|
|
Posts: 67
| Now that the 50" proposal has been shot down, but good, it's time to consider a Muskie Stamp and Tags. If you fish for Muskies you must buy a Muskie Stamp. The stamp could be in two forms--catch-and release for $ X, and a catch and keep at $ Y, with two stamps, one for a fish of 34" to 44", the other for a fish over 45". Tags couldn't be transfered. Same price for resident and nonresident.
This system would cut down on the incidential catches by walleye and bass fishermen, unless the bought the stamp and tags. As a byproduct it would tell the DNR and tourist industry just how many Muskie anglers there are in a season.
Edited by Decoy 4/16/2003 2:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 956
| This year my husband/wife fishing license was just shy of $40.00 with great lakes trout stamps! Now add a musky stamp, next a walleye stamp, then a panfish stamp and finally a bass stamp and I can look foward to spending $100 to go fishing!
Personally I think a stamp system would turn your fishing license into a stamp holder. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 925
| I think there are some valid arguments to having a stamp system, however, unless you are in possession of a musky, I don't think you would need a stamp.
People would just say they are pike fishing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 5874
| You've just turmned me into a pike fisherman. A musky stamp will not work. Too hard to enforce, and it is not needed. If you want to do your part, join a club, and educate. I do, and I think my dollar is spent better by the clubs I donate to, than the DNR could ever do. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| NO NEW TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!! A new stamp is just another new tax. I'm a musky fisherman but I'm sorry people, get off you high horse! You're starting to sound like fly fishermen - tax this, limit that, etc. etc.
Not that I agree with the results of the 50" proposal but the people have spoken, and they don't want 50" limit. This is the only state that allows the sportsman to voice there opinions and vote on issues like this. We should be happy that we have this right. If we couldn't vote people would be saying that the DNR was irresponsible for not enacting a 50" limit. Well it's not the DNR this time it's your fellow anglers. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 663
| I'm not convinced that the stamp idea is a good solution but when it comes to the cost of licenses we get off cheap. You can't walk onto a decent golf course anywhere for what it costs to fish for a whole year. If a licesnse was $100 it would still be a bargain. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 956
| Pete,
While I think paying $100 for a fishing license can be justified for the guy who goes fishing once or twice a week through out the entire season, but what about the guy who takes his family fishing once or twice a year? How can he justify spending that kind of money to fish in Wisconsin, or should he just cross the boarder and take his vacation somewhere else. How much $$$$ is Wisconsin going to loose if this where to happen? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| OK guys let's make it an ESOX Stamp and Tags for Muskies. Notice I didn't say how much the stamp and tags would cost. Boy all that bragging about how much "I" spent at the Muskie Show, or how many new toys "my" boat has this spring sure fades fast when a new "cost" is suggested. All I can say was that there were a whole bunch of you that were pushed out of shape when the 50" proposal got shot down. And all I was trying to do was suggest an alternative way to try to protect the Muskie resource. There are probably a number of ways to acheive an objective of increased size limits for Muskies. Dedicated Muskie anglers, in Wisconsin, should be looking for a proposal that can get implemented. I've seen most of the arguments aginst the ESOX Stamp and Tag system before, but unless and until the vast majority of Muskie anglers get behind a single workable proposal, that affects only Muskie anglers, and push it hard there will not be any change.
I read the letters aginst the 50" proposal in last weeks "Lakeland Times" and arguments were all over the map such as it would kill the "Musky Classic" a tradution for 25 years an emotional argument. "Muskie fishermen practice catch and release anyway why do we need this?" " Who's to define 50" as a trophy?" " If a fish is gill cut and only 45"---its a waste of the resource big time." "It will just put more presure on the action lakes." And ther was even the "little Johnny" argument. All emotional arguments and to some degree each had some degree of validity.
If you can read some of the replys with an open mind, you may understand why the 50" proposal failed. Change doesn't come without some pain, be it financial, regulation or some other inconvenience.
Let's hear some other proposals that limit the impact, by and large, to Muskie anglers and is of limited emotional value to the general fishing population. And makes sence to the DNR.
Edited by Decoy 4/16/2003 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1023
Location: Lafayette, IN | Re-read the posts in "A Musky Stamp....but for a different purpose." I bumped it to the top just for ya'll. Very good thoughts to consider when talking additional Gov't involvement with preserving/propogating a resource like our muskies.
Edited by stephendawg 4/16/2003 3:12 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1270
| How about no musky fishing at all. That would increase the average size and then we would do no damage to the musky population. This is what it sounds like some of the elietists want. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 109
| After reading the other stamp thread, I think that the stamp idea is a good one. However, how the money was handled is another thread in itself. From what little I know about the whole politics of everything here in michigan the DNR does roughly 0.00% of anything musky. I believe it is the MMA that does most/all of the stocking. If say the DNR here created a musky stamp that was like $2/day or $5/season and that money was given to the MMA as "government funding" or used by the DNR to build a hatchery especially for muskies or donated the hatchery to the MMA and then used future proceeds as government funding to them, I would be all for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20261
Location: oswego, il | I think if you went with a stamp, make it for those who wish to keep a musky only. Want to keep ONE, buy a stamp. Otherwise you don't. One stamp per year for ONE fish. Make those who want to keep one pay for it. |
|
| |
