|
|
| They recessed till Wednesday, this is the most important 2 days up to now. Senator Saxhaug, offered an amendment to remove the Muskie language totally from SF 2227. These are the three that oppose the legislation. Call them, if you already called call again. We had this today, we had all the momentum and it was going to pass. They then called recess to go hear another bill in another hearing. Call these 3 ASAP tell them to leave the 55 inches alone.
Spread the word, tell everyone you know that cares about protecting these fish.
Senator Thomas M. Bakk (651) 296-8881
Senator Tomassoni (651) 296-8017
Senator Tom Saxhaug (651) 296-4136 |
|
| |
|
Posts: 256
| How do we feel about the repeal of this statute as proposed in the bill? See Line 24.31 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?version=latest&session=ls8...
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=97C.011
97C.011 MUSKELLUNGE LAKES.
(a) The commissioner may, after preparing a statement of need and reasonableness and holding a public meeting, designate waters with muskellunge as muskellunge waters.
(b) The commissioner may prescribe rules for each designated muskellunge waters that:
(1) restrict spearing from a dark house;
(2) restrict angling from a dark house;
(3) limit the open season to take fish;
(4) limit the size of fish that may be kept; and
(5) limit the number of each species of fish that may be kept.
(c) The commissioner must give notice and hold a hearing before adopting rules under this subdivision. The rules must have a termination date and may only be extended upon a showing by the commissioner, at a hearing, that the muskellunge population in the designated waters has been enhanced.
(d) The provisions of section 97C.385, subdivision 1, requiring the angling season on a lake to be closed in proportion to the spearing season do not apply to designated muskellunge lakes.
(e) The commissioner, in designating a muskellunge water on lakes wholly or partially within an Indian reservation, may not designate a whole lake larger than 29,775 acres in surface area, except that sensitive areas of lakes larger than 29,775 acres may be designated if clause (a) is complied with.
Edited by kustomboy 4/7/2014 7:44 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 255
| took 2 seconds make the call
Thanks |
|
| |
|
|
I understand the concerns about the law change by the DNR for spearing, I wish they would have taken Muskie regulations half as seriously. We have to commit ourselves to protecting Muskies and large Pike from all forms of harvest. Future and present. Make a few calls and make a difference for the fish we are fighting for. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 470
Location: Blaine, MN | This was beyond simple... I was only able to leave voice mails (no human interaction Unfortunately), but it took only 5 minutes of my time to leave 3 of them. If individuals are more comfortable leaving voicemails, wait until later this evening and fill up their VM boxes. |
|
| |
|
| Unlike e-mails they cant just delete them all without reading. Keep the calls going tonight till noon tomorrow 4-9-14 everyone. We need the support, Non-resident and resident, if you fish MN let them know how you feel. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 100
| Any update as to how Wednesday went? |
|
| |
|
| Sorry I didn't get back on last night but I was worn out. They created an abortion of an amendment, one member was missing that would have got it though because he had to sign another bill. They got the amendment for going to 50 inches and then some other language on 56 inches that will never happen; honestly they botched it up so many times I don't know what it is and I'm not sure they do. The DNR provided the worst testimony I've ever listened too, they had no knowledge about Muskies at all. They didn't know that there are Leech Lake strains in the metro area, they didn't know if Tigers get over 40" and they didn't question the accusation that a kid got bit by a Muskie in Andover. It was horrid. They had a vote to re-vote when the missing member returned that would have removed the amendment and another member got thirsty and left, and another member that voted against it accidentally the first time voted right and another that voted for it the first time voted against the re-vote the second time. One questioned what they were actually voting on it was so screwed up. So the amendment is there, were still working on it, don't give up and don't get mad at the bad votes. We found some very good friends that we as Muskie fisherman will have to support on both sides of the isle. We'll make a list of Muskie friendly legislatures after the session so you can thank them all. Its not over till its over. Bump in the road as I was told. Thanks to all of you supporters its been overwhelming. We're still there and will be till the last gavel drops. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 750
Location: Minneapolis, MN | wait wait wait. Someone got bit by a muskie in Andover? I never knew there were muskies in my backyard growing up. I should tell my dad to go fish the lake. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | John, no hurry to answer, but how is it even possible the DNR sends somebody to testify/comment that isn't knowledgeable on muskies? Pretty bad when your own DNR throws you under the bus, especially when they have stated they have no problem with the bill. |
|
| |
|
| Its too late to go back, these hearings are usually short and one time unless you say Muskie then everyone freaks out. One of the Catfish guys was testifying for some information on netting bait; and they acted like a 60# catfish is a big teddy bear. We're going to stay with it and keep working. I'm sure you guys have missed a turn and had to go 4-wheeling to get where you want to go lol. Sometimes it takes awhile and sometimes it doesn't happen. I would say if you haven't contacted your elected officials in the House and Senate to do so. They need to know you want the 55" Min. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 43
| I just listen to the hearing, I think what they came up with will work well in MN, If it passes as amended MN will go to a 50" size limit next year and 20 lakes will have special regs that will allow a 56" minimum.
I guess I would quit bothering the law makers live with the compromise.
If you want to listen to the hearing follow the link below, click on the audio file for 4/9/2014 - the muskie discussion starts about 1 hour into the meeting.
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/schedule/unofficial_action.php?ls...
Lets see if you can come up with 20 lakes that have produced a 56" muskie ,
1 Leech
2 Mille lacs
3 Vermilion
4 cass
5 tonka
6
7
8
... |
|
| |
|
| You'll never see "2" 56 inch lakes in MN on that list you have going through the DNR input process and selection, make all the lists you want. How about just the lakes that had resorts that supported it. or just the ones that wont have one person stop it by complaining about how these giant fish will ruin the property values and eat all the Walleyes and bite the kids. Maybe you'll travel the state from meeting to meeting to assure it all goes as planned. But what do I know.
Edited by Muskiefool 4/10/2014 11:19 PM
|
|
| |
|
| Thanks for posting the link tho, I was looking for it this morning. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | Lets see if you can come up with 20 lakes that have produced a 56" muskie ,
1 Leech
2 Mille lacs
3 Vermilion
4 cass
5 tonka
6 Bemidji
7 little boy
8 miltona
9 battle
10 Detroit
11 pelican
12 mantrap
13 plantanganet
14 Mississippi River
15 Sally
16 crane
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Here's the problem: The MN DNR will go through their public input process. St.Paul has shown they have zero back bone when it comes to furthering the muskie program. This could get tied up for years with little to nothing to show for it. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | BTW, I love the part where Sen Saxhaug and Ingebretson (sp) say that the DNR has some great scientists and we shouldn't legislate over them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 192
| Thats funny a group of musky fishermen wants to be more responsible then the legislative body that governs them and they tell us that our goals are to high haha |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Muskie Treats - 4/11/2014 11:30 AM
BTW, I love the part where Sen Saxhaug and Ingebretson (sp) say that the DNR has some great scientists and we shouldn't legislate over them.
I wish they'd take that stance on other game laws they get their fingers in. Are they oblivious to their responsibilities as legistators? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 633
| Treats, did you ever ask them about the Un-session that they were claiming they were going to do this year? Undo tax hikes? Undo the spearing liberations on muskie waters? Undo the limitations they put on the DNR to govern the pike populations in lakes? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | To those that don't know, these are the two biggest people in the Senate that basically railroaded pro spearing things through the legislature doing an end around on the DNR. I just love the irony.  |
|
| |
|
Posts: 443
Location: Duluth, MN | Reading here how the DNR rep appeared to know nothing about muskie fishing does not surprise me.
They had a very promising Island Lake fishery in Duluth and have let it fall by the wayside. People are now catching more muskies each year below the dam than in the lake now. When asked if they can organize a capture program to get them back in the lake the answer is no.
The lake used to be busy even on weeknights. Now it's a ghost town...you can fish any spot you want.
If you use their catch rates and estimates the adult population is only 500 - 600 adults on an 8000 acre lake. Their response is stocking 33% extra fingerlings. When asked if they can look into stocking yearlings instead of fingerlings the answer is no it's not possible.
I have not caught a muskie under 40 inches there in 3 years. The future is not bright but they will "monitor" how the extra fingerlings might help. I suspect they will all be eaten by the pike and smallmouth.
I could keep going but you get the point. Sorry to hijack the thread. |
|
| |
|
Location: MN | Muskie Treats - 4/11/2014 2:00 PM
To those that don't know, these are the two biggest people in the Senate that basically railroaded pro spearing things through the legislature doing an end around on the DNR. I just love the irony. :)
Sounds like the musky guys need to make our voice heard with our votes. I will make my vote to get them out of office no matter what party they are on. To the guys involved, please remind us come election time.
Edited by Nershi 4/11/2014 3:57 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 158
| No doubt. Let's rock these folks out of office next fall. |
|
| |
|
|
What bothers me is that we did not get to testify on the new amendment, its unjust and a procedural failure. The Chair of Game and fish had his hand up several times and the author did everything he could to be recognized but was only allowed one comment on the Andover attack. I've never seen a proceeding so messed up, this only effects the people that want want it, its supported by resorts and industry. It will protect the vulnerable 52-54 inch fish that seem to be the threshold for harvest. How many lakes don't produce 52-54 inch fish? 25? of that 21 would be exempt for tiger lakes in the metro, and a few Shoepack lakes; maybe Baby?People get hung up on the 55, its what your protecting between 51-55 that needs help. I'm not giving up. Its wrong what they did, and the fishery doesn't need to settle. It needs our help not our complacency. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 70
| I LISTENED TO THE HEARING (THANKS FOR POSTING IT) I interpret it as it will be state wide 50 inch, with tiger lakes that are already designated exempt exempt.
The DNR has to list 24 new lakes without public hearing to 56 inches by next year!
Put the pressure on the DNR! This will be law next year.
The DNR DOES NOT have to have public meetings 90 days prior to designation under the rules change.
You got 56 instead of 55 on the waters that can produce them.
They also pointed out the current MN record is 57 inches!
If I misunderstood enlighten me!
|
|
| |
|
| The legislation asks the DNR to name the lakes in one year then use experimental/special rule-making to implement them. There was concern by several after the hearing about what they actually did. There are meetings going on over this that we are not involved in.When we know we'll let you know. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1901
Location: MN | John or Treats, I need an education. I read in the ON today that both the senate and house are bringing their own version of the G&F bill to be heard on the floor soon. They are basically the same with the exception the senate version has two provisions, one being the 55" min muskie size limit. My first question is why do they spend the time, money and effort to work on two different bills? Which one is overarching if both pass?
Secondly, the article said to watch out, rumor has it that some lawmakers in either the senate or the house or both, would try to add a last minute amendment that contains anti wolf hunting/trapping language. And that if that happens the whole bill would likely die. So my second question is why do these dang lawmakers attempt to add language like that and threaten the entire bill vs introducing the legislation on its own?
I guess both assumes our legislators are logical and use common sense. Maybe therein lies the answers to my questions. Silly me. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 910
Location: Hastings, mn, 55033 | Propster - 4/18/2014 10:29 PM
John or Treats, I need an education. I read in the ON today that both the senate and house are bringing their own version of the G&F bill to be heard on the floor soon. They are basically the same with the exception the senate version has two provisions, one being the 55" min muskie size limit. My first question is why do they spend the time, money and effort to work on two different bills? Which one is overarching if both pass?
Secondly, the article said to watch out, rumor has it that some lawmakers in either the senate or the house or both, would try to add a last minute amendment that contains anti wolf hunting/trapping language. And that if that happens the whole bill would likely die. So my second question is why do these dang lawmakers attempt to add language like that and threaten the entire bill vs introducing the legislation on its own?
I guess both assumes our legislators are logical and use common sense. Maybe therein lies the answers to my questions. Silly me.
I think that they used "legislative logic and common sense". If you have something you know would never get passed on its own, you tack it onto another bill hoping to slip it through. Likewise, if there is a bill you dont support but know it will likely pass, you add the "poison pen" to it thus increasing the odds it will not pass.
|
|
| |
|
|
Hey Propster, the senate and house will form a conference committee to agree on what goes and stays, it doesn't have to be in both to be included. They then can add floor amendments. I wish I could tell you their is logic behind some of their beliefs on scuttling the whole Bill. . They know that their bill would never make it through the first 2 committees so they wait till the floor. At that point if it gets the votes it goes to the Governor. He will Veto it and will either send it back with conditions or kill it. We're still on the job for Muskies. |
|
| |
