|
|
| Thanks for posting this list |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4080
Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | So, Is there a positive list of businesses that support keeping the spearing ban.
I don't feel anti American when I support things that are good and beneficial to others or conserving a Trophy water system.
Like someone said,... its my money to spend as I choose, and I won't support places that want to spear more fish on Cass Lake.
Has nothing to do with being a good American , and everything to do with knowing who your going to side with.................... Me,.............. I'm siding with the hard working folks that want to protect Cass Lake Trophy Muskie and Pike fishery.
Jerome |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8793
| When you support something publicly, and you attach your name to it, you take the risks associated with that position. In this particular case, ot's loss of revenue from people who don't agree with your stance.
While the idea of a publicized list of names of people whose businesses you should not support leaves a bad taste in my mouth? This is how things get done. If you can't appeal to someone's sense of "greater good"? You appeal to their sense of financial self preservation. If the people in question want our financial support? To some degree they have to play by our rules. |
|
| |
|
|
Personally I think banning spearing based on the presumption it will affect the muskie population is wrong. It is already illegal to spear muskies.
We don't ban deer hunting in certain areas because some people may or do poach deer.
I do feel Cass lake has benefited from the ban as far as having a healthier pike population. If the ban is lifted there should be a slot put in place that will be similar to some of the changed slots this year, which would allow spearers to more easily identify and spear smaller pike for the table.
This should be a pike issue, not a muskie issue.
I think a lot of people are sitting on a pretty high horse regarding this one.
John Skarie |
|
| |
|
Posts: 60
Location: Lake Minnetonka | Kellet, if you have time, would you please give a synopsis of the reasons why you and others have spent countless hours fighting the lifting of this ban so we can all be on the same page? |
|
| |
|
|
The DNR has said, and I have heard this from Bob Strand himself.
Banning spearing on Cass had little or no affect on the overall muskie population.
The population increased in density during the ban primarily from the practice of C&R gaining popularity in the 80's and even more so in the 90's.
More fish will die from us letting them go on Cass than would die from the spear.
I would be my house on that statement.
This should be fought as a pike issue, and not waged as a war from a muskie standpoint. |
|
| |
|
|
Forgot to sign off on the last one.
JS |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8793
| John, have you thought about the fact that maybe the muskie anglers of the world also want to see the pike populations protected? I think most would agree that when it comes to conservation issues, it doesn't matter whether it's pike, muskies, walleyes, or any other sport fish. We just want to see things moving forward and not backward... |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Yes John, it is a pike issue. But its also an ecological balance issue and if in short order the population structure of northern pike in the lake gets whacked, it could have ramifications to everything in the lake from baitfish to panfish to muskies and everything else. I also have heard from a DNR official (unofficially) that there is expected to be little to no impact to the muskie population but that there is certainly fear of the pike population being significantly affected in not very many years (3-5). Doesn anyone know the short or long term affects? No. I think many of us would rather not find out to begin with. I only ask that the DNR be allowed to make the decisions about proper fish and game management and not politicians. |
|
| |
|
| Reasons to fight the Ban being lifted legislatively are basically like a buckshot spread. Its long so just skip it if you really dont care.
1 Muskie size and numbers started going up beyond that of Leech lake (the only similar lake) within 10 years, while angler attitude and regulations on size were the same the fish came back on Cass.
2 Big Pike, this is the reason they want to get back on without a doubt, they want to spear Big Pike.
3 Will Muskies be speared both by accident and on purpose? I believe that 99.9% would never intentionally spear a Muskie although having the name of the guy that attacked Frank on the supporters list makes me uneasy.
4 The DNR supports the ban because it is a true trophy Muskie Lake as well as a trophy Pike lake, it maintains this without any special regulations for any species.
5 As the lake is there are as I mentioned no special regulations and no stocking of any species on the lake; its totally self sustaining and becoming one of our top Walleye lakes as well.
6 Its a top 10 requested lake on the lake finder, its the only one without special regs other than the ban that also receives no stocking.
7 Recent creels 2008 and 2009 report 15,000 and 23,000 hours targeting MUE or about 9% and 14% respectively. Of course a lot of fishing pressure occurs before MUE season. In the peak months for MUE fishing here is the percent of parties reported seeking MUE, July 16%, Aug 20%, Sept 12%, Oct 28%. I'm afraid this will suffer and less people will come to Cass lake. This is also a concern of those pushing this legislation, they know the money is in Muskies when everyone else goes home.
8 The northern population has good numbers of fish in the 26 to 30 inch size range, with a stable or improving size structure.
9 A DNR modeling study shows that if the ban is lifted on Cass without a Slot the harvest of Pike would increase 52% with a reduction of fish over 30 inches equaling 40%.
10. There are better ways to communicate than through the legislature that would have not caused all of these social problems, we have as recently as a couple weeks ago reached out to the Darkhouse assn. through a mutual friend to have some discussions about this issue and the others we have. He was told they were give the authority to use the legislature to do what they want so that's what they are doing.
There will be no winners and more animosity to each group, that is something they want and desire so they can try to add members, they want to paint us as trying to ban spearing and killing their sport.
Truth be told they are dying on their own as told by their legislator Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, R-Alexandria, "I represent what I think is a dying sport in Minnesota,'' he told the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, which he chairs. They creating enemies within their own ranks because of their anti-Muskie tactics to stop Muskie stocking and push to remove the regulation we have worked on to make MN Muskies what they are.
Do I want to see spearers gone? NO. Have I or any of the Muskie reps ever done anything to stop or Ban this sport in the past 20+ years? NO. I would like to be able to get beyond the petty $#!+ that is I believe going to do no good for any of us, so till then I sit and wait, for the 1% of spearers that wants to spear Muskies, have no regulations or restrictions, wants to remove all of our Muskie regulations, its states to stop stocking Muskies and we wont need a lic increase (all of which has been declared publicly and through actions, in person at their meetings, public meetings and legislatively; all by the leadership), to talk to people that want to enjoy spearing some Pike for the table, people that want to see spearing live into perpetuity.
So to answer the question, Can spearing be done with little or no damage to the Pike and Muskie population? I think so; as long as everyone understand the need to protect each species to a degree. As its written it will cause allot of problems.
20 years ago along with the spearing Ban; it was negotiated that Muskies would be total C&R, but that fell apart. I think is still a bit of an issue with those folks today.
Told you it was going to be a long one
|
|
| |
|
|
Pretty sure I said the pike population should be protected by a slot if the ban is lifted.
As muskie anglers making this a muskie issue will do nothing but hinder our efforts to expand the numbers of muskie lakes. The spearers will lock horns with us any way they can.
This needs to be publically addressed as a pike concern, which is very legitimate as it is one. There are many muskie anglers out there who profess they are against spearing on any muskie lake and also those that are against spearing altogether. I think that attitude is counterproductive to our muskie interests, and doesn't address the real concern of what spearing can do to a trophy pike population. The MMA has supported not implementing any future spearing bans on new muskies waters, and shouldn't be opposed to this ban being lifted if the pike population can be protected to keep it a trophy pike fishery.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | JS - I'm certain someone will correct me, but the advocates of opening the spearing up are also adamantly opposed to allowing a restrictive/protective slot to be put in place to protect the pike. In addition, I believe they are trying to significantly reduce the number of special regulations on Pike statewide as well as to possibly remove any slot adherance for darkhouse angling (spearing). These statewide changes are a lot scarier than just opening up Cass Lake to spearing. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 639
Location: Hudson, WI | I think Robert Farte at Cass City Pawn should be supported. With that name, he's had an uphill battle his entire life. |
|
| |
|
| Yes they want to be an elite group of outdoorsmen with no regulations or restrictions (they call us elitists), a group that is more concerned about Muskie season closing on Dec 1 than even stocking new lakes. They feel Muskie angler should be able to fish for or harvest fish in the winter. In other words knock down one more barrier for them to spear Muskies.
Thats the admitted end game. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8793
| Moltisanti - 3/27/2011 6:47 PM
I think Robert Farte at Cass City Pawn should be supported. With that name, he's had an uphill battle his entire life.
|
|
| |
|
|
Thrax;
There are those that are opposed to slots and are trying to say that spearers should not have to adhere to those rules. The logic there is so ridiculous I don't even know where to start with that.
That is another battle that should be addressed seperately. The focus here should be to protect the large pike on Cass for the sake of the fishery and for fisherpeople who want to be able to actually catch pike that aren't hammerhandles.
Supporting a slot on Cass if the ban is lifted should be our main concern. If the spearers want to make that another battle than so be it. Eventually the insanity of them opposing regs that will improve our fisheries will work against them.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I agree that the spearers are very afraid of having their sport banned completely. They should be for good reason - there are a lot of people who would like to see spearing banned.
I believe the spearers are mistaking a big mistake if they think its only some Muskie anglers that do not like spearing. My experiences indicate that there is a large percentage of all fishermen that do not like spearing. I have seen spearers get chastised by people who were fishing sunfish and know a number of Walleye and Bass fisherman that cannot stand the thought of spearing gamefish. I grew up in central MN where many Northern Pike fisherman simply hated the spearers because of the number of large Pike killed by the spearers every winter.
The fact is that spearing is a "kill only" sport. Its not like fishing where most fish can be released to live another day. That alone bothers a lot of people whether they have any interest in Muskie fishing or not.
I believe that the greatest danger to spearing is not other fishermen. Rather, it is the animal rights groups that believe spearing should be banned because they believe it is cruel and barbaric in nature. If the animal rights people ever decided to campaign against spearing, the darkhouse people could be in big trouble. Their little 1% of the fishing population could easily be overwhelmed by a well-funded campaign.
I believe the spearing organizations are making a big mistake by pushing legislation aimed at expanding spearing. While legislation may expand their spearing opportunites, legislation could also restrict it or ban it altogether. Once the legislative ball starts rolling, there is no way to know where it will end up.
Just my viewpoint. |
|
| |
|
| Honestly, If the majority of people want to allow spearing on Cass, it should be allowed. Isn't that how this whole thing called democracy works? Majority vote? All that sort of good stuff. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | That is a good point. The majority should rule on this issue. If a majority wants spearing, then fine. And if a majority want to ban spearing altogether, then that should happen too - correct?
It is actually a very small, but very vocal, group of that is pushing to allow spearing on Cass. They may have the backing of some in the legislature, but that support is thin and could flip on a moments notice.
I believe that the danger that the spearers are bringing onto themselves is awaking the people who don't like spearing. Before the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec 7, 1941, there were some in the Japanese miltary who were warning against attacking the USA. They feared doing so would only awaken a sleeping giant that would, in the end, defeat them. And that is exactly what happened.
In the same way, the spearers may now be awakening a sleeping giant in the majority of people who don't like spearing. Once that sleeping giant awakens and begins to move against them, who will come to their defense? The Muskie fishermen? No. The Walleye fishermen? No. Bass fishermen? No. The few in the legislature that support them now? Not likely.
The spearers may very likely be sowing the seeds of their destruction. They are currently alienating those that may be their greatest allies, (other fishermen), while awakening those who are their worse enemies (the animal rights groups). Not a good idea.
Just my view. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | I couldn't have said it better myself Herb. |
|
| |
|
| Guest - 3/28/2011 10:00 AM Honestly, If the majority of people want to allow spearing on Cass, it should be allowed. Isn't that how this whole thing called democracy works? Majority vote? All that sort of good stuff. NO. Majority vote should NOT decide issues where expertise is required.
We can all have and express our opinions, but there's very very few of us who know anything at all about professional fisheries management. The DNR should be allowed to manage the fisheries without interference from legislators. You'd like them to listen to input from the end users, but ultimately the decisions should be theirs to make. Believe me, you do not want anything to do with a "democratic" conservation congress system like Wisconsin uses. |
|
| |
|
| I think you're missing the point. You're going for the old ,"they're going to protect us from ourselves" mentality. The fisheries are managed for the people. If the majority of people want to be allowed to spear a lake, they should be allowed to. Then, once the majority has decided, it is up to the DNR to implement rules and regulations for managing the fishery based on wha the Majority decides.
I'm not even for spearing. I just think that the majority should be able to decide as long as it is within the confines of the law. Last time I checked, spearing wasn't Illegal in Minnesota. No matter how much we disagree with something, we need to let issues be decided by vote. Its the only fair way. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8793
| Guest...
So if the majotiry of folks think muskies are going to eat all their walleyes, than the DNR should stop stocking them? Or suppose the majority of people think there should be no size slot or creel limits for walleye? Should the DNR then taylor their management practices to the majority? What of the majority of folks think there should be no closed seasons to protect spawning fish?
You have to remember two things here:
1. The majority of folks just have their own self interests at heart. The quality or sustainability of fishieries is something they likely don't understand and don't care about.
2. The majority of folks have no IDEA what the best approach is to something like this. They are driven by emotion, greed, selfishness, and something they heard at the bar the other night.
Just because an idea is popular, does NOT mean it's a good idea. With this, and many other issues, rules and regulations are (and should be) decided by the folks who actually KNOW what they are doing, and NOT by the majority, who likely knows little if anything about the subject. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32895
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | You want what's 'fair' according to a 'majority' vote to determine fisheries and game management?
Be careful what you ask for. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Watch out guest or else the sunfish people could put a halt to muskie and walleye stocking whenever they want since sunfish is targeted by the most anglers in the state. Just saying... |
|
| |
|
| With that kind of logic,I suppose we should simply due away entirely with the whole democratic process in this country. So based on your second point, it would probably be a good idea for people who knew nothing about U.S. foreign policy, nuclear energy, global warming and cooling cycles, as well as almost every other issue to never participate in a presidential election again? So unless youre a retired Four Star General, nuclear physicist, and ecologist you don't have an educated opinion about any of this stuff?
Seriously, the average voter knows next to nothing on any of these issues, but yet we vote for people based on their opinion of them. We elect people, to make decisions on these issues, that know nothing about it. Ever think about that? Politicians are well versed in one area, manuevering around the law. Yet, we have politicians deciding about issues such as health care, foreign relations, and science.
Look at your first point. "The majority of folks just have their own self interests at heart." And what is your stock in this? I'm guessing that based on your screen name, you have your own self interests at heart.
Just curious, in your opinion, what makes someone credible enough to have an opinion about this? Do they need to be a fish biologist, an ecologist, seasoned angler? Or do they just have to agree with you? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32895
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Hey, back off a little.
No one said opinions are the issue.
It's an extraordinarily bad idea to invite special interests to override the management of State managed fisheries by bypassing the experts who have been hired to do that job (not elected...and that's an important distinction); the legislature has no business managing fisheries or wild game.
And no, no one has to agree with me or anyone else here, but I'd suggest a far more compelling argument than what you presented if you want folks to agree with you. I didn't let my KIDS get by with the 'But, EVERYONE is doing it, why can't I?'
Presidential elections are, by their very nature, up to the general public to decide. That's why they call 'em 'elections'.
Fish and game management in any State shouldn't be.
As you know ( or at least should know, based on where you are posting from) Wisconsin has the Conservation Congress. I think MN should be happy they don't. |
|
| |
|
| I would seriously challenge you to find an issue that, given enough time, did not come out in favor of what the vast majority wanted. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 313
Location: Bemidji, Lake Vermilion | Steve, thanks for making the important distinction between elected and hired (between legislators and DNR employees).
Wink Wink Guest - I have a BS degree in Aquatic Biology from Bemidji State University (right next to Cass Lake) and have lived here in the greater Bemidji/Cass Lake area for 22yrs. I fish Cass Lake all the time.
I'll appreciate my own thoughts on this one! Plus other professional or at least well informed thoughts! Just not the thoughts of politicians who have no business doing an "end run" around the DNR on MN fisheries management. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 8793
| Guest - 3/28/2011 9:08 PM
With that kind of logic,I suppose we should simply due away entirely with the whole democratic process in this country. So based on your second point, it would probably be a good idea for people who knew nothing about U.S. foreign policy, nuclear energy, global warming and cooling cycles, as well as almost every other issue to never participate in a presidential election again? So unless youre a retired Four Star General, nuclear physicist, and ecologist you don't have an educated opinion about any of this stuff?
Seriously, the average voter knows next to nothing on any of these issues, but yet we vote for people based on their opinion of them. We elect people, to make decisions on these issues, that know nothing about it. Ever think about that? Politicians are well versed in one area, manuevering around the law. Yet, we have politicians deciding about issues such as health care, foreign relations, and science.
Look at your first point. "The majority of folks just have their own self interests at heart." And what is your stock in this? I'm guessing that based on your screen name, you have your own self interests at heart.
Just curious, in your opinion, what makes someone credible enough to have an opinion about this? Do they need to be a fish biologist, an ecologist, seasoned angler? Or do they just have to agree with you?
Opinions are fine. Everyone is entitled to one. But fisheries management, like many other things, is probably best left to the people who know it, understand how it works, and DO it for a living. Would you let a roofer tell you how to fix your plumbing? Would you go to a mechanic for medical advice, or hire an electrician to do your taxes? I would hope not.
As for your comments on government? Heheh. Yep, we elect them based on what a majority thinks is best. How's that working out lately? |
|
| |
