|
|
Posts: 47
| All, here are the email addresses to send a letter of support for increasing the minimum Muskie length to 55 inches. This needs to be done ASAP as the bill is moving quickly. Here is a draft of my individual email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
Dear Senator's David Brown and John Hoffman
As an angler and activist for sport-fishing in Minnesota I am contacting you to express my support for increasing the minimum Muskie length to 55 inches. I think there is sufficient rationale to do this. As a member of the Anglers for Habitat group, we are very concerned with the over abundance of small northern pike in all of our best fishing lakes. The lack of large predators in these watersheds has contributed greatly to this problem. As many of these lakes receive intensive walleye stocking an increasing population of small pike almost makes our efforts counter productive. We must find a way to keep large Pike and if stocked with Muskies, in the lake ecosystems. We need to take action to protect larger fish, rather then harvest them.
Lakes that support healthy Muskie populations have far fewer problems with small pike, which can result in balanced fish populations. A second major benefit from protecting Muskie's up to 55 inches, is investing in Minnesota having a thriving trophy Muskie Catch and Release fishery. Having a world class fishery brings anglers from across the US to Minnesota.
Sincerely
Your Name here |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Here is the contact info for the other senators. The ones with phone numbers do not have email from my understanding.
John Marty 651-296-5645
Chris A. Eaton 651-296-8869
Foung Hawj 651-296-5285
Katie Sieben 651-297-8060
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | I sent all emails last night and left 4 voicemails. Took maybe 15 minutes. Hope many of you can do the same today. My understanding is they are hearing this tomorrow. Thanks everyone. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1828
| Thanks for starting this! So the state senate is hearing the proposal tomorrow, then will decide on whether it goes for a vote? Is that how it works?
I changed it up just a hair, as follows:
As an angler and activist for sport-fishing in Minnesota I am contacting you to express my support for increasing the minimum Musky harvest length to 55 inches. I think there is sufficient rationale to do this.
The lack of large predators in many MN waters has contributed greatly to the problem of overabundance of small northern pike. As many of these lakes receive intensive walleye stocking, an increasing population of small pike makes stocking efforts counterproductive, in some cases. We must find a way to keep large Pike and Muskies in the lake ecosystems. We need to take action to protect larger fish, rather than harvest them. Lakes that support healthy Muskie populations have far fewer problems with small pike; this is proven in many DNR studies. Strong populations of apex predators results in balanced fish populations.
Many MN lakes' muskie populations rely solely on natural reproduction. The currently-allowed harvest of 48" muskies removes the species' top reproducing females. More than ever before, musky fishing is for sport and not for harvest for sustenance, and larger trophies are caught and released each year, thanks to increasing catch-and-release practices. The trend will continue even further, and faster, by protecting these large fish.
MN is becoming a favored destination for musky anglers seeking to catch large fish. It would be wise to protect this resource that is bringing much tourism revenue. By doing so, we will further strengthen the population of these large fish to make Minnesota a top destination for trophy muskies, and make the resource and revenue sustainable.
Sincerely, |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't think it will be over productive to suggest that the size limit going to 55" will control the pike (or any other fish) population, as that in all probability is not factual.
A slot limit on Pike in waters where both species co-exist is probably in order if numbers of small pike and very few large Pike are present. Claiming possibly effective control of 'stunted' fish populations by extending the upper limit to 55 from 48 could be successfully challenged. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
| Then keep it simple. Tell em "vote to raise the limit from 48" to 55" or next time your up,ill vote you out". Threatening there free paycheck usually works. Just kidding don't bash me |
|
| |
|
| Keep making the call and sending e-mails everyone. tomorrow at noon is the hearing. Keep things positive and friendly, these people on the committee are good folks. |
|
| |
|
| Minnesota residents can also use this link (the 4 legislators with phone only still need calls), outside or inside Mn can use the message above. Here is the voter voice for MN residents. https://www.votervoice.net/MNMUSKIE/campaigns/35184/respond
Edited by Muskiefool 3/17/2014 5:45 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| Done. Super easy |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| When do we find out?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3165
| jump in on this because darkhouse spearers are gonna fight this,,,55 means that even if/when they do push for muskie spearing 55 inches would make it a non issue. |
|
| |
|
| The bill passed the Environment and Energy Committee this afternoon without amendment or opposition, many legislators commented on all of the supportive calls and e-mails. They appreciated your love of the fish and the conservation ethic we share; as well as the photographs. It still in the house and we may need to make a few more calls when the time comes, we'll keep you all updated. This was a huge hurdle. Many thanks. John Underhill |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Good news John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| Great work John. What timeline are we looking at for the next couple steps?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1760
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn | Great first step!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 36
| Protecting large female muskies in ecosystem would help them compete against northern and create a more diverse trophic cascade. I'd suggest reading literature on the importance of an Apex Predator |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That is not what the claim was.
The real difference in numbers of adult muskies considering the current 48" VS 55" would not accomplish much of anything regarding the 'stunted pike' issue or what you are adding to the conversation.
If the pike population needs to be controlled to produce larger fish that is another issue.
This is a trophy muskie conservation issue and shouldn't be camouflaged as something else. The issue has plenty of merit on it's own and it looks like so far has managed to stand on it's own, thanks (if one is in support) to the hard work of the muskie community and a few dedicated folks over there.
And, I already have, thanks. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| So, would anyone in the MNDNR fisheries dept. have any say in this, ultimately? I'm not at all opposed to the proposal, but couldn't pushing these things through legislature could lead down a slippery slope? Perhaps that is how it has always been done there, and I require enlightenment.
Are there any states where the actual managers are allowed to manage their respective waters? Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air if a professional in their field of science with solid data, could make a change in their region, be it 'right' or 'wrong' in the eyes of the armchair expert?
Again, I'm in favor of size limit increases in most cases.
Edited by Boots Electric 3/18/2014 8:37 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 36
| It's time for fisherman to get educated on the importance of trophic cascades and start speaking to the Public, State Biologists, and Legislators in the right context. Simply saying "I Want Bigger Musky" isn't going to convince the masses that it's a good idea.
I commend the authors for bringing the problem of stunted northerns into the conversation
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32955
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | That's to broad an issue to be defensible with a simple statement and far to complicated to be widely applied to controlling small Pike as described in the opening post, angling gets in the way. 'I want bigger muskie' IS the statement, and in this case probably should be.
Let's keep the conversation centered on the current issue. If you like, take your discussion to the Biology forum, it's certainly worthy of a conversation. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 69
| Boots. The reason we are resorting to using the legislature and not the dnr to get what we seek is that other most other advocacy groups (dark house association) have been sneaking legislation (contrary to science) into other bills and side stepping the process. To play on a level field the legislature needs to be used or we will continue to get steamrolled and forgotten. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| Jschinderle - 3/18/2014 8:54 PM
It's time for fisherman to get educated on the importance of trophic cascades and start speaking to the Public, State Biologists, and Legislators in the right context. Simply saying "I Want Bigger Musky" isn't going to convince the masses that it's a good idea.
I commend the authors for bringing the problem of stunted northerns into the conversation
What are the biologists in their areas saying re: higher Muskellunge size limits. I'd think with their support, and help in writing the proposal, a better/more clear case can be made.
Edited by Boots Electric 3/18/2014 9:56 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 45
| northernmn - 3/18/2014 9:24 PM
Boots. The reason we are resorting to using the legislature and not the dnr to get what we seek is that other most other advocacy groups (dark house association) have been sneaking legislation (contrary to science) into other bills and side stepping the process. To play on a level field the legislature needs to be used or we will continue to get steamrolled and forgotten.
That makes it a bit more clear. Sort of like the dark housers and the Muskie guys declaring war, taking turns lighting the fuse on the same cannon. Hopefully a wild card group doesn't get in the mix and drop a grenade in the shared trench of the two tribes. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | The DNR has been involved extensively on the proposed minimum size increase. They support an increase from the current 48". Had they written the legislation, it may have been a different number. But they are not opposing the proposed 55" minimum, stating that it will have no negative effects.
Unfortunately, regulation changes like this have to be passed legislatively in MN. But muskie groups work closely with the DNR on these matters. And there was clear support from them to increase the minimum size before this legislation was written. Unfortunately, getting DNR support isn't a requirement and other groups don't always go that route.
Great news today in St. Paul. Hopefully future hurdles in the next couple of months can be cleared as well.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Boots Electric - 3/18/2014 8:33 PM
Are there any states where the actual managers are allowed to manage their respective waters? Wouldn't it be a breath of fresh air if a professional in their field of science with solid data, could make a change in their region, be it 'right' or 'wrong' in the eyes of the armchair expert?
Most game laws are decided by legislators. Even if the DNR, biologists, etc. disagree with their decisions. Unfortunately many times it comes to which group(s) make the most contact (emails, letters, calls) to the legislators to help make their decision. It has never made sense to me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| Love the process or hate the process, it is the process we have. The best thing to do is figure out how to influence the outcomes in favor of our fishery. Today we won. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| Fantastic work by those involved, nicely done. Who can we contact next to continue the momentum? |
|
| |
|
| Keep looking here at first, on the MMPA facebook page and TNB as well as the MMPA website. As soon as we see a way for you guys to help we'll let you know ASAP. |
|
| |
Muskie Minimum Length to 55"