|
|
Posts: 256
| Time to rally the troops again?
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=HF2145&session=ls91... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | sounds like a mess |
|
| |
|
Posts: 539
Location: WI | Spring has now officially arrived. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| My question is what does the $10 go towards. At this point it looks like it is undedicated funds. So it’s just a new tax. If the funds were dedicated to stocking or habitat restoration it maybe wouldn’t bug me so much. |
|
| |
|
| why would I need a license to posses a fish that has a 54" minimum and is essentially catch and release? who would be dumb enough to buy one? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Cfollow - 3/18/2019 7:58 AM
why would I need a license to posses a fish that has a 54" minimum and is essentially catch and release? who would be dumb enough to buy one?
I WOULD.... GIVEN the money was going toward muskies only... I wouldn't consider that DUMB at all...
I could careless if I need it or not if the money is allocated directly to muskies. It would be my little extra way to help out the resource.
We have seen a huge cut back on stocking and currently it seems only fingerlings are getting stocked and in some places only Fry.... I'm not so sure that will be enough, so any extra $$ that can go specifically to the program is (in my humble opinion) money well spent.
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| Cfollow - 3/18/2019 7:58 AM
why would I need a license to posses a fish that has a 54" minimum and is essentially catch and release? who would be dumb enough to buy one?
I would buy one if ALL the revenue went towards stocking and muskies habitat |
|
| |
|
Posts: 323
Location: Elk River, MN | I would have rather seen a Muskie Stamp setup, similar to trout, whereas money raised from stamp purchase goes directly into a fund committed to funding stocking and the like. Also being that a stamp would be required to target these fish, as with trout.
A tag just promotes harvest |
|
| |
|
Posts: 187
Location: West Metro, MN | I would love to hear insight from someone who is "in the know" more. On the surface I think this is potentially a good thing if the funds go to the right places. I think most would gladly pay an extra $10 a year if it helps protect the resource. If someone from the MMPA or anyone else has insight into the authors intentions that would be great to understand. I could see this down the road as a protective data point for muskie fishing (i.e. "look at how many out if state anglers are coming to MN to muskie fish and the economic impact they bring"). |
|
| |
|
| The funds NEVER go to the right places, EVER. They will be building bike paths and gates to keep AIS out. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1516
| Cfollow - 3/18/2019 10:29 AM
The funds NEVER go to the right places, EVER. They will be building bike paths and gates to keep AIS out.
Sad but true |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Pepper - 3/18/2019 10:32 AM
Cfollow - 3/18/2019 10:29 AM
The funds NEVER go to the right places, EVER. They will be building bike paths and gates to keep AIS out.
Sad but true
I was curious of where the funding is going, so I wrote to the the3 authors of the bill earlier today. I have yet to receive anything in return at this point, but once I do, I will respond here as well.
I know it is hard to keep a positive eye on this one, but I'd rather give them a little benefit of the doubt first, then see where things go. I'm keeping an open mind as I honestly don't know at this point of where the money is going. So....no sense in getting all worked up about it being a bad thing....you never know...you just might be surprised...
Steve |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Recieved an email back... I have copied and pasted it below...
John Persell
Mon 3/18/2019 5:21 PM
Hi Steve,
If passed, the muskie licence will apply to fishing for muskie in Minnesota with exceptions provided in the Bill. The muskie licence funds would be deposited in the DNR's fish and game fund for fisheries management purposes but not dedicated to muskie management.
John |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1760
Location: new richmond, wi. & isle, mn | VMS - 3/18/2019 7:24 PM
Recieved an email back... I have copied and pasted it below...
John Persell
Mon 3/18/2019 5:21 PM
Hi Steve,
If passed, the muskie licence will apply to fishing for muskie in Minnesota with exceptions provided in the Bill. The muskie licence funds would be deposited in the DNR's fish and game fund for fisheries management purposes but not dedicated to muskie management.
John I'm not shocked by the answer but the honesty. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I responded to him asking if there was a way to amend the bill so those funds would go directly to muskie stocking/resource efforts, so we will see if I get anything back.
In all of this, I don't consider things to be horrible, but I do feel that we as a muskie fishing community have an opportunity here to speak out. Who knows...if we have enough of a voice as a group and we make it known,...maybe we can get this done and create a very nice monetary resource for muskie fishing. I am staying hopeful.
If you would like to send an email to the 3 authors of the bill, their emails are below. Representative John Persell is the main author.
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1243
Location: Musky Tackle Online, MN | You can download the audio file from the hearing on March 14th here.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Committees/archives/91003
You can fast forward to around the 55 minute mark to listen to the discussion. Several people testified against the bill. Only one person spoke in favor. That person happens to be someone that has a well documented track record of supporting any bill that would be detrimental to the state's muskie fisheries. A very concerning red flag there.
Interesting that the DNR also voiced their concerns. A bill that on the surface is said to want to help contribute more funds to the DNR...and the DNR is against it...saying that is is not needed and unnecessary. Another red flag?
To clarify, this would not be a harvest tag. It would be a required license/stamp to fish for muskies (or keep them). The bill is worded in such a way that it seems that they are trying to encourage harvest. Ignoring that point, it otherwise doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. But I can see how the intentions may not be what it appears by those pushing for it.
You don't have to imagine too hard to see how the anti-muskie crowd would try to use something like this against us. One of the co-authors of this bill has had his name on the anti-muskie bills in previous years. There is a Senator (that supports the muskie program) that absolutely believes there is an ulterior motive here. And the fact that they had the biggest anti-muskie spokesperson there to support the bill for the hearing should be a concern to all of us.
Aaron |
|
| |
|
| AWH - 3/18/2019 11:18 PM
You can download the audio file from the hearing on March 14th here.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Committees/archives/91003
You can fast forward to around the 55 minute mark to listen to the discussion. Several people testified against the bill. Only one person spoke in favor. That person happens to be someone that has a well documented track record of supporting any bill that would be detrimental to the state's muskie fisheries. A very concerning red flag there.
Interesting that the DNR also voiced their concerns. A bill that on the surface is said to want to help contribute more funds to the DNR...and the DNR is against it...saying that is is not needed and unnecessary. Another red flag?
To clarify, this would not be a harvest tag. It would be a required license/stamp to fish for muskies (or keep them ). The bill is worded in such a way that it seems that they are trying to encourage harvest. Ignoring that point, it otherwise doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. But I can see how the intentions may not be what it appears by those pushing for it.
You don't have to imagine too hard to see how the anti-muskie crowd would try to use something like this against us. One of the co-authors of this bill has had his name on the anti-muskie bills in previous years. There is a Senator (that supports the muskie program ) that absolutely believes there is an ulterior motive here. And the fact that they had the biggest anti-muskie spokesperson there to support the bill for the hearing should be a concern to all of us.
Aaron
I guess I am fishing or PIKE then. How do you prove someone is fishing for muskies exactly?? I'll answer my own question here. The only way is to ask them and if they say they are fishing for pike then that is exactly what they are doing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 278
Location: US | I bet they want to do this so they can say we sold X licenses but only this many muskie licenses. At that point they use that as an excuse to limit muskie stocking, funding, etc. |
|
| |
|
| anderj85 - 3/19/2019 6:35 AM
I bet they want to do this so they can say we sold X licenses but only this many muskie licenses. At that point they use that as an excuse to limit muskie stocking, funding, etc.
BINGO!!!!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2318
Location: Chisholm, MN | As ridiculous as it all sounds, idiots can get their way. This will be another big battle we need to win. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Anything that has Senator Ingebritson at it would make sense as he is the chair of the environmental and natural resources finance comittee...
That being said, and from what Aaron posted from above I would no doubt believe there is an ulterior motive to this... Given that scenario I would not be surprised at all if Senator Ingebritson is completely involved with the writing of this bill even if if his name is not listed as an author. That hearing says a ton..... It definitely is something I could see going against my more positive thoughts about this bill... More information definitely tells a different story....and if the DNR is against it....I have a sneaking suspicion they know whats up with the overall intent of this bill...
No doubt I will be in contact with my representatives to vote NO if this thing makes it to the floor for a vote.
Need to vote some people out of office....
Steve
Edited by VMS 3/19/2019 8:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 630
Location: Duluth | anderj85 - 3/19/2019 6:35 AM
I bet they want to do this so they can say we sold X licenses but only this many muskie licenses. At that point they use that as an excuse to limit muskie stocking, funding, etc.
This is exactly it. They want to quantify how many people buy musky tags vs regular (walleye) licenses. Then use it as a way to diminish our fisheries. Furthermore, they will likely have a bunch of constituents that buy a tag for the sole purpose of spearing musky. If the numbers of spearing even approaches those who don't they have, in their eyes, an argument for opening up musky to spearing.
I wouldn't trust these reps further than I could throw them.
Edited by CincySkeez 3/19/2019 9:27 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1719
| The bill needs to be stopped if for no other reason then it provides data that can be twisted and turned to be used for anybodies agenda.
Just remember....the anti's are the only ones that are paying attention. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 386
| My rebuttal:
$10 musky stamp
muskies entirely catch and release
All money goes to musky spawning habitat restoration or stocking
Or we could just go about our usual business. Or offer an optional stamp that would again go towards habitat improvement and/or stocking efforts.
This basically feels like a "okay the past few years didn't work, let's see how else Wecan sneak some non-sense through." Shouldn't there be more important things to worry about? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 141
Location: Minnetonka | VMS - 3/19/2019 8:44 AM
Anything that has Senator Ingebritson at it would make sense as he is the chair of the environmental and natural resources finance comittee...
Steve
He's building a wall and we're paying for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| Cfollow - 3/19/2019 6:34 AM
AWH - 3/18/2019 11:18 PM
You can download the audio file from the hearing on March 14th here.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Committees/archives/91003
You can fast forward to around the 55 minute mark to listen to the discussion. Several people testified against the bill. Only one person spoke in favor. That person happens to be someone that has a well documented track record of supporting any bill that would be detrimental to the state's muskie fisheries. A very concerning red flag there.
Interesting that the DNR also voiced their concerns. A bill that on the surface is said to want to help contribute more funds to the DNR...and the DNR is against it...saying that is is not needed and unnecessary. Another red flag?
To clarify, this would not be a harvest tag. It would be a required license/stamp to fish for muskies (or keep them ). The bill is worded in such a way that it seems that they are trying to encourage harvest. Ignoring that point, it otherwise doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. But I can see how the intentions may not be what it appears by those pushing for it.
You don't have to imagine too hard to see how the anti-muskie crowd would try to use something like this against us. One of the co-authors of this bill has had his name on the anti-muskie bills in previous years. There is a Senator (that supports the muskie program ) that absolutely believes there is an ulterior motive here. And the fact that they had the biggest anti-muskie spokesperson there to support the bill for the hearing should be a concern to all of us.
Aaron
I guess I am fishing or PIKE then. How do you prove someone is fishing for muskies exactly?? I'll answer my own question here. The only way is to ask them and if they say they are fishing for pike then that is exactly what they are doing.
Muskie baits, musky rods, musky net... You can tell them you're fishing for pike, but the figure 8 is a dead giveaway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | FlyPiker - 3/19/2019 2:44 PM
My rebuttal:
$10 musky stamp
muskies entirely catch and release
All money goes to musky spawning habitat restoration or stocking
Or we could just go about our usual business. Or offer an optional stamp that would again go towards habitat improvement and/or stocking efforts.
This basically feels like a "okay the past few years didn't work, let's see how else Wecan sneak some non-sense through." Shouldn't there be more important things to worry about?
While this idea sounds good in theory, it would likely lead to a cut in musky stocking with stocking money normally appropriate for muskies taken away and sent elsewhere with the idea being that stamp dollars should now fund it. Most of that $10 would be eaten up in administrative costs. A stamp would be a bad step for musky fishing. The pike fishing demographic would also explode. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | esoxaddict - 3/19/2019 3:52 PM
Cfollow - 3/19/2019 6:34 AM
AWH - 3/18/2019 11:18 PM
You can download the audio file from the hearing on March 14th here.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Committees/archives/91003
You can fast forward to around the 55 minute mark to listen to the discussion. Several people testified against the bill. Only one person spoke in favor. That person happens to be someone that has a well documented track record of supporting any bill that would be detrimental to the state's muskie fisheries. A very concerning red flag there.
Interesting that the DNR also voiced their concerns. A bill that on the surface is said to want to help contribute more funds to the DNR...and the DNR is against it...saying that is is not needed and unnecessary. Another red flag?
To clarify, this would not be a harvest tag. It would be a required license/stamp to fish for muskies (or keep them ). The bill is worded in such a way that it seems that they are trying to encourage harvest. Ignoring that point, it otherwise doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. But I can see how the intentions may not be what it appears by those pushing for it.
You don't have to imagine too hard to see how the anti-muskie crowd would try to use something like this against us. One of the co-authors of this bill has had his name on the anti-muskie bills in previous years. There is a Senator (that supports the muskie program ) that absolutely believes there is an ulterior motive here. And the fact that they had the biggest anti-muskie spokesperson there to support the bill for the hearing should be a concern to all of us.
Aaron
I guess I am fishing or PIKE then. How do you prove someone is fishing for muskies exactly?? I'll answer my own question here. The only way is to ask them and if they say they are fishing for pike then that is exactly what they are doing.
Muskie baits, musky rods, musky net... You can tell them you're fishing for pike, but the figure 8 is a dead giveaway.
Won’t hold in court and a CO wouldn’t write the ticket to begin with. I’ve asked them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1000
| biggest problem with MN stocking right now is hatchery capacity. until the hatchery capacity is increased, we're not going to hit state plans for stocking |
|
| |
|
| Pointerpride102 - 3/19/2019 4:22 PM
esoxaddict - 3/19/2019 3:52 PM
Cfollow - 3/19/2019 6:34 AM
AWH - 3/18/2019 11:18 PM
You can download the audio file from the hearing on March 14th here.
https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/Committees/archives/91003
You can fast forward to around the 55 minute mark to listen to the discussion. Several people testified against the bill. Only one person spoke in favor. That person happens to be someone that has a well documented track record of supporting any bill that would be detrimental to the state's muskie fisheries. A very concerning red flag there.
Interesting that the DNR also voiced their concerns. A bill that on the surface is said to want to help contribute more funds to the DNR...and the DNR is against it...saying that is is not needed and unnecessary. Another red flag?
To clarify, this would not be a harvest tag. It would be a required license/stamp to fish for muskies (or keep them ). The bill is worded in such a way that it seems that they are trying to encourage harvest. Ignoring that point, it otherwise doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. But I can see how the intentions may not be what it appears by those pushing for it.
You don't have to imagine too hard to see how the anti-muskie crowd would try to use something like this against us. One of the co-authors of this bill has had his name on the anti-muskie bills in previous years. There is a Senator (that supports the muskie program ) that absolutely believes there is an ulterior motive here. And the fact that they had the biggest anti-muskie spokesperson there to support the bill for the hearing should be a concern to all of us.
Aaron
I guess I am fishing or PIKE then. How do you prove someone is fishing for muskies exactly?? I'll answer my own question here. The only way is to ask them and if they say they are fishing for pike then that is exactly what they are doing.
Muskie baits, musky rods, musky net... You can tell them you're fishing for pike, but the figure 8 is a dead giveaway.
Won’t hold in court and a CO wouldn’t write the ticket to begin with. I’ve asked them.
Thanks for clearing that up for the others Pointer. |
|
| |
