|
|
Posts: 70
| I would buy the stamp. I actually do not understand why states do not already do this. All the great lakes states require salmon and trout stamps, as a way of supporting those fisheries, why not a musky stamp to support musky stocking? |
|
| |
|
| Unfortunately the administrative costs of our wonderful DNR beurocracy make stamps a break even situation.
The Walleye stamp that MN has lost money for 3 years in a row, and now is making some revenue.
If muskie anglers are willing to donate, than a donation to a Muskies Inc. club that funds stocking or muskie related projects is a much better donation as far as getting the money to where it needs to be spent.
JS
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 8772
| I don't know that a stamp makes sense... It's great for fish that are typically harvested for the table, but how many folks are going to buy a stamp just in case? I buy the inland trout and GL salmon stamps because I just might wind up wanting to take some home. Unless a big muskie dies on me, I have no plans to harvest any muskies, so for me the stamp would be useless. I also think possession of the stamp might actually encourage harvest for some folks. "I caught this muskie, and I paid for the stamp, so I am going to keep it because I can." Think of the folks that regularly limit out and fill the freezer with fish because it's their "right"...
A muskie stamp might be good in theory, but the consequences of implementing it may just be worse than doing nothing at all.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32879
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Because the great lakes trout and salmon stamps support what is basically a put/take fishery where harvest is ENCOURAGED big time. I only buy one if I plan to go catch salmon and trout and kill them. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | I like the 54 inch limit proposal for the simple reason that a 54 inch minimum would allow people to keep a record class fish. If any state became catch and release only, then the state record wouldn't mean a thing and the chances of the world record becoming legit would be lessoned.
And just think of the controversy if MN was catch and release only and someone caught a 62x32 inch Muskie on a MN lake. If someone did catch a Muskie of that magnitude, I would like to see it kept and become the new world record - no matter where it was caught. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Guest - 12/5/2011 12:27 PM
Unfortunately the administrative costs of our wonderful DNR beurocracy make stamps a break even situation.
The Walleye stamp that MN has lost money for 3 years in a row, and now is making some revenue.
If muskie anglers are willing to donate, than a donation to a Muskies Inc. club that funds stocking or muskie related projects is a much better donation as far as getting the money to where it needs to be spent.
JS
Dang it John, stop making sense! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | Hi everyone,
Not sure a "stamp" would solve the $$ problem, especially in this electronic world we live in. Requiring a stamp in and of itself has a cost, so the cost benefit of implementing a stamp program may not be in the best interest of anyone....
Now...(playing off of the idea here somewhat). States are already strapped for $$ as Treats mentioned. So...just like on a tax return, you can donate money to a wildlife fund out of your return, why not have that as an option when you purchase your license? Quick question at the counter, you state your amount and off it goes to stocking efforts (hopefully) Brainstorming here for a moment with this, in MN we already have to do a quick survey to purchase licensing for migratory waterfowl, so it could be a way to collect data as well.
Again, not sure of all the logistics that might go into something like this in terms of $$ allocation, but it could make it more available for stocking efforts. I also think it would not be that hard to have a muskie endorsement category on the license if one plans to fish muskies and make it a nominal fee. We buy the license already for the opportunity to fish as it is, which disregards catch and keep or catch and release...
Isn't that pretty much the same as the great lakes stamp? you need it in order to keep fish, but if you are out there running equipment to target those species would you not be cited if you didn't have the salmon and trout endorsements? hard to prove at times, yes...especially in the muskie world, but the endorsement could give the opportunity to keep one and help promote c + r...
I think many would pay a small amount for the opportunity to target these fish... With popularity still growing in the sport, the tax revenue base cannot handle the extra efforts needed to sustain the fisheries..
Steve
Edited by VMS 12/5/2011 2:10 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | because VMS in the world of Muskies there are the guys who do all the work and then the slackers and others (tribes and recreational fishermen) who ruin their efforts by treaty or by not being as smart/good/equipped (fill in the blank) and don't spend as much, work as hard or donate as much time as they do so they should either be restricted for their lack of effort or support ... or be forced to pay as much in commensurate moneys (stamp, fee fill in the blank) until those who know best are satisfied that it's enough for them to rightfully share the water and the fishing privaledge with them ... it's winter outside ... winternet is here and we'll learn all about it for the next 5-6 months. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 968
Location: N.FIB | thats right,winternet is here,lets start another world record dispute,lol |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota |
Doesn't it still comes down to $$? I, by no means said a stamp or endorsement would be THE way to go...but I do see it as a possible option depending on the logistics and $$ required. It may be a break even situation as the walleye stamp...
As a question that I would be very curious of anyone in the know might have insight to: which freshwater species of fish in North America is the most expensive to stock and maintain?
If muskies happen to be at the top of that list, wouldn't it be a good thing to have the opportunity to somehow donate in a more efficient manner through licensing OPTIONS (regardless of how it is done...donation, stamp, endorsement, what have you) in the long run so long as the $$ raised go to stocking and expansion efforts?
Regardless...the $$ have to come from somewhere to support stocking efforts in the expanding world of muskie fishing..
Almost sounds like you're mad at me sled...
Edited by VMS 12/5/2011 5:00 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 49
| John is like, 6 for 6 lately with throwing the red challenge flag.......
I'm not entirely sure of what you said, sled.......but I agree wid it... and it will always be that way.
Yes,....... I would support it.....and listen to options....
and I don't like the stamp idea, anymore. Or....garrantee to me that those dollars won't be used for some other project.....then I might consider it.
Edited by Jolly Roger 12/5/2011 5:05 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | jonnysled - 12/5/2011 11:15 AM
i'm not interested in starting a stamp collection for pheasants, grouse, deer, muskies, smallies etc... plus in your life it's just you.
The MN DNR has no interest in making stamps for every species of fish and game. It's just more work for them and by the time you figure out the cost to manage the stamp you're probably not going to net much of anything anyway.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | VMS - 12/5/2011 4:55 PM
Almost sounds like you're mad at me sled...
not at all ... it's a general theme when the stamp conversation comes up or especially when we rally support for asking to add more regulations to ourselves. i have conservative views and believe that stuff is a slippery slope.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 3479
Location: Elk River, Minnesota | I'll give you that one...
Sad thing is, regulation is for those who don't abide, but yet those who do abide are the ones who see the restriction to it. Those who don't abide could care less..
Steve
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | VMS - 12/5/2011 4:31 PM
I'll give you that one...
Sad thing is, regulation is for those who don't abide, but yet those who do abide are the ones who see the restriction to it. Those who don't abide could care less..
Steve
The Dude abides.
Sorry, that had to be done. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 559
| PP Dang I near peeed myself when I read that I would be for C andR only I have never kept one and hope I never have to |
|
| |
|
Posts: 531
| I know I am late to post a reply from my first post of a musky stamp. Originally my thought of the stamp was for people to specifically target the fish, and for those who think they may keep a fish to buy them.
I know several people already said they do not like the idea, however I know in my group of musky fishing friends I dont think any one of them would think twice if the stamp was 30, 40, or 50$ (heck thats the price of 2 musky baits) For me the freedom of going fishing when i want and knowing that at least those who do play by the rules are helping out with a sport I love. It would leave much less of a bad taste in my mouth when i see a large (or maybe not so large) fish kept from people who accidentaly caught one.
But I see where alot of people are coming from, you hope but not know the money is really going to the fish. Also I understand not wanting a stamp for every animal of fish you target. It was somthing I kept mullin over in my head when I am in the tree stand.
Edited by anzomcik 12/5/2011 6:18 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 85
| The problem is that it's not this "internet" group of dedicated muskie heads that are keeping fish, for the most part.
It's the other 90% of MN anglers that want a fish to "stuff" because they're simply not up to speed on the fisheries and apex predator balance, stocking, etc. and all other "winternet" points.
Generalizations here, but for the most part they are mostly valid:
1) First off, they don't know all the regs.
2) They can't properly identify a pike from a muskie.
3) They don't have a stick/board that goes to 50-54 or whater inch minimum.
4) Due to the lack of monies already mentioned, it's not enforceable.
5) Some out of muskie spite will say "F" it and still keep/kill.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 518
Location: Cave Run Lake KY. | C&R only. 1 fish in possession over 50". |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | ChinWhiskers - 12/5/2011 5:45 PM
C&R only. 1 fish in possession over 50".
This is not catch and release only. You cannot have catch and release only, yet still be able to have 1 fish in possession as then it is not catch and release only. What you are describing is a statewide 50 inch limit, not catch and release only. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 2384
Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | anzomcik - 12/5/2011 4:16 PM
I know several people already said they do not like the idea, however I know in my group of musky fishing friends I dont think any one of them would think twice if the stamp was 30, 40, or 50$ (heck thats the price of 2 musky baits)
You may know a lot of people like that, but I run into SOOOO many muskie anglers that won't even buy a $2 raffle ticket where all the proceeds go to stocking their home lake it's amazing. Oh yeah, and they'd also be buying a chance to win a boat! I think that well over 1/2 the muskie anglers wouldn't buy it personally. |
|
| |
|
| I'd never keep one, so generally yes, I'd support total C&R. But Hooker has a point if a C&R reg led to less stocking then that's an issue. Conversely if budgets go to hell and stocking drops anyway, then I think we should push for C&R. (but muskie stocking is small change compared to walleye stocking - if budgets get real bad there probably needs to be greater restrictions on walleye harvest) |
|
| |
|
Posts: 572
Location: Maplewood, MN | Silver Scale - 12/5/2011 8:19 AM
54 inch minimum on trophy lakes capable of producing fish of this size. Leech, Bemidji, Cass, Mil Lacs, Vermilion, etc. Rest of the state leave at 48 inch. Study lakes like Elk, etc leave as catch and release.
Curious as to manadorty catch and release on lakes like Lac Seul if it's made any difference in population or increased the size structure?
I was thinking of Lac Seul as I read this as well. I would support catch and release only. Enough fish are killed by mishandling anyway. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 456
Location: Kansas City BBQ Capitol of the world | Howdy guys,
I am usually a lurker on here but wanted to throw in my 2 cents to this topic. 47 people have voted no and there has been 49 responses mostly in the I favor category. I would vote no and this is why.
Where I live we do not have Muskies that get very big so every year I go to Minnesota in search of my dream fish. The limit for a keeper I had set for myself is 54" and I have came close twice but had to release them for being short. When I go to Minnesota I drop a couple thousand dollars every year into the local economy in search of my dream fish. I probably have 8 to 10K spent so far in this quest and I really hope this fish dosn't cost me 30K LOL.
What I'm saying is that fish, when we hook up, I want that to be my fish that I've worked so hard for and scheduled my life around for all these years. I want it to have the same battle scars and the same markings and be the one I took on mano e mono. So If I ever get that 54+ I'm taking it. Anything smaller is going back. It's a one time thing and the way I see it I earned it. Some of you guys may not like that but that's my reason for voting No and i'm sticking to it, but if that ever happens I guess I will need to decide then.
A fifty would be nifty but a fifty four is four inches more!
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | Muskie Treats - 12/5/2011 6:26 PM
anzomcik - 12/5/2011 4:16 PM
I know several people already said they do not like the idea, however I know in my group of musky fishing friends I dont think any one of them would think twice if the stamp was 30, 40, or 50$ (heck thats the price of 2 musky baits)
You may know a lot of people like that, but I run into SOOOO many muskie anglers that won't even buy a $2 raffle ticket where all the proceeds go to stocking their home lake it's amazing. Oh yeah, and they'd also be buying a chance to win a boat! I think that well over 1/2 the muskie anglers wouldn't buy it personally.
I would agree completely. For all the people saying they would happily support a stamp, how many of them donate money to their local musky club or MI chapter? If everyone who claims they would pay for a musky stamp were to take that money and donate it to a club, I'd bet those clubs would have a lot of money. I know some do donate quite a bit of money and time to their clubs.
Honestly, if the stamp was 30, 40 or 50 dollars no one would buy that. Certainly not the average angler who doesn't target muskies and certainly not the die hard musky guy who isn't going to keep one anyway. |
|
| |
|
| For the record......the stamp that Roger Watters was working on was more of a "tag" and not so much stamp. It was a one per year deal.
For those stuck on picking apart the stamp/tag idea, you can certainly fish without harvest. Just because you buy it, doesn't mean you've got to keep a fish, or that you're necessarily going to. But if you do, you get one fish. Now, you get one a day above the size limit per day, and no money goes into replacing the fish other than what we rely on from the DNR and their existing monies. So what if someone feels entitled to kill A fish a year since they bought a stamp. Better than two a weekend 10 weekends out of the year.
Correlating the two stamps in conversation, or comparing and contrasting them, amounts to arguing for the sake of arguing, IMO. The fish, the fisheries, stocking numbers, monetary impact, numbers of anglers, on, and on, and on,......not to mention the mindset among those angling for trout/salmon vs muskies couldn't be farther from each other. |
|
| |
|
| I think that in order to musky fish certain waters, there could be a stamp or something along those lines. I fish GB most of the fall and would love to see the thousand of guys that go out there every year to target musky chip in and help the stocking efforts since there is almost no natural reproduction that occurs out there. I don't know if I think that people keeping musky is really the problem. I think its more along the lines of people not realizing that when they catch a musky they can't treat it like a channel cat. Three years ago on GB I saw dozens of people catching fish and posing for three of four pictures only to hand the fish to their buddies who also posed for pictures. They'd release the fish, keep on trolling, and the fish would pop up a minute or two later and go belly up. I'd need two hands to count the number of times I've had to pull in lines and try and revive these fish. When the waters warm it usually doesnt work. Now, I fully support a 54 inch size limit on trophy waters but I think better education is the key here. |
|
| |
|
| Why do you want to pay more money for a stamp? That's only going to drive up the cost of regular licenses and other fees. The Fish and Boat Commission, DNR, whatever isn't going to improve fishing. I buy annual licenses for three states, which total about $150. I don't need to pay more money, especially when I guarantee there will be no improvements on the water in any way.
I feel as though I'm paying enough between licenses, boat registration, trailer license fees, ramp fees, et cetera. Why should I have to pay more, and why would I want to?
What really bothers me is that people can use the lake for other purposes - picnicing, walking or riding their bike on (well-groomed) trails, using maintained bathrooms, et cetera for FREE. They don't pay a dime, nor are they constantly harassed.
The lake isn't being maintained, but their wood-chip trail is. Why do I have to break out my wallet to be on the water while others get to do their activities for free?
Winter sucks! |
|
| |
|
Location: Eastern Ontario | If fish are properly handled and released stocking is usually not necessary the fish population will be self sustaining. Ontario closed its musky hatchery over 20 years ago and with the exception of The Lake Simcoe Project whoes aim is to reintroduce muskies into Lake Simcoe no stocking is done. The lake where I live and others nearby were last stocked in 1973 yet people from the Chicago area still drive 14 hours non stop to fish them. Musky fishing is as good as it has ever been.
However mandatory total catch and release could be the top of a slipery slope.
Edited by horsehunter 12/6/2011 8:01 AM
|
|
| |
|
|
Guest I don't know what State you are refering to, but in MN the fishery gets "helped" a lot by the DNR and our liscense money. Maybe you need to research that a little.
On a further note, all the things that you think people are doing free are paid for with State taxes. It's your choice to use a bathroom or go on a picnic just like everyone else.
JS
|
|
| |
