|
|
| I'm not sure if all of you know this but there migth be a muskie stamp in the near future. What are your feelings towards this?
Note: This profit will go to the stocking and lake management of muskies. |
|
| |
|
| Sounds good to me. Anyone without one would have to let the muskies go. Im sure the backwards meateaters
in Wisconsin will shoot it down. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2515
Location: Waukesha & Land O Lakes, WI | If this goes to the Conservation Congress, it'll never get passed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2427
Location: Ft. Wayne Indiana | all that means is that it is now "ok" to keep a musky. Which in my opinion, it is not.
Also, if a guy doesn't get to fill his stamp, one of his buddies will fill it for him.
In my opinion, it just gives anglers another excuse as to why they kept a few this year. "Had to fill the Stamp, I figured I paid the extra money, so why not fill it." |
|
| |
|
| "Guest" - what state are you talking about?
Also are you talking about a stamp which would allow you to keep legal muskies within other regulations (creel, possession, size limits) or a tag system (aka deer & turkeys)?
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | btpf - 3/15/2005 10:58 AM
Sounds good to me. Anyone without one would have to let the muskies go. Im sure the backwards meateaters
in Wisconsin will shoot it down.
I find this comment insulting. As an avid musky fisherman who lives in Wisconsin I can tell you that in I don't see any "meateaters" where I fish, Dane and Sawyer counties. I have heard that the Vilas county has more muskies kept, a high % of these are taken by tourists. Do you Vilas county fisherman see these "meateaters"?
I would be all for a stamp as long as the money is invested in Muskies. |
|
| |
|
| It would be just like a turkey stamp. If you want to fish Muskie you would need to buy a stamp.
STATE: Wisconsin |
|
| |
|
| sometimes i ask a question, and then i answer it myself...it's soooo fun.
aside from my editorializing about netiquette, this is an important issue.
here's the exact proposal:
"The WDNR 2004 Wisconsin Fishing Report states production for Muskellunge fingerlings in 2004 will be cut in half due to state budget cuts. A 50% reduction in stocking, coupled with harvest, puts the future of some state Musky fisheries in peril. If stocking is reduced or stopped, it will take many years to re-establish populations. More funding is needed for research, habitat protection and stocking to effectively manage Muskies. Current funding, which may be further reduced, is insufficient to meet these goals. A Musky stamp would support our musky management program. This stamp would not replace general fund sources, but support and enhance them."
if we can ensure that the monies raised will go to a separate fund (such as is done with some other stamp fee programs) to benefit muskie stocking/environment/etc., rather than into the general fund, i am all for this proposal and encourage everyone to get out to their county CC hearings and both speak in favor of this and vote for it.
does it condone keeping muskies? i don't think so - the only people who will buy the stamps are people who are serious about muskie fishing - most of whom are pro-CPR. thus, it will support the fishery with money, plus stop the harvest of muskies by "accidental" catches by non-muskie fishermen. the "meathunters" that are intent on taking fish are relatively few, and are going to do so anyway. we might as well get some money from them to support stocking, etc. on the way. |
|
| |
|
| In Minnesota talking to some dnr guys they feel it would cost too much in administration procedures to be of any real benefit,,, |
|
| |
|
| Personally, I think $40.00 is enough for a WI fishing liscense. I don't see a need for any kind of stamp. Will the Native Americans have to buy this stamp as well? If not, then what's the point. I think there are more things wrong in WI than making someone who wants to go musky fishing buy a stamp is gonna fix. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| I am in favor of anything that is directly ear marked for the muskie program. It would be great to know that my dollars were spent directly on the resource that is bringing to Wisconsin. I don't buy the stamp encourages harvest theory. Most non musky people are not going to spend the money on the "just in case" factor. |
|
| |
|
| I think a musky stamp would be a STUPID idea!
That would give the DNR all the leverage that they needed to make your fishing license a stamp holder. So what's next, a panfish stamp, a Walleye stamp, a bass stamp. a pike stamp?????? If I'm out musky fishing and I stick a walleye that would make a nice dinner, what I can't keep it because I didn't buy my walleye stamp. I hope to never have to keep a musky, but what if when releasing one it just will not swim off??? I can't keep it because I don't have a musky stamp, (without the stamp, can I still fish musky's or only be able to keep one if so desiered) so I just drive off and tell all my buddy's that I release a nice one when it really died!
It's one thing with a Great Lake's stamp when your our on Lake Michigan or Lake Superior looking for trout, but on inland lakes you never know what you might catch. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32885
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I agree with Lambeau if the stamp goes ahead as published. If the money goes into the general fund, then no. If it goes to the fisheries folks managing the muskies then yes.
I also would disagree on one item; a stamp might 'encourage' harvest. Why else would one buy a stamp unless one considers it a donation to the cause? Is it going to be illegal to fish muskies without a stamp, and if so, then 'illegal' to CPR muskies without a stamp? Of course, it would eliminate harvest by those without a stamp, so the reverse might also be true.
Ontario had a Muskie stamp for awhile, and don't anymore. Anyone know why they dropped the stamp thing? |
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis, MN | Why does it take a stamp to get new funds allocated to a specific cause/fund? Why not just put a write in line on the license application form that reads something like, $____ donated for Muskie Stocking Fund. The stamp in any other outdoor sport is a license to kill, trout, salmon, deer, turkey etc. Why associate muskies with stamps when all other stamps are there to permit harvest?
ps. I wouldn't be so sure that if this gets passed that the money will always be there. Our Governor in IL has been raiding the general funds of the DNR for all kinds of non-DNR programs.
Edited by Luke_Chinewalker 3/15/2005 3:17 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 906
Location: Warroad, Mn | Steve:
I think the Ontario muskie stamp was used mostly for information gathering They wanted to know the percentage of people who were fishing muskies, and if that percentage was growing. They also had a lake trout stamp for the same period of time, for the same reason. As I recall they sold them for around five years and once they found out what they wanted to know they quit. I would guess the cost of administration was more than the income, as I remember they were $5.00 Canadian/year.
No doubt they used this information in planning management strategies for the coming years as shortly after this was completed many of the current Ontario size limits and muskie management practices came out.
I might add that if what I read is correct, and stocking levels will be cut in half without another source of income. I would think most muskie fishermen would vote for a stamp, if that would help solve that issue. I don't know much about the Wisconsin muskie fishery, but I'll bet cutting stocking levels in half won't help.
Doug Johnson
Edited by dougj 3/15/2005 4:25 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 162
Location: Madison, WI | It sounds good in principal but in the long run I don't think it will work. I buy the pheasant stamp and the production of pheasants under that program is continually being cut. The funds would slowly be diverted to other more priority "problem" areas. The good old rob Peter to pay Paul theory. Once it starts it won't stop. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 63
Location: CENTRAL WISCONSIN | MikeHulbert - 3/15/2005 11:04 AM
all that means is that it is now "ok" to keep a musky. Which in my opinion, it is not.
Also, if a guy doesn't get to fill his stamp, one of his buddies will fill it for him.
In my opinion, it just gives anglers another excuse as to why they kept a few this year. "Had to fill the Stamp, I figured I paid the extra money, so why not fill it."
Under current laws it is ok to keep a musky! This is a stamp, not a kill tag. I have been buying trout stamps for years without killing/keeping a fish. This stamp would have to be purchased to legaly fish for muskies. As it is with a trout stamp.
Any angler that would have kept a fish in the past, will probably still do so, while those who practice CPR will continue their practice of releasing fish. All in all, nothing changes other than a larger donation that would supposedly go into a fund for restocking and other musky fishery needs.
Chris McRae |
|
| |
|
| there's a certain level of distrust towards the DNR managing a "separate" fund like this and not raiding it for other purposes. i can understand that, i suppose.
if you're looking for a reason to oppose the stamp, complaining about licenses/fees costing too much is a great excuse as it would mean fishing for muskies would cost more. (it being a permit to target, not a harvest stamp)
but before crying about the costs, check your receipts from the muskie shows this year. can you survive with ONE less lure this season to help improve (or just maintain) stocking levels? or ask yourself if you donated that $20 to the Kly stocking fund or to your local chapter of Muskies Inc. or other fishing club instead - you KNOW where that's going... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 333
Location: menasha wi 54952 | I dont see what the big deal is. If you want to fish for muskies in WI. you buy a muskie stamp. If you want to fish for trout on the great lakes you buy a trout stamp. If you catch one without the stamp you let it go. Its a matter of ethics.
If all the money is to be put into a fund to benefit the resource I am all for it  |
|
| |
|
Location: Minneapolis, MN | muskynutz - For the minority of muskie fisherman who want to do the right thing, a stamp may work to target not harvest. For the rest of the crowd who only ocassionally fish muskies, they may get a little enraged with having to pay more than the already high $40 rate for an out of state license to fish muskie a few times a year. With that said, I think you will find a large number of people in this catagory that will elect to not purchase the stamp and if confronted by the DNR simply say, I'm pike fishing. That's going to be very hard to enforce. Much like the trophy "walleye" fishing that goes on in DePere this time of year. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1310
Location: Washington, PA | Sidenote: I don't think $40 is much to pay for a nonresident fishing license. $40 for a year. In a state with good fishing. Hmm....I think an extra $5, as long as it's going towards MUSKIES, is an awesome idea. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 714
Location: Rhinelander, WI | Is this a ballot question or is it a resolution that is being brought. If it is a resolution will it be brought to every County.
It needs to be a stamp to target fish as well as harvest fish. For those who say it would be unenforceable, let the violators worry about that. In northern Wi. they enforce the late musky start every year, it wouldn’t be any different enforcing a stamp.
As much as we don't like it, Muskies are a special interest fish, they should be treated the same as trout. My worry is a stamp will show exactly how few people actually fish for musky. That may not be a good thing.
Nail A Pig!
Mike
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3518
Location: north central wisconsin | I have been asked to take part in an interview supporting the hike in fishing license fees, along with the Musky stamp. I feel that the hike in license fees will amount to merely pennies per outing(if that) and I still fell one of the best 'deals' in WI is our right to fish for such a low price. I can skip one Saturday breakfast at Dennys with the wife, and cover my license fees. That said, I too feel that if programs are going to be cut, as was being done with the Trout(inland and gr. lakes) and pheasant programs without additional funding, I will support a stamp, but only then. I will not support any of the stamp funds going towards administration costs in Madison, as I feel there is enough of my license hike going towards that already. The talk of the stamp being a kill tag is ridiculous, as anyone fishing now can kill as they choose. If it means stable(or increased hopefully) stocking, habitat protection(shoreline development reduction lobbying), and research into size demographic improvements, I will support it. There will much literature readily available to the voters before the hearings, and we should discuss the pros and cons of the actual proposal as it is presented in the coming weeks.
Edited by Reef Hawg 3/16/2005 8:47 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1769
Location: Algonquin, ILL | I would not mind paying a few extra bucks for a " Muskie Stamp" providing the following conditions
1: The Money will be used only for the following
A; Musky Stocking
B: Research
C: Angler Edudation ( CPR).
2: No More Spearing.
|
|
| |
|
| John, that numder 2 thing is what I'm talking about. That will do way more damage to any fishery than any Joe Shmoe that wants to keep a legal fish. We pay whatever for a stamp and a liscence when certain people can do whatever they want to the fisheries that we are dumping money into. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 59
Location: St. Cloud, MN | I would recommend that everyone check out this link to find out how the Wis DNR gets funding.
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/invest/conservation/fwreports/FISHfwrepo...
As you will see there about 60 percent of the money comes directly from licenses and stamps. With a good amount also coming from federal money. These numbers don't make sense with the statement that they will have to cut stocking by 50 percent even if they lost all state funding it wouldn't warrant such a move. A muskie stamp may be a good move, it may not. If it collects information about the number and demographics of the fishing population it may do more good then harm but I would need to see more info before I could say I support it. Q |
|
| |
|
Posts: 440
| So if I understand this correctly (wouldn't suprise me if I didn't) the Wisconsin goverment is going to start stealing sportsmans money to put in the general fund?
Edited by ChadG 3/16/2005 10:30 AM
|
|
| |
|
Location: The Yahara Chain | JohnMD - 3/16/2005 9:10 AM
I would not mind paying a few extra bucks for a " Muskie Stamp" providing the following conditions
1: The Money will be used only for the following
A; Musky Stocking
B: Research
C: Angler Edudation ( CPR).
2: No More Spearing.
The Wisconsin DNR has zero control over the spearing in this state. This is a Federal Issue. I get tired of everybody acting like Wisconsin can stop the spearing, we can't.
Why doesn't anybody get on Michigan, a state that allows muskies to be speared by anybody.
The stamp would not increase harvest, it is legal to keep one musky a day in this state. I think it would slightly decrease the harvest. If Joe walleye catches a trophy musky on his jig/minnow he couldn't keep it if he didn't have the stamp.
Musky fisherman should support their local clubs. Without the help of various MI chapters and musky clubs, we wouldn't have as many choices as we do in this great state. The Great Lakes Spotted program is an example of a great project that the WDNR could not be doing without the financial support of the local clubs.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 66
Location: Wales Wi. | This is a advisory ? #73. The Musky Stamp was proposed and passed in 4 out of 7 Countys last April. The concept of the stamp is you would need one to harvest a fish but would not need one to fish for Muskies. The reason for this is that it would be to hard for our Wardens to enforce. The proposal is worded so that all funds raised would go directly to Musky management and NOT the general fund. It would help the resource by #1, Help stocking programs #2, Habitat protection (good for all species) #3, Research . This proposal will help Fisheries Biologist track harvest . Last but not least it will help reduce harvest. Limits and registration are yet to be determined,if this passes it would require public input at further DNR meetings. As you can see, this is a long way off yet. Howie. BTW..whos going to the April hearings? New trolling regs also proposed. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 216
Location: Belleville, WI |
Edited by lardonastick 3/16/2005 12:15 PM
|
|
| |
