|
|
| What's your honest opinion. Will government pass this ban on new muskie lake stocking in Minnesota? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | I really hope common sense prevails, but it is going to take continued action by us. I firmly believe each and every one of us has to dedicate some time to this, or we won't like what happens. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 400
Location: Metro | I'm really hoping that people don't start taking away the power of the DNR. This whole thing really has me frustrated. I have a hard time believing it will fallow all the way through. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | i think it will pass ...
tourism and tax generation are political and this one is protecting what the majority believes to be best for both in the political system.
for the same reason that musky anglers demonize dark house spearers, they are demonized by lake home owners and walleye anglers. at the end of the day the winner is the most connected.
my opinion has always been that musky anglers as a group could dramatically improve the image vs. what is out there. shut off the type A bad azz heavy metal in-your-face crap and turn on a little more tranquility. i'd get Bucher, Lindners and the old guys in Canada to remind us what it's all about and how to present our sport. |
|
| |
|
Location: Contrarian Island | It's attached to a bill with like 37 other things...it's not a stand alone bill, ie, they either vote yes for ALL 38 things, or no for ALL 38 things... I think at least for the next vote those lakes are S.O.L. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 20248
Location: oswego, il | It opens Pandoras box for bans on other fish as well perhaps even public access. Homeowners will own the lakes. It will have to be won hack through the courts.
Agree with sled, there is alot of bad assed ego maniac musky fisherman giving us a bad name.
Edited by ToddM 4/5/2016 2:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | Won't it get vetoed by the Governor?
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| I always thought that by having Gull Lake on the list the ban would likely pass. To much money & influence lives on or has a summer home that lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2376
Location: Chisholm, MN | I vote in optimism, but I honestly think it was a bad move for the DNR to push stocking in Gull. As much as I' love to see muskies stocked there, I knew it would cause an uproar and only see bad things happening because of it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| I agree with that opinion on Gull, I thought as soon as I saw it that it was gonna open up a can of worms. as much work as it is for local clubs and MI to successfully get new local waters stocked it's proven to be a fairly successful strategy, as opposed to those initiatives coming from the top down. always optimistic though........ |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | ToddM - 4/5/2016 2:45 PM
It opens Pandoras box for bans on other fish as well perhaps even public access. Homeowners will own the lakes. It will have to be won hack through the courts.
Agree with sled, there is alot of bad assed ego maniac musky fisherman giving us a bad name.
I believe the next lawsuit is already in the making. Walleye are stocked into lakes they are not native to. Over the past 30 years overall quality of panfish has gone down. Over the same time walleye stocking has increased, therefore walleyes must be eating all the big panfish! One needs to look no further than the crappie boom on Upper Red Lake for evidence. Grandma and Grandpa enjoy taking the pontoon for a putt and letting the grandkids fish sunnies and crappies. They don't want "walleye guys" trolling by their dock, racing by them as they sit anchored or waking them up at 4:30am because they don't comprehend sound carries over water etc etc etc. Anyone can fish panfish, no high tech gear needed, heck often there are fishing opportunities right from shore in many places so no boat needed. Therefore they aren't as "elitist" as those walleye guys in their big Rangers with all the latest gadgetry.
A new group will be formed...The Crappie Coalition. And since retired folks have more time to get involved in the political process they will have the ear of a legislator or two.
How far fetched is this scenario really given the precedent they are trying to set?
Edited by castmaster 4/5/2016 4:47 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Before I thought there was no way it would pass. No, sadly, I think it will. If this passes I think it will be difficult for the DNR to introduce muskies to any new lakes unless they have very few lake shore owners. Obviously that would be a bad deal for the metro folks. Hopefully the governor will step up and veto it if it makes it to his desk. It is his last term which will allow him to vote how he feels (assuming none of his rich buddies live on Gull).
The legislators are increasingly getting involved with game laws and it's not just muskies. These are clearly not the people who should be making decisions on these matters. Hell, the governor is trying to get a walleye hatchery built on Mille Lacs when the scientific studies show recruitment is not the issue. I gotta imagine it is frustrating working for the DNR.
IMO, the bad azz attitude of a lot of muskie fisherman has nothing to do with this. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | castmaster - 4/5/2016 4:43 PM
ToddM - 4/5/2016 2:45 PM
It opens Pandoras box for bans on other fish as well perhaps even public access. Homeowners will own the lakes. It will have to be won hack through the courts.
Agree with sled, there is alot of bad assed ego maniac musky fisherman giving us a bad name.
I believe the next lawsuit is already in the making. Walleye are stocked into lakes they are not native to. Over the past 30 years overall quality of panfish has gone down. Over the same time walleye stocking has increased, therefore walleyes must be eating all the big panfish! One needs to look no further than the crappie boom on Upper Red Lake for evidence. Grandma and Grandpa enjoy taking the pontoon for a putt and letting the grandkids fish sunnies and crappies. They don't want "walleye guys" trolling by their dock, racing by them as they sit anchored or waking them up at 4:30am because they don't comprehend sound carries over water etc etc etc. Anyone can fish panfish, no high tech gear needed, heck often there are fishing opportunities right from shore in many places so no boat needed. Therefore they aren't as "elitist" as those walleye guys in their big Rangers with all the latest gadgetry.
A new group will be formed...The Crappie Coalition. And since retired folks have more time to get involved in the political process they will have the ear of a legislator or two.
How far fetched is this scenario really given the precedent they are trying to set?
Minnesota will never turn its back on Walleyes ... Walleyes define MN and they won't allow that to change no matter what crazy ideas or tact they pursue. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | jonnysled - 4/5/2016 12:27 PM
.
for the same reason that musky anglers demonize dark house spearers, they are demonized by lake home owners and walleye anglers. at the end of the day the winner is the most connected.
Actually the walleye and bass guys are behind us. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the general minnesota walleye angler is supporting the expansion of musky stocking? we must know different walleye anglers ... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 833
| I do not know if it will pass. I think part of the challenge at this point in time is the Mille Lacs mess. These legislators are all hearing about that, it is all over the news and not just fishing related outlets. Thus, the DNR is really at a low point in it's own credibility. That has helped the opposition in my opinion.
There was a case in the past where a legislator had a home on Fish Lake and attempted some exclusive shenanigans and got blasted in the media for it. Even if we lose this battle, there will be other opportunities to fight. These tactics may not work in the future. Part of the reason Gull was proposed was the lack of musky fishing in the Brainered area. That issue remains unresolved.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | The Mille Lacs "mess" should show exactly why this is a bad proposal. The MN DNR made attempts to implement changes to regs on Mile Lacs many times after the netting began, which was/is something they have no ability to change or regulate. EVERYONE of those attempts to implement any changes that include reducing the bag limit/harvet was met with opposition from the resort lobby, owners of property around Mille Lacs etc. They have had groups like PERM fighting them for well over a decade. Had the DNR been allowed to implement it's "fixes" prior to it getting to the point it's at maybe things would be different there now.
It disgusts me to listen to the same guys who bragged all summer in 2011 how they were catching and releasing 100+ walleyes a day off the deep mud lay blame solely on the DNR. Gee how many of those fish died after being pulled out of 30' of water with 75 degree plus surface temps? All so they could brag about what great anglers they are. Hen to sit with such self righteousness in judgement of the DNR is pathetic. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | jonnysled - 4/6/2016 8:24 AM
castmaster - 4/5/2016 4:43 PM
ToddM - 4/5/2016 2:45 PM
It opens Pandoras box for bans on other fish as well perhaps even public access. Homeowners will own the lakes. It will have to be won hack through the courts.
Agree with sled, there is alot of bad assed ego maniac musky fisherman giving us a bad name.
I believe the next lawsuit is already in the making. Walleye are stocked into lakes they are not native to. Over the past 30 years overall quality of panfish has gone down. Over the same time walleye stocking has increased, therefore walleyes must be eating all the big panfish! One needs to look no further than the crappie boom on Upper Red Lake for evidence. Grandma and Grandpa enjoy taking the pontoon for a putt and letting the grandkids fish sunnies and crappies. They don't want "walleye guys" trolling by their dock, racing by them as they sit anchored or waking them up at 4:30am because they don't comprehend sound carries over water etc etc etc. Anyone can fish panfish, no high tech gear needed, heck often there are fishing opportunities right from shore in many places so no boat needed. Therefore they aren't as "elitist" as those walleye guys in their big Rangers with all the latest gadgetry.
A new group will be formed...The Crappie Coalition. And since retired folks have more time to get involved in the political process they will have the ear of a legislator or two.
How far fetched is this scenario really given the precedent they are trying to set?
Minnesota will never turn its back on Walleyes ... Walleyes define MN and they won't allow that to change no matter what crazy ideas or tact they pursue.
I have talked to folks who want to see "their" lakes as panfish lakes. If you don't think there are well heeled people who will use this same tact to try and stop walleye stocking on "their" lake I disagree.
Will MN ever see a total ban on walleye stocking in non native lakes, of course not. On individual lakes, just like muskies in this situation, not far fetched at all IMO. It's all about what residents and lake associations want right? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | ^the situation has got you riled up, have a snickers. |
|
| |
|
Location: Sawyer County, WI | castmaster - 4/6/2016 9:48 AM
I have talked to folks who want to see "their" lakes as panfish lakes. If you don't think there are well heeled people who will use this same tact to try and stop walleye stocking on "their" lake I disagree.
Will MN ever see a total ban on walleye stocking in non native lakes, of course not. On individual lakes, just like muskies in this situation, not far fetched at all IMO. It's all about what residents and lake associations want right?
It's fairly apparent how the game is played so if you want to have equal footing with lake associations et al. then a serious musky lobby needs to be in place and by "serious" I mean well funded. Elected officials aren't overly concerned with science, so that works out to be an ineffective argument. Today's average politician is worried about getting re-elected and where to get the money to run that re-election campaign. Once the musky lobby can convince them that their efforts to support musky stocking are "worth" it we may have a chance to win the argument.
Short of that, Sled's snicker advice was spot on.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 27
| Talking of Mille Lacs, there is a bill going thru to allow walleye harvest this year. Another to stop a ban on lead shot on state lands. And i think there is a bill that all fishing and hunting regulations are to be turned over to the legislature. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Sled, your darn right I'm fired up, and rightfully so IMO. As others have said, this issue goes beyond muskies it's about use of the lakes.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Anyone that doesn't believe this can/will ever go beyond just muskies, look into how the folks living on Square Lake in Washington County MN were able to force the DNR to quit stocking trout there because the fish were supposedly ruining the water clarity.
Funny thing is trout was about all anyone fished it for, go by the public landing these days and it sits empty many days, and ice fisherman have been almost nonexistent since. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 67
| castmaster - 4/6/2016 12:49 PM
Funny thing is trout was about all anyone fished it for, go by the public landing these days and it sits empty many days, and ice fisherman have been almost nonexistent since.
That was the whole goal of that and this current legislation |
|
| |
|
|
It's fairly apparent how the game is played so if you want to have equal footing with lake associations et al. then a serious musky lobby needs to be in place and by "serious" I mean well funded. Elected officials aren't overly concerned with science, so that works out to be an ineffective argument. Today's average politician is worried about getting re-elected and where to get the money to run that re-election campaign. Once the musky lobby can convince them that their efforts to support musky stocking are "worth" it we may have a chance to win the argument.
This, sadly. |
|
| |
|
| BNelson - 4/5/2016 2:37 PM
It's attached to a bill with like 37 other things...it's not a stand alone bill, ie, they either vote yes for ALL 38 things, or no for ALL 38 things... I think at least for the next vote those lakes are S.O.L.
Anyone know what the bill is boxed in with? Are these no brainer bills? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | FILE NUMBER: H.F. 2844 DATE: March 30, 2016
Version: Delete everything amendment (H2844DE2)
Authors: Hackbarth
Subject: Omnibus Game and Fish Bill
Analyst: Janelle Taylor
This publication can be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please call 651-296-6753 (voice); or the Minnesota State Relay Service at 1-800-627-3529 (TTY) for assistance. Summaries are also available on our website at: www.house.mn/hrd/.
Overview
This bill contains a number of provisions related to the state’s game and fish laws, including many provisions proposed by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
Section
1 Report. Adds § 3.7371, subd. 8. Requires the commissioner of agriculture to submit an annual report to the legislature on the amount of damages paid to crop and pasture owners for damage to crops or fences caused by elk. The report is due December 15 and must include information for the prior two fiscal years separated by elk herd.
2 Certain vehicles and equipment. Adds § 16C.135. States that the DNR is not required to purchase or use ethanol-blended fuel for off-road vehicles (ORVs), boats, snowmobiles, or small engines.
3 Exemptions. Amends § 84.798. Exempts an ORV with a valid state trail pass under the next section from ORV registration requirements.
4 Off-road vehicle state trail pass. Modifies ORV state trail pass sticker requirements so that a resident may purchase a temporary (30 day) pass for $20 similar to the pass available to nonresidents and expands the trail pass requirement to apply to use areas in addition to state and grant-in-aid ORV trails. The pass would then exempt the person from ORV registration requirements.
5 Arrowhead Region Trails, Cook, Lake, St. Louis, Pine, Carlton, Koochiching, and Itasca Counties. Amends § 85.015, subd. 13. Renames portions of the Arrowhead, Taconite, and Tomahawk State Trails as the David Dill Trail.
6 Duty to encourage stamp design and purchase. Amends § 97A.045, subd. 7. Removes the requirement of the commissioner of natural resources to encourage the purchase of the turkey stamp (which is eliminated in this bill).
7 Game and fish annual reports. Amends § 97A.055, subd. 4. Removes a report requirement related to the wild turkey management account (the account is funded by revenues related to the turkey stamp which is eliminated in this bill).
8 Deer, bear, and lifetime licenses. Amends § 97A.075, subd. 1. Removes a provision requiring 50 cents from each deer license to be deposited in the wolf management and monitoring account.
9 Prosecuting authority. Adds § 97A.201. States that county attorneys must prosecute violations of various natural resource and game and fish laws.
10 Misdemeanor. Amends § 97A.301, subd. 1. States that all violations of the game and fish laws are misdemeanors unless otherwise specified.
11 Gross overlimits of wild animals; penalty. Amends § 97A.338. Establishes a gross misdemeanor penalty for a person who takes, possesses, or transports two or more trophy animals over the legal limit.
12 Personal possession. Amends § 97A.405, subd. 2. Removes a provision allowing a person to purchase a pictorial turkey stamp which is eliminated in this bill.
13 License revocation after conviction. Amends § 97A.421, subd. 2a. Prohibits a person convicted of taking two or more trophy animals over the legal limit under the new gross misdemeanor penalty established in section 11 from obtaining a hunting license or taking a wild animal for ten years.
14 Nonresidents under age 16 attending camps; fishing. Amends § 97A.451, subd. 6. Modifies the documentation requirements of nonresidents under 16 fishing at a camp who are exempt from fishing license requirements.
15 Lifetime small game hunting license; fee. Amends § 97A.473, subd. 3. Technical.
16 Lifetime sporting license; fee. Amends § 97A.473, subd. 5. Technical.
17 Lifetime sporting with spearing option license; fee. Amends § 97A.473, subd. 5a. Technical.
18 Nonresident lifetime small game hunting license; fee. Amends § 97A.474, subd. 3. Technical.
19 Resident hunting. Amends § 97A.475, subd. 2. Reduces the resident turkey hunting license fee by $5 (this was the fee for the turkey stamp prior to it being rolled into the cost of the license).
20 Nonresident hunting. Amends § 97A.475, subd. 3. Reduces the nonresident turkey hunting license fee by $5 (this was the fee for the turkey stamp prior to it being rolled into the cost of the license).
21 Rules limiting the use of lead shot prohibited. Adds § 97B.032. Prohibits the DNR from adopting rules that further restrict the use of lead shot. The DNR has recently proposed, as part of a larger rulemaking effort, rules that would require a person to use nontoxic shot when hunting small game on wildlife management areas (WMAs) in the farmland zone and when hunting rails or common snipe.
22 Hunting with bows released by mechanical devices. Amends § 97B.035, subd. 1. Clarifies that a person age 60 or over is allowed to use a cross-bow as provided under a law passed in 2014.
23 Possession of firearms and ammunition restricted in deer zones. Amends § 97B.041. States that the violation of certain firearms and ammunition restrictions applicable just before, during, and after the firearm deer season is punishable only by a warning if the person is shooting at an object for the sole purpose of target shooting.
24 Deer hunter satisfaction survey. Clarifies that the annual hunter satisfaction requirement conducted by the DNR is for deer hunters.
25 Clothing requirements; blaze orange or blaze pink. Amends § 97B.071. Allows blaze pink to be worn when hunting deer and certain small game (current law requires blaze orange).
26 Possession of night vision or thermal imaging equipment. Amends § 97B.086. Provides an exception from the prohibition on possessing night vision or thermal imaging equipment when hunting or possessing a firearm for employees of a firearm or ammunition manufacturer for purposes of testing ammunition or firearms.
27 Commissioner may limit number of deer hunters. Amends § 97B.305. Provides preference to landowners owning at least 80 acres of agricultural land in an area for deer license lotteries in the area when applicable.
28 Feeding bears. Adds § 97B.427. Prohibits a person from feeding a bear by hand or other physical contact.
29 Elk management plan. Amends § 97B.516. Prohibits the DNR from managing an elk herd to increase the size unless the commissioner of agriculture verifies that crop and fence damages paid to crop and pasture owners have not increased for at least two years. Requires the DNR and MDA to jointly hold a public meeting at least 60 days prior to implementing a plan to increase an elk herd.
30 Crow season. Amends § 97B.731, subd. 3. Modifies the crow season to begin July 15 and end October 31.
31 Restrictions on certain motorized decoys. Amends § 97B.811, subd. 4a. Removes the restriction on using a motorized decoy during the first portion of the duck season. The restriction will still apply on WMAs.
32 Muskellunge in certain waters prohibited. Adds § 97C.008. Prohibits the DNR from introducing or stocking muskie on six lakes (Big Marine, the Fairmont Chain, the Gull Chain, Franklin, Lizzie, and Loon) currently being considered for muskie stocking by the DNR.
33 Walleye. Amends § 97C.401, subd. 2. Removes the statutory prohibition on having more than one northern pike above 30 inches in possession.
34 Rulemaking; northern pike. Requires the DNR to establish northern pike management zones as follows:
? Northeastern management zone with a daily and possession limit of two, with no more than one over 40 inches and a protected slot limit between 30-40 inches;
? North central management zone with a daily and possession limit of 10, with anglers limited to two over 26 inches and a protected slot limit of 22-26 inches, and those spear fishing limited to two over 26 inches or one fish between 22-26 inches and one over 26 inches; and
? Southern management zone with a daily and possession limit of two with a minimum length limit of 24 inches.
Provides a good cause exemption from the rulemaking process and requires the DNR to submit a report to the legislature on the success of the regulations and recommendations on whether to keep or modify the regulations by January 15, 2027.
35 Rulemaking; blaze pink. Requires the commissioner of natural resources to amend certain rules pertaining to wearing blaze orange while hunting to also allow a person to wear blaze pink.
36 2016 Mille Lacs walleye regulations. Requires the DNR to allow a person to possess one walleye over 28 inches for Lake Mille Lacs during the 2016 angling season until the state’s quota has been met.
37 David Dill Trail; appropriation. Appropriates $20,000 for signage marking the David Dill Trail designated in this bill.
38 Repealer. Repeals section 97A.075, subdivision 5 (wild turkey stamp account).
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| Looks like someone doesn't want any large Northern Pike either see item 33 & 34 allows anglers 10 northern with two above 26" |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | the notion that Lake Homeowners don't have more rights than public use is a farce. you may demand that they don't, but truth be told, they do and especially through well-funded Lake Associations. the Associations operate with influence no matter how loud you want to scream they don't have the right.
reminds me of an old dog trainer who once told a guy ... "no, to him (dog is out running around wherever he wants to off-lead) ... you're just the idiot over here screaming"
Edited by jonnysled 4/6/2016 2:48 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | Pepper - 4/6/2016 2:24 PM
Looks like someone doesn't want any large Northern Pike either see item 33 & 34 allows anglers 10 northern with two above 26"
#34 is a DNR proposal to help improve the size structure of northern pike in our lakes. #33 is necessary in order to implement the regulations shown in #34. This proposal went through an extensive process and has received support among most/all angling groups. It's just unfortunate that this is all being grouped together as one bill rather than allowing each one to stand on its own.
Here is much more information on the proposed pike regs shown in #34.
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/pike/index.html
Aaron |
|
| |
