Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Lake Bemidji cut from MN stocking list |  |
| Message Subject: Lake Bemidji cut from MN stocking list | |||
Guest |
| ||
| well said, fsf | |||
| jakejusa |
| ||
Posts: 994 Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | Stamps sound like a good idea up front, but then....Here's my personal opinion, and this is just based on 50 years of hunting & fishing in MN. Every time the sportsmen in this State stand up and raise some money as "Dedicated Funds" some fine piece of work in the legislature gets in through that the money needs to go into the General Fund. Next thing you know everyone's dipping it getting what they can for their cause. (If you've ever seen a flock of Pelicans on a school of young bullheads you got the picture right) I do believe that the fishermen of this State would support the efforts just as the hunters, wetlands habitat people, wildgame supporters, and all sportsmen have in the past. But we are tired of seeing the "dedicated funds" that are raised by good honest hard working people doing allot of work, end up being raped & pillaged by all causes because of goverment over ruling. Until that changes I say we act together control the money ourselves and take it case by case. Put our bucks where they'll get the biggest bang for our sport. That's just my feeling but hey don't take that as gospel take a look at the historical facts but put the Kleenex close when you go down that path. | ||
| leech lake strain |
| ||
Posts: 541 | it's sad it was taken off the list due to funds! that makes a person think well so much for getting other lakes that are'nt currently being stocked some more that need it, obviusly won't be any stocking done to lakes that never get it ever!. If there taking others off the list cause of no money! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Wait a minute. Joining MI doesn't automatically make one a conservationist or valiant guerrilla fighter of all problems muskie. Some folks, like JS, are 'conservationist'/activist at heart, and are very active in MI efforts to assist the local/national fisheries as a result. It's a few folks who do the lion's share of the work necessary to raise the money from raffles and seminars and shows and do whatever else they can see needs to be done as volunteers. There are only a few folks of this ilk per club of dozens to hundreds. The others, who may not necessarily have the time or resources (or perhaps, desire) to be as dedicated, and by far are the lager group, are the very folks who the dedicated conservationists rely upon to fund the projects they create, and make up the core of the folks who, when the club calls upon them, step up and make the funds available. I disagree with what some had to say. MI is a 'club', and needs to remember that. If being a member and attending meetings is not an enjoyable experience for everyone....the club will shrink until there's no one left but the 'conservationists'. I've been involved in MI as a member of 5 MI clubs and an active supporter since the early 80's... and I have seen this happen more than once. Precious few truly lead MI organization/conservation efforts, and to those folks I will forever owe unbridled respect and admiration. Those folks never forget to highly value all MI members and ALL prospective new members, offer them due public respect, expect nothing more from any of them other than what they are able and willing to offer....all the while never forgetting if one begins to expect or demand compensation, whether in recognition or otherwise, one is no longer a volunteer. That said, MI is a good prospect for raising the funds needed to keep the stocking levels at today's numbers...if they approach the rest of us as peers and explain the need carefully and fully. I don't want anyone up in my face, I'd like to hear the facts, how the money is to be raised, and where it will be spent, and I'm all in. I'd be in for a donation, and I've never fished there. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| A $100.00 non-resident musky stamp isn't that outrageous when you consider the costs incurred for creating and managing the trophy musky fishery within the State Of Minnesota by its property tax, state withholding residents. This amount is a fractional percentage of what those who really paid for this fishery have already contributed. When you compare the cost of fishing Canada to this amount, especially in areas difficult to drive too, it's well within reason to have all users pay a fair share, since the non-residents are not really paying their fair share. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Remember, the fishery isn't managed strictly for residents of ANY state. It's the absolute goal of many well managed fisheries programs, in concert with State tourism, to draw in out of state vacationers who spend HUGE amounts of money, generate big dollars in sales tax, and keep the resorts full. So what's a 'fair share'? How much money comes to each State from federal programs and taxes? | ||
| Goofy |
| ||
Guest - 7/22/2010 5:36 PM A $100.00 non-resident musky stamp isn't that outrageous when you consider the costs incurred for creating and managing the trophy musky fishery within the State Of Minnesota by its property tax, state withholding residents. This amount is a fractional percentage of what those who really paid for this fishery have already contributed. When you compare the cost of fishing Canada to this amount, especially in areas difficult to drive too, it's well within reason to have all users pay a fair share, since the non-residents are not really paying their fair share. How are they going to enforce a $100 musky stamp? Fisherman are going to argue that they are targeting pike, not musky since it is pretty hard to indecisively say you are fishing for muskies, since most musky fisherman do not harvest the fish and have them in their possession as evidence... And having a $100 stamp to cover all esox fishing would be comically laughed at since your average fisherman is not going to spend $100 on a slimy skake pike! Do you think that maybe they stopped stocking Bemidji to see if the lake could be self sustainable like Cass Lake.... I mean spending that kind of money when it has a very strong chance of being self sustainable seems silly to me! | |||
| sledge51 |
| ||
Posts: 356 Location: In the slop! | Maybe the MNDNR should talk to the IDNR. Iowa raises about 10 times as many musky fingerlings as it stocks in state. Personally, I would like those fish to go to Mn. as opposed to some of the other places they go. They could probably just trade some catfish for our muskys. | ||
| Pepper |
| ||
Posts: 1516 | Do non residents pay any taxes in Mn? Let's see gas tax to come & go, sales tax grocery store, lodging tax at the resort, exsize tax on tackle. If they hire a guide I suppose some of that money is taxed. Would and extra $100.00 per year stop me from coming to Mn to fish, probably not, but there is always Wisconsin. What about the resident anglers any thought about a stamp for them say $200.00 cause they fish there all year not just 1 or 2 weeks a year. | ||
| DEMolishedyou |
| ||
Posts: 408 Location: Omaha, Nebraska | sledge51 - 7/22/2010 5:48 PM Maybe the MNDNR should talk to the IDNR. Iowa raises about 10 times as many musky fingerlings as it stocks in state. Personally, I would like those fish to go to Mn. as opposed to some of the other places they go. They could probably just trade some catfish for our muskys. Same, NE only stocks their lakes every third year so maybe you could work out a deal with the NGPC, but the MNDR would probably need to have some solid bargaining fish because I'm pretty sure the NGPC is quite fond of the trout they currently are receiving in return. | ||
| thrax_johnson |
| ||
Posts: 313 Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | This will be shameful if the stocking on Lake Bemidji does come to an end. It is an unbelievable fishery right now for a lake of its size/acreage and has maintained very well vs sometimes immense fishing pressure put on it. I don't have all the facts but unless many other lakes are being cut or severely cut back Bemidji should be maintained and these cuts should come from other less productive lakes or lakes that may be getting the fish but are simply not getting the fisherman to maintain stocking at current levels. | ||
| dcraven |
| ||
| I believe that this is a precursor of things to come in MN... Pawlenty's budget cuts have cut the guts out of education in our state - I'm an educator and can vouche for that without making some type of politcal statement within a political arena. Bemidji was probably cut because the fisheries managers believe it can sustain itself, at least to some degree, without stocking or limited stocking. Mark my words - this is only the beginning of stocking cuts if things continue, politically, as they are. Dan Craven | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| The amount of sales tax revenue that is proportioned into the Minnesota DNR budget is minuscule as compared to the contributions from property and state income tax taxes. I would not believe that the full Minnesota resorts are are musky fisherman. This amount would be minuscule in comparison to other Minnesota resource usages. Unless there are some published data indicating this perceived non-resident populace and sales tax point of view, well, it's a point of view not well taken. The 100.00 non-resident musky stamp should be used for supplementing the musky stocking where budgetary concerns result in tough choices between Minnesota DNR programs. Trophy musky do not grow on trees and are not replaced very quickly. Minnesota's trophy musky fishery evolved from the early 1980's through support primarily from it's residents. Never forget the current non-resident has even approached any comparative fair share percentage whether they have returned annually for the past five years as compared to the state residents having been here from the start - some 25 plus years too. Oh, yea, they pay sales tax too - full the entire year and far more than any nonresident musky angler. Simple as that... | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I would not believe that the full Minnesota resorts are are musky fisherman' On muskie waters there are plenty. Just listen to the locals complain about it. It's interesting, some complain about the hordes of interlopers beating up MN waters until someone points out their contributions, then suddenly their are none. Which is it? http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/budget/fy10-11/budget_full.pd... http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/legislativeinfo/biennial-budg... Good reading. 'This amount would be minuscule in comparison to other Minnesota resource usages.' When one compares Muskie angling expenditures (resident and non resident) in MN to the DNR and supporting dollars spent on the resource statewide, I bet the numbers will mesh nicely. What's a 'current non-resident'? | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| I am one of the locals, a northern Minnesota resort owner, lake association member and a majority of the available Minnesota Musky Waters are not over run with non-resident Musky Anglers. And, a majority of the available Minnesota Resorts are not over-run with non-resident Musky Anglers. There are some seasonal peak usages on certain specific waters, but the related return on gas and sales taxes revenues that ultimately end up contributing the stocking of Minnesota Musky waters is again miniscule. I live and work here in the industry you are using as a basis for your view. I attached the first link (already), the second is meaningless unless you care to quote the relevant substance to support a point of view not well taken. A non-resident Musky stamp costing $100.00, one dedicated to supplement musky stocking costs, is reasonable and is in-line as compared the costs of fishing Canada and other trophy fisheries outside of the midwest. This isn't a not in my back yard stance. It's a stance to support the Minnesota Trophy Musky Fishery. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | What point of view is 'not well taken'? That the non resident anglers fishing MN muskies DO contribute in a ratio probably proportionate to the actual use of the resource? That those non residents should not be discouraged from fishing MN by being singled out for a $100 'tag'? If ALL Muskie anglers in MN had to pay the c spot, I'd agree it's 'fair'. You say there's very few non resident muskie anglers up there...(which is not my experience in my travels, but that's another argument) and if that's so, what good would the non resident tag do anyway? The budget I linked tells a heck of a story, either way. Your claim that tourists to your state haven't 'paid their fair share' towards the privilege to fish is a very strange way to encourage tourism. I'm sure comparing Canada to MN by saying it costs more to get there so tourists should pay an extra $100 won't create a demand to fish MN. The issue is a budget shortfall...which won't be helped by driving off tourism. | ||
| Stamps are history |
| ||
| $100 is OBSURD! It is completely unnecessary for anyone to spend $100 on a stamp so they can fish public waters for just 1 species that may or may not even catch! You guys need to come down to earth and rethink this, maybe you should focus on better stocking strategies that are more cost effective and possibly spend the money to try and go 100% catch and release! The $100 stamp isn't going to fix anything and is like only putting a band aid on the problem and it will eventually fall off and become useless, yet the non residents will continue to pay for it. You guys act surprised that when the economy isn't doing so hot your family isn't the only place where cutbacks happen. Then you try to solve the problem by having non residents who visit your state and already help stimulate the economy pay for your problems, which will eventually help them decide maybe the grass is greener in Wisconsin. More taxes/fees is NOT always the solution. | |||
| Guest |
| ||
| "What point of view is 'not well taken'? That the non resident anglers fishing MN muskies DO contribute in a ratio probably proportionate to the actual use of the resource? That those non residents should not be discouraged from fishing MN by being singled out for a $100 'tag'? If ALL Muskie anglers in MN paid the c spot, I'd agree it's 'fair'. You say there's very few muskie anglers up there...(which is not my experience in my travels, but that's another argument) and if that's so, what good would the non resident tag do anyway?" Where are your facts to support "DO contribute in a ratio probably proportionate to the actual use of the resource?" This is a presumptuous guess at best. My resort here in Minnesota has what is considered several trophy musky waters and yes, there are non-residents who stay at my place who musky fish. When I compare my total yearly bookings to those acknowledged non-resident musky anglers, they amount to less than 4 % of my business. Now, before you say it's just my business, I am also a member of rather network resort association and my business and ratio is in line with over 200 resorts. I have more business from non-Musky anglers, general vacationers, snowmobile riders and ice-fishing than I do from non-resident musky fisherman. "The budget I linked tells a heck of a story, either way." Care to enumerate this perceived heck of a story, either way? Something of credence to your presumptions and point of views not well taken? Your claim that tourists to your state haven't 'paid their fair share' towards the privilege to fish is a very strange way to encourage tourism. I claimed nothing to this extent with regards to those who panfish, walleye fish, bass and northern pike fishing. These resources are more generally available and self-sustaining. Trophy musky are not and require stocking efforts that bear these costs on a consistent and tailored plan based on individual musky lake needs to not only grow those musky waters yet to blossom, but maintain those nationally recognized ones as trophy musky waters. Minnesota residences have paid well, well, well, beyond the thought of a $100.00 musky stamp through full year property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes, whether they musky fish or not... Non-resident fishing licenses are $40.00 for a single non-resident Minnesota fishing license. It's actually $10.00 cheaper than a non-resident Wisconsin fishing license. What is the cost of musky fishing in Canada on an annual basis. Do they not require a stamp of a special musky fishing license? | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Let's point out the main flaw in your argument. If less than 4% of your guests fish muskies, and the rest fish other species, then the anglers who fish muskies from your resort VS income from them has to be pretty even. Doesn't sound to me like your data supports any significant use of the Muskie resource whatsoever by anglers from out of state. Your state taxes are not my problem, or any tourist's problem...they are yours and the rest of the MN residents who pay them. Much the same could be claimed by ANY state resident of ANY state....so what? You think the management of muskies in WI or any other state is cheap? Nope. Pelican hasn't been stocked since 1998. Not a thing to be done about it, either. Indicate the exact dollars spent on the Muskie program from the current budget, how much came from general funds, and then we can look at Dept Of Tourism estimates as to the return from tourism dollars instate because of the Muskie fishery. Enumerate? Seriously? The last several years I fished Ontario, I bought a Conservation License. And not a single 'meses' yet. | ||
| BenR |
| ||
| Perhaps a 100.00 muskie stamp for MI members only...seems like they would want to pay it and the fishery gets the money it needs, also then the MI members can yell at others for not paying...seems like a win-win for everyone...BR | |||
| BNelson |
| ||
Location: Contrarian Island | Guys, The info Matt had in the initial post is wrong...a friend of mine involved w/ getting other lakes stocked checked with Henry Drewes with the MN DNR and Bemidji is not being cut and he knows of no plans to cut it in the future.... | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 4% of the tourists in MN are now very happy. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| That is confusing - "then the anglers who fish muskies from your resort VS income from them has to be pretty even". Perhaps this is a better explanation, if I did not have this 4% business, I would still be profitable. "Doesn't sound to me like your data supports any significant use of the Muskie resource whatsoever by anglers from out of state." And, your data (incidentally, what data do you reference?) supports really what? Perhaps it's more like probable and what I hear from locals, except people like myself, one who is a local and a resort owner who you say I benefit tremendously from non-resident Musky Anglers. Perhaps this huge number of non-resident Musky anglers stay at motels or camp grounds. Cannot speak for those attendances, but my business and others just do not see their dollars. How long does it take to grow a trophy musky? The delayed mortality from this insignificant usage as you label it takes a very long time to replace and recover and the only way to maintain the trophy musky fishing here in Minnesota is not only continuing the regular stocking intervals on those lakes which need it, but expand the musky range here in Minnesota. Your flaw is thinking there is an unlimited resource up here that you perceive I would welcome with open arms by having more non-resident musky anglers show up. The only way this is going to happen is by having continuous stocking and more musky waters.. The trend is going the other way - lack of stocking funding and the range is barely expanding... The $100.00 non-resident stamp contributes a fair share to the maintaining the stocking and the musky range expansion goals. "Your state taxes are not my problem, or any tourist's problem...they are yours and the rest of the MN residents who pay them. Much the same could be claimed by ANY state resident of ANY state....so what? You think the management of muskies in WI is cheap? Nope." And, your state taxes are not my problem either. I have no reason to fish Wisconsin when I can fish them right off my resort dock. "Indicate the exact dollars spent on the Muskie program from the current budget, how much came from general funds, and then we can look at Dept Of Tourism estimates as to the return from tourism dollars instate because of the Muskie fishery." I would think this is your homework to support your probably and probable assumptions. Your the one saying there is a large number of non-resident Musky anglers who are spending a large amount of money here in Minnesota, on resorts, hotels, campgrounds, etc, paying gasoline and sales taxes and this amounts to all the tourism dollars we receive here in Minnesota. I am saying the opposite is the business reality in my circles. You want to come to Minnesota and fish trophy muskies, you're more than welcome. $40.00 license and a $100.00 musky stamp to help maintain the reason why you all keep wanting to come back. Fair share, simple as that. "The last several years I fished Ontario, I bought a Conservation License." How much is that? | |||
| THA4 |
| ||
Posts: 468 Location: Not where I wanna be! | A stamp will never happen... no matter how much we talk about it on here.... the loss in participation due to the added expense to fish MN would offset the revenue it was intended to generate... That is a risk the MNDNR won't take. Stamps are a thing of the past and public waters are just that, public.... | ||
| leech lake strain |
| ||
Posts: 541 | I understand the majority of the thought processes on here but I would have to think that there could be a better way than a $100 stamp, I'm a local from here too but I would have to say if Wisconsin came up with a stamp like that I would not want to fish there for ski's just because of the fact not that I could'nt afford it but I mean a $100 plus a fishing license crying out loud it's not a deer tag! and your not gonna keep it anyway! | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Your argument makes so little sense I don't even know where to start. 1) I don't think, nor did I ever say, the muskie resource anywhere is unlimited 2) 4% of your trade, by your own claim, are muskie anglers. Very small portion of your business by your claim 3) Small number of muskie anglers equals small impact. Can't be any other way, can it? 4) Probably and probable? Is that enumerating? 5) Wait, the trend is going the other way...what trend? Stocking? What difference would that make to you if no tourists are fishing your waters? None? What the heck are you talking about...you can't have it both ways. Your taxes pay for walleyes, and all other management, habitat improvement, etc. Show me the dollars spent out of this budget on Muskies, and we'll look at the estimated impact of non resident muskie anglers. If you don't know, you have no argument either way. 6) I have no reason to fish MN muskies either, I can fish muskies on over 250 lakes here within an hour drive. I fish MN once a year during the Spring Bay Outing. There, I am welcomed beyond expectations, as are my peers. Perfect. 7) I never said your resort was crammed with Muskie anglers. Some are, if the location is a highly desired one, and I hear the Bemidji area is getting plenty of non resident pressure. That's where the issue was...right? 7) I stand by my assertion that attempting to single out the visiting anglers to make up your budget shortfall stocking interruption (that wasn't) is a bad idea. 8) 'How long does it take to grow a trophy musky? The delayed mortality from this insignificant usage as you label it takes a very long time to replace and recover and the only way to maintain the trophy musky fishing here in Minnesota is not only continuing the regular stocking intervals on those lakes which need it, but expand the musky range here in Minnesota.' What? If any of that was even close to reality, it would behoove ALL locals to stop muskie angling immediately, as 4% by your math of your 200 resort's clients are killing off muskies wholesale by CPR related post catch mortality to the point where NR and stocking will not keep up. The data CERTAINLY doesn't support that...see the research forum for details. A conservation License in Ontario is about 23 bucks, if I remember correctly. The resort I stay at provides one at no charge to encourage folks to release more fish. Imagine that. | ||
| Captain |
| ||
sworrall - 7/22/2010 5:34 PM Wait a minute. Joining MI doesn't automatically make one a conservationist or valiant guerrilla fighter of all problems muskie. Some folks, like JS, are 'conservationist'/activist at heart, and are very active in MI efforts to assist the local/national fisheries as a result. It's a few folks who do the lion's share of the work necessary to raise the money from raffles and seminars and shows and do whatever else they can see needs to be done as volunteers. There are only a few folks of this ilk per club of dozens to hundreds. The others, who may not necessarily have the time or resources (or perhaps, desire) to be as dedicated, and by far are the lager group, are the very folks who the dedicated conservationists rely upon to fund the projects they create, and make up the core of the folks who, when the club calls upon them, step up and make the funds available. I disagree with what some had to say. MI is a 'club', and needs to remember that. If being a member and attending meetings is not an enjoyable experience for everyone....the club will shrink until there's no one left but the 'conservationists'. I've been involved in MI as a member of 5 MI clubs and an active supporter since the early 80's... and I have seen this happen more than once. Precious few truly lead MI organization/conservation efforts, and to those folks I will forever owe unbridled respect and admiration. Those folks never forget to highly value all MI members and ALL prospective new members, offer them due public respect, expect nothing more from any of them other than what they are able and willing to offer....all the while never forgetting if one begins to expect or demand compensation, whether in recognition or otherwise, one is no longer a volunteer. That said, MI is a good prospect for raising the funds needed to keep the stocking levels at today's numbers...if they approach the rest of us as peers and explain the need carefully and fully. I don't want anyone up in my face, I'd like to hear the facts, how the money is to be raised, and where it will be spent, and I'm all in. I'd be in for a donation, and I've never fished there. Thanks Mr Worrall for understanding my point. Obviously FSF was either one of the folks I met or one just like them. I have no issues with Muskies Inc, and I clearly stated that, just my local chapter. There are tons of great people out there, just mine was loaded with gloats. That's fine, I dont need to be a part of that club to share the passion and fun for musky fishing with others and my kids. I have introduced several people to musky fishing and they thank me for how willing I was to help them get started. I put my time on the water like the rest of us working folks which means I am not a professional. Some people obviously take it too seriously and forget what matters most and that is MORE people that share a common interest to bring more support and ultimately dollars. Just because someone isnt a member of MI doesnt mean they aren't doing their share to contribute. Each of us goes out and buys the hottest new baits every year, who do you think that supports? Many of these companies are based in the Upper Midwest and hopefully those jobs stay here. So, it may not be fingerlings that are put in a lake, it is someone's livelihood at stake. I guess shame on me for not handing out my money to somebody when I dont know what it is going to be used for. At least with Pheasants Forever you know that for every $1 donated, $.90 of it goes to habitat. | |||
| Top H2O |
| ||
Posts: 4080 Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | A muskie stamp of about $10-$15 dollars would be fine....use the money for stocking and habitat preservation ,........ But do it in ALL states that have muskies. That way no one can complain about "outa towners" not helping do their fair share. Mr. Skairie is right,....... states will cut back on their budgets, and we as common muskie nuts will have to pick up the slack if WE want to keep on enjoying fishing our favorite Lakes. Just a thought. Jerome | ||
| Mike Crawford |
| ||
| In my eyes its really sad to see somthing like this coming down to whether your a member of muskies inc or not....... I mean I will come straight out and say that I am not a member of muskies inc, yet I will fish every tournament that they run just simply for the fact of giving something back to the resource. Being a Member or not means nothing when it comes to accomplishing the same goal and that is maintaining a great stocking program for all lakes in this state and all species of fish. I can remember just last year when I fished the Frank Snieder Muskie tournament in September. This tournament has proven to be an incredibly well run and exciting tournament sponsered by Muskies Inc. Every year this tournament makes sure to give money back to DNR to help maintain the musky fishery in the Walker MN area. The only problem is last year Muskies INC donated a 3,000 dollar check of which went to buying up shoreline of a lake that was not even fishable for muskies. Correct me if i'm wrong. This is the exact reason that I hope this year Muskies Inc finds a better way of making sure the money is directed straight back to the lakes in this tournament. Tournaments are a great way to fund projects such as stocking as long as the money made is used to ensure great fishing to come. Basically what I'm saying is that if we want to ensure great muskie fishing for years to come we are all going to have to step up the plate and donate something back to these fisheries we have come to love. Mike Crawford | |||
| Musky Brian |
| ||
Posts: 1767 Location: Lake Country, Wisconsin | Since you keep bringing up Canada as an example, a conservation license for non locals runs 34.00 ( annual). MOST people only travel there once a year, that would be only 21.50$$ And you are proposing that someone pay 140.00$ for the right to fish Muskies in Minnesota? Not even worth arguing because it so outrageous and you are standing on a mountain alone, Steve is dead on with everything he said. I think many of us would be willing to contribute something financially to the cause...within REASON, what you are throwing out there is just pure nonsense. Edited by Musky Brian 7/23/2010 12:20 AM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |