR to work with as long as it's justified correctly and you provide reachable outcomes and goals. But nope, a problem here is that here we are bickering over a stamp issue. When we aren't doing that we're bickering over a world record, tournament trails, benefits of MI membership, etc., etc. We, the muskie angling community is small in numbers. It seems much bigger than it is if all you do is spend time interacting with one another on this website.
Touché!
Now that I know another “connection” of those in the know I will know whom to contact when in need! The problem is when you don’t know where to start you spin your wheels! So if a club would like to get a project going, but don’t know where to start, Bob sounds like you are a good resource to ask?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/3/2012 1:22 PM
I get what you are saying. I guess my point was that once you start adding on expenses, the size of the fund diminishes rapidly. What happens when none of the waters you fish ever see a dime of the stamp money because there simply isn't enough to go around?
I am fine with it. If I don't like my fishery as it sits I will look to another. Perhaps one that has gotten the help. I am not married to any one waterbody.
The more lakes you fish the more difficult it will also become to directly impact "your" lake of choice to get improved if you go the route of a club as well. If I join a club in Green Bay the chances of it helping a fishery in Sawyer county is probably pretty low. So I join a club in Sawyer county, and lakes in Vilas county I fish may be very low on getting improvements. Of course this is just hypethetical, and something that I wouldn't encounter as I just care that fisheries get improved and maintained. However there are lots of people that just care about "their" lakes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | CiscoKid - 5/3/2012 12:31 PM
Pointerpride102 - 5/3/2012 1:22 PM
I get what you are saying. I guess my point was that once you start adding on expenses, the size of the fund diminishes rapidly. What happens when none of the waters you fish ever see a dime of the stamp money because there simply isn't enough to go around?
However there are lots of people that just care about "their" lakes.
I think this is a problem you would run into quite a bit. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32970
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'However there are lots of people that just care about "their" lakes.'
In Wisconsin, it is THE issue in many cases. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| CiscoKid - 5/3/2012 2:24 PM
ulbian - 5/3/2012 1:08 PM
The grant writing thing....the money is there. Build the partnerships and go after it. You might be surprised at what some of us might be able to pull in for the WDNR to work with as long as it's justified correctly and you provide reachable outcomes and goals. But nope, a problem here is that here we are bickering over a stamp issue. When we aren't doing that we're bickering over a world record, tournament trails, benefits of MI membership, etc., etc. We, the muskie angling community is small in numbers. It seems much bigger than it is if all you do is spend time interacting with one another on this website.
Touché!
Now that I know another “connection” of those in the know I will know whom to contact when in need! The problem is when you don’t know where to start you spin your wheels! So if a club would like to get a project going, but don’t know where to start, Bob sounds like you are a good resource to ask?
Yes, you could say that I have some fairly unique connections. We'll have to get in the boat together this summer and rehash this stuff. A bunch of personal family stuff got tossed in front of me this week so it won't be a priority for quite some time, but I think it would be easy enough for us to set something up since we've probably crossed paths on our various "home" waters dozens of times without knowing it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | ulbian - 5/3/2012 2:56 PM
CiscoKid - 5/3/2012 2:24 PM
ulbian - 5/3/2012 1:08 PM
The grant writing thing....the money is there. Build the partnerships and go after it. You might be surprised at what some of us might be able to pull in for the WDNR to work with as long as it's justified correctly and you provide reachable outcomes and goals. But nope, a problem here is that here we are bickering over a stamp issue. When we aren't doing that we're bickering over a world record, tournament trails, benefits of MI membership, etc., etc. We, the muskie angling community is small in numbers. It seems much bigger than it is if all you do is spend time interacting with one another on this website.
Touché!
Now that I know another “connection” of those in the know I will know whom to contact when in need! The problem is when you don’t know where to start you spin your wheels! So if a club would like to get a project going, but don’t know where to start, Bob sounds like you are a good resource to ask?
Yes, you could say that I have some fairly unique connections. We'll have to get in the boat together this summer and rehash this stuff. A bunch of personal family stuff got tossed in front of me this week so it won't be a priority for quite some time, but I think it would be easy enough for us to set something up since we've probably crossed paths on our various "home" waters dozens of times without knowing it.
Absolutely Bob!
So anyway you can work your magic to get a grant for eliminating a rainbow smelt population in lakes? ? I have an idea how to, and it would please anglers of other species as well. In doing so the cisco populations can rebound and benefit the growth of muskies much more than smelt do.
|
|
| |
|
| ulbian - 5/3/2012 2:56 PM
we've probably crossed paths on our various "home" waters dozens of times without knowing it.
travis is the one in the boat in middle of the lake chukin baits for suspendos Bob ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1168
| cristobal colon - 5/3/2012 4:03 PM
ulbian - 5/3/2012 2:56 PM
we've probably crossed paths on our various "home" waters dozens of times without knowing it.
travis is the one in the boat in middle of the lake chukin baits for suspendos Bob ...
I know, it's nice to know I'm not alone out there. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ulbian - 5/3/2012 2:04 PM
cristobal colon - 5/3/2012 4:03 PM
ulbian - 5/3/2012 2:56 PM
we've probably crossed paths on our various "home" waters dozens of times without knowing it.
travis is the one in the boat in middle of the lake chukin baits for suspendos Bob ...
I know, it's nice to know I'm not alone out there.
The question is, does he order flowers for ex girlfriends? |
|
| |
muskie stamp?