Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> muskie stamp? |
| Message Subject: muskie stamp? | |||
CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | There are lots of people already at their limit with license cost. Increasing it may just hurt you in license sales. Plus that increase in license fees doesn't mean the money goes to muskies like a stamp would guarantee. Hooker you bring up valid points as far as darkhouse spearing goes. However there seems to be just plain apprehension on what everyone wants. One minute we are being asked to write and call our represenatives, and show up at a meeting, to show that we have the numbers of musky anglers to make our arguements valid. The next minute we want to keep our numbers "hidden". Perhaps as a community we need to decide if we want others to know our true numbers or not, and not just when we have an agenda. Part of the problem with musky management and deciding if a program is worth it is knowing the true amount of anglers that would benefit from it. That was one of the main reason for a stamp proposal in WI as to get a pulse on the numbers of anglers, as well as a pulse on harvest. So it comes down to do we want to take small baby steps towards managment with potential of staying stagnent and at status quo, or take large steps towards it with the potential of some backlash if our numbers don't prove out to be large enough to prove we have valid concerns? There are risks with both routes. | ||
| Homer |
| ||
Posts: 321 | CiscoKid - 5/1/2012 12:07 PM There are lots of people already at their limit with license cost. Increasing it may just hurt you in license sales. Plus that increase in license fees doesn't mean the money goes to muskies like a stamp would guarantee. Hooker you bring up valid points as far as darkhouse spearing goes. However there seems to be just plain apprehension on what everyone wants. One minute we are being asked to write and call our represenatives, and show up at a meeting, to show that we have the numbers of musky anglers to make our arguements valid. The next minute we want to keep our numbers "hidden". Perhaps as a community we need to decide if we want others to know our true numbers or not, and not just when we have an agenda. Part of the problem with musky management and deciding if a program is worth it is knowing the true amount of anglers that would benefit from it. That was one of the main reason for a stamp proposal in WI as to get a pulse on the numbers of anglers, as well as a pulse on harvest. So it comes down to do we want to take small baby steps towards managment with potential of staying stagnent and at status quo, or take large steps towards it with the potential of some backlash if our numbers don't prove out to be large enough to prove we have valid concerns? There are risks with both routes. It could also end up losing money and distroy any type of options in the future. H | ||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | i don't know Homer ... i think Travis threw that cast at structure.. | ||
| What? |
| ||
Pointerpride102 - 4/30/2012 8:31 PM What? - 4/30/2012 11:04 AM Pointerpride102 - 4/30/2012 11:38 AM Cost of implementation vs revenue from stamp, which one is higher. I'll go with the one on the left. You want more money for fisheries, raise the license fee. Most on here don't know where their license dollars go anyway so that is usually met with much resistance. I'll go with the one on the right, and why not raise the license fee and have a stamp? It has been noted here several times that very few would actually buy the stamp. This is simply not true pointer. What you're saying is that the majority of musky fishermen would be willing to take a chance and not buy the mandatory $10 stamp to musky fish. Really? Then they would have to lie to a game warden if he asked if they were musky fishing. Let's see big kahuna net, 80lb line, d13s, figure 8s, that's right sir, we are fishing for northern pike. "very few would actually buy the stamp" LMAO! I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find. As far as enforcement of the stamp? It would police itself, there be no need to run around and check everyone for a stamp, just check for it during a routine stop. Dude, at least argue from a reasonable point of view if you're going to argue it. | |||
| jonnysled |
| ||
Posts: 13688 Location: minocqua, wi. | "What" you're the one on 2nd, right? why hide?? | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3147 | Travis I like the points you raise too weve played the numbers game with the dnr and everybody screaming "LOOK how big were getting" Minnesotan muskie angler numbers have risen we did need an increase in water. But alot has changed in the last couple years,, fishing got tougher,,maybe its second generation fall off like alot predicted but I think that will mean second generation fall off from band wagon jumping Minnesoatan anglers too. I think Minnesota resident Muskie interest has plateaued and even now starting to fall off slightly but still much bigger then it was 10 years ago. If it sounds selfish we now have our 8 new lakes promised and some identified, were not getting more then that for at least 10 years no matter how optimistic we think anybody who doubts that has not sat in with dnr reps at a meeting where their present. At this point Identifying our numbers isnt going to get us anything If the trend suggests were falling back and were not going to get much anyways even if we show they are slightly rising. I think weve got "all were gonna git" from playing the growing sport card | ||
| What? |
| ||
jonnysled - 5/1/2012 1:06 PM "What" you're the one on 2nd, right? why hide?? "What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid? Should we just assume that you couldn't come up with a reasonable argument against so now you want to change the focus? I'm really tired of you guys coming on here and arguing this without valid arguments. Quote from Happy Hooker, page 1 "im pike fishing I dont need a musky stamp,,,prove me wrong". I think I just did, or at least you've figured out by now that not buying a mandatory musky stamp wouldn't be too bright. *How about some legitimate questions* How many other fishing stamp programs have failed? Can the legislation be written in such a way that the state can't touch it? Could the MN musky stamp revenue be delegated towards new lakes and their management only? | |||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | What? - 5/1/2012 12:31 PM jonnysled - 5/1/2012 1:06 PM "What" you're the one on 2nd, right? why hide?? "What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid? Should we just assume that you couldn't come up with a reasonable argument against so now you want to change the focus? I'm really tired of you guys coming on here and arguing this without valid arguments. Quote from Happy Hooker, page 1 "im pike fishing I dont need a musky stamp,,,prove me wrong". I think I just did, or at least you've figured out by now that not buying a mandatory musky stamp wouldn't be too bright. *How about some legitimate questions* How many other fishing stamp programs have failed? Can the legislation be written in such a way that the state can't touch it? Could the MN musky stamp revenue be delegated towards new lakes and their management only? How much do you plan on bringing in vs. administrative costs? You can't pike fish with musky gear? I beg to differ, I do so quite a bit in Canada. You've hardly proven anything to the contrary. Why would the general, non-musky angler, buy a musky stamp? They wouldn't. How many stamp programs are there? Trout stamp vs musky stamp is apples to oranges. All I've heard about the walleye stamp in MN was it lost money for several years. I'd venture to guess the walleye angling base is much larger than muskies. How much do you plan to charge? $5? Even if 10,000 people buy it that is only $50,000. That wont get you very far, especially once administrative costs are taken out. Why is a musky stamp necessary? You can't guarantee that the funds generated wont be touched. | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3147 | What In your opinion what ARE the biggest issues facing Minnesota muskie fishing that a musky stamp program will now solve?? the darkhouse spearing assoc and their selfish kamikaze wont negotiate all I wanna do is destroy you stance,,,'would Musky Stamp funds help with that??? Will the DNR lets us stock muskies over and above their quotas for what they think is the correct balance for the lake -'throw an extra 100 grand worth of fingerlings in West Battle we'll pay for it" will musky stamp funds do that?? If we want to push the size limit up to 54 do we need muskie stamp funds for that? new lakes??? The Minnesota MI chapters have shown their ready to kick in for cost to help stock what major issue do you see musky stamp funds solving??? | ||
| Flambeauski |
| ||
Posts: 4343 Location: Smith Creek | Why is muskie stamp and trout stamp apples to oranges? | ||
| What? |
| ||
| First things first Happy Hooker. can you honestly say you would *NOT* buy a mandatory $10 stamp if it was enacted? Anyone else here willing to go on record that they would not buy the stamp, even though it might mean you would have to lie to a game warden. Pointer quote: "You can't pike fish with musky gear? I beg to differ, I do so quite a bit in Canada. You've hardly proven anything to the contrary." I never said you couldn't fish for pike with musky gear, I only said it wouldn't be *smart*, and I'm tired of that argument. You're trying to switch things around pointer. How about just answering the question? Seriously, are you saying you would not buy the stamp, even though you know you would be musky fishing? Keep in mind that your basic argument is that the average musky guy is not going to spend the extra $10 when he takes his annual trip to musky fish on Vermillion? How about a local guy like Happy Hooker, do you really think he won't buy the stamp too? Lets ask this hypothetical question, HH? | |||
| Homer |
| ||
Posts: 321 | There are not enough muskie fisherpeople to generate a positive return on something like this. It would just lose money. | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3147 | What if its mandatory then I have to buy it and would??? My point is some people cheat Muskie season dosent open till the first sat in June but you see alot of guys out tossing muskie lures in may 'pike fishing' since they disrespect the sport already you dont think they will in other ways too, has in Im pike fishing I dont need a stamp,,I dont want the true musky fishing population represented in a smaller number then what it is I would HAVE to buy a new mandatory muskie stamp because I fish muskies,, NOW tell me what major Minn muskie issues will these funds now solve | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | What? - 5/1/2012 1:37 PM First things first Happy Hooker. can you honestly say you would *NOT* buy a mandatory $10 stamp if it was enacted? Anyone else here willing to go on record that they would not buy the stamp, even though it might mean you would have to lie to a game warden. Pointer quote: "You can't pike fish with musky gear? I beg to differ, I do so quite a bit in Canada. You've hardly proven anything to the contrary." I never said you couldn't fish for pike with musky gear, I only said it wouldn't be *smart*, and I'm tired of that argument. You're trying to switch things around pointer. How about just answering the question? Seriously, are you saying you would not buy the stamp, even though you know you would be musky fishing? Keep in mind that your basic argument is that the average musky guy is not going to spend the extra $10 when he takes his annual trip to musky fish on Vermillion? How about a local guy like Happy Hooker, do you really think he won't buy the stamp too? Lets ask this hypothetical question, HH? I wouldn't buy one. I no longer live in that region so it wouldn't be worth it. If I was out in that area, I would go pike fishing. If a musky hit my pike bait, so be it. I plan on releasing it anyway, the musky that is. Can you prove that we were not, in fact, pike fishing? Can the same gear not be used for pike? I like to eat pike so it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to fish for them. What is the need for the stamp? I'll support a license fee increase. But I won't support a stamp. Edited by Pointerpride102 5/1/2012 2:57 PM | ||
| h2os2t |
| ||
Posts: 941 Location: Freedom, WI | An estimate from 2006 for anglers is 1.4 million in WI, an estimate from Simonson in 2008 was 25% fish for Muskies. For round numbers take 300,000 x $10 = 3 million, not chump change. Those are numbers I have on hand and I am sure it is a little off but just to point out the dollars that could be generated if the $ went just to Muskies. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | h2os2t - 5/1/2012 2:41 PM An estimate from 2006 for anglers is 1.4 million in WI, an estimate from Simonson in 2008 was 25% fish for Muskies. For round numbers take 300,000 x $10 = 3 million, not chump change. Those are numbers I have on hand and I am sure it is a little off but just to point out the dollars that could be generated if the $ went just to Muskies. That is assuming no administrative costs and every single musky angler buying one. Now, take that $10 and apply it to the 1.4 million anglers in the form of a license fee increase. That money cannot be touched. There is no guarantee of that with a stamp. | ||
| CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/1/2012 3:49 PM Now, take that $10 and apply it to the 1.4 million anglers in the form of a license fee increase. That money cannot be touched. There is no guarantee of that with a stamp. How can that money not be touched? From my understanding there is nothing saying what the fee increase of license would go to. A stamp, if written correctly, clearly indicates what the money has to be used for. It CANNOT be touched for anything else. This was all hashed out last year. Sure there was a year money out of one of the stamp funds was taken, but there was legal action to correct it. License fee increase guarantees nothing other than the possibility that more money is taken in IF license sales don't drop. So why keep promoting a license fee increase that can be used anywhere, and not specifically for muskies? What the stamp is needed for is a good question to start out with, and here in WI I thought we did a pretty good job of clearly defining what that stamp would accomplish if it became reality. Reasons to have one in MN may or may not be for the same reasons, and like Hooker stated in MN you have the darkhouse spearing to worry about in using angler numbers against you. Pointer I thought Flambeauski raised a good question, and that being why is a trout stamp and a musky stamp comparing apples to oranges??? The trout stamp was and still is a huge success. The Sturgeon stamp is a huge success. I haven't found the numbers yet for the walleye stamp in MN, but that doesn't sound to be too successful. However that stamp is different in that it is NOT mandatory for anglers to purchase it. There in lies the problem. Most anglers won't pay extra if they don't have to. It sounds like that is being seen in MN. So lets not use the excuse of the walleye stamp in MN not working unless the Musky stamp would also be mandatory. I say until a stamp becomes reality in MN, and you want to see improved managment then I would do as Skarie suggested and join the MMPA. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32883 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find.' I pretty much guarantee you they wouldn't. Stamps traditionally have been for harvesting or fishing/hunting with the intent to harvest different species of fish and game, and there's your difference when looking t the intent for Great Lakes management, and habitat improvement (stream reclamation) when talking about steam trout fishing. The idea of requiring a stamp for fish that are released at the rate of over 90% or more is probably not going to fly, it's strictly an increase in fees, raises costs in enforcement and administration, and definitely will reduce the numbers of folks fishing for muskies, especially the newbies. There are precious few waters in WI or MN that have muskies and NO Pike, and many have both in numbers and quality. The enforcement nightmare would be reason enough to can the idea. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | You clearly have no clue where your license dollars go, do you Travis. It's ok, very few here actually do. Go do some research and find out. No, not all license dollars go strictly to musky management, but they do go to the fisheries. Improving fisheries benefits all species. More money for fisheries=more money for muskies. Where do you think most of the trout stamp money goes? Why do you think the walleye stamp has had such problems? (Hint: they are very different. Different like apples and oranges.) The sturgeon tag...now we're adding in a kumquat. Create a stamp for muskies and it has potential to become the sole source for funding musky programs. That is how the legislature would look at it. Bye, bye any general fund money that could be intended for muskies. Now what happens if the stamp fails or is marginally successful? Uh oh. | ||
| Muskiefool |
| ||
| I'm 100% against the stamp unless one thing happens first. When that happens I'll be for it. | |||
| CiscoKid |
| ||
Posts: 1906 Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/1/2012 5:32 PM You clearly have no clue where your license dollars go, do you Travis. It's ok, very few here actually do. Go do some research and find out. No, not all license dollars go strictly to musky management, but they do go to the fisheries. Improving fisheries benefits all species. More money for fisheries=more money for muskies. I know where the money goes. Better than others I am sure. For example (readily available links... you get the picture): http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/greatlakes/coregonus.html http://dnr.wi.gov/invest/conservation/fwreports/fwbrochure08_09.pdf What makes you think I have no clue? Because I pose statements for a stamp and against license fee increase? I am all for improving fisheries. I am just stating what you seem to be ignoring and that is the person that started this wanted to improve the musky fishery, and not specifically the fisheries as a whole. License fee increases will improve fisheries as a whole. Most of trout stamp money goes to habitat improvement, but I am sure you know that and am just testing me. Same can hold true for muskies (remember the leech lake spawning ground deal years ago???), or whatever other projects a group wants to request funds for from a stamp. Quit thinking that the stamp is just for stocking. Yes I agree with your last paragraph. However when your funds decrease yearly that are allocated to muskies there gets to be a point that if you lose it you really aren't losing anything because it is so little. Also who is to say that if the stamp fails that the DNR cannot go back to budgeting for muskies if they ever stopped? Another reason the stamp was proposed for WI was because of the money is dwindling. The stamp would ensure there would be money there to continue supplementing the musky management. | ||
| Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | When money gets taken away by legislators, it takes an act of God to get it back. You know more than most where your dollars go, for that I commend you. Though the sport fish dollars cannot be touched, at all. Lots of slippery slopes with a stamp. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
sworrall - 5/1/2012 5:31 PM 'I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find.' I pretty much guarantee you they wouldn't. Stamps traditionally have been for harvesting or fishing/hunting with the intent to harvest different species of fish and game, and there's your difference when looking t the intent for Great Lakes management, and habitat improvement (stream reclamation) when talking about steam trout fishing. The idea of requiring a stamp for fish that are released at the rate of over 90% or more is probably not going to fly, it's strictly an increase in fees, raises costs in enforcement and administration, and definitely will reduce the numbers of folks fishing for muskies, especially the newbies. There are precious few waters in WI or MN that have muskies and NO Pike, and many have both in numbers and quality. The enforcement nightmare would be reason enough to can the idea. Steve, I would hope you could have better appreciated that I'm just tired of that lame argument that only a few would buy the stamp to begin with. I think this can be summarily dismissed as demonstrated with happy hooker changing his mind and saying he would buy the stamp. I contend that the vast majority would comply and buy the stamp in the same manner. Getting back to these finer points; you're contending that if a musky stamp was mandatory it wouldn't raise a game wardens eyebrow if he was just out doing a routine check and pulled up to 2 guys who were figure 8ing d13s claiming to be fishing for pike? Really? Well, in my world typically people in that type of position do not like it when people lie to them, plain and simple. Normal human nature would be for the game warden to “maybe” look for something else he could ticket. BTW, I totally agree that law enforcement would have no recourse to prove they were musky fishing, heck they could even say they were fishing for bluegills with d13s rattling on the end of their rods for that matter, ridiculous but not provable. But I still feel that those pike fisherman would get checked out a little closer than normal, and you don’t. Maybe I'm wrong, but it really doesn't make much difference in the grand scheme of things. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your claim that this would be an “enforcement nightmare”. I don't see it because if that same game warden finishes his routine check and everything else is cool, he simply issues no tickets. This would be his mandate, no enforcement nightmare that “cans the idea”. Fair enough? Extra law enforcement costs would be minimal (maybe writing a ticket that would pay for itself?) because they would already be checking the fishing license etc. anyways and not be specifically looking for a stamp infraction. This thing would basically police itself , a perfect example is that happy hooker wouldn't buy the stamp on page 1, but then changed his mind and said that he would buy it on page 2. I'm confident the vast majority are law abiding citizens and would and buy the stamp, contrary to what pointer is trying to sell. I'm also confident that there would be a percentage of non-musky fisherman buying the stamp “just in case”. A good example is me, yep I bought my WI license and also brought the trout stamp even though I rarely fish for them. Why did I buy it? Because it was only $10 bucks, wouldn't want the hassle if the occasion arose, it goes for a good cause, and basically “just in case” I catch one while I'm “pike” fishing. For the sake of argument let's hypothetically say that a stamp for a fish with a 90% rate of release would fly just for kicks. How are you coming up with $10 “definitely” reducing the number of folks fishing for muskys? Do you really believe that anyone would take that extra $10 into account before becoming a musky fisherman? Really? I don't see where this should even be tabled for intelligent discussion because people decide to go fishing, then by the license and stamp. Let's also hypothetically assume that we could work this thing in such a way that the money would be guaranteed to only go towards musky fisheries. Maybe that slope isn't so slippery, and maybe some people should do some research into the legalities of this before pooh-poohing the stamp. It sounds like Travis has, or is willing to his homework? How about giving him the chance, see what he comes up with? | |||
| When |
| ||
What? - 5/1/2012 1:31 PM "What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid? will you be providing a valid point? | |||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | 1. There is no way to ensure that the money will be used for expanding the muskie program. As seen with the walleye stamp, the money is just supplanting what they were going to spend on stocking otherwise. The walleye guys are a goof right now because of this. 2. Lack of money is not what's holding back the MN muskie program. Between the MI Chapters and the Hugh C Becker foundation we could fund the entire states stocking program if we wanted. The check book has always been open to our DNR to fund any stocking, rearing or research project they've wanted to do. In fact, the MN MI chapters just spent around 10k to buy them a new feeding system that was supposed to increase their muskie yield so we could have fish for expansion. 3. The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that would buy this are maybe 10-20% of the total that designate themselves as fishing muskies. The vast majority of people who "muskie fish" are out to catch what they can catch and throw muskie on the questionnaire and would be unlikely to buy the stamp. So if you look at it that way we would sell a max of around 20,000 licenses MAYBE, and probably less. Now that would be a great number to go to war with at the Capital next spring. Being that I'm one of about 3 muskie guys that does this all I can say is No Thank You! 4. The DNR doesn't want the stamp. They don't want it to get to the point that every angler has to buy a stamp for every single fish species they want to fish. That's what the license is supposed to be for. Edited by Muskie Treats 5/2/2012 7:28 AM | ||
| What? |
| ||
When - 5/2/2012 6:48 AM What? - 5/1/2012 1:31 PM "What" difference does it make, as long as the point is valid? will you be providing a valid point? Valid points are: 1) Most people are law-abiding citizens and would buy the stamp as demonstrated with happy hooker. If pointer wants to maintain that few would buy it - Poll? 2) There is no enforcement nightmare if the game wardens mandate is not to write a ticket unless the pike fishermen confess, or they are fishing in a musky tournament. A stamp program would police itself if outlined properly, there is no need for wardens to chase around specifically checking for the stamp. 3) Administrative costs, they would certainly be some involved, and this should be looked into it we get past points 1-2. When I bought my WI salmon stamp even though I do not plan on fishing salmon this year BTW), it was a $10 mouse click in a box on their website. Can we move on to the meat and potatoes now? Like can these funds put in a lock box that guarantees they will only be used for musky, and will there be enough stamps purchased to make this a viable program. I vote to move this discussion to focus on WI, mainly because that is where Travis and company appears to be more knowledgeable. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32883 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your claim that this would be an “enforcement nightmare”. I don't see it because if that same game warden finishes his routine check and everything else is cool, he simply issues no tickets. This would be his mandate, no enforcement nightmare that “cans the idea”. Fair enough? ' Exactly, there would effectively be no enforcement. If attempts were made to enforce, the time in court and inevitable loss would be costly. So in effect, the stamp would not be needed. 'For the sake of argument let's hypothetically say that a stamp for a fish with a 90% rate of release would fly just for kicks. How are you coming up with $10 “definitely” reducing the number of folks fishing for muskys? Do you really believe that anyone would take that extra $10 into account before becoming a musky fisherman?' Yes I do. If the general fishing population know they don't HAVE to buy the stamp, they won't, and if they are worried about enforcement, will be less likely to try the sport. If it's a 'harvest' stamp, quite a few muskie fishermen will not as a matter of course, and some will not because there's no way they WILL harvest one. And if it's not a harvest stamp, it's just an increase in fees and won't fly anyway. I wouldn't pay the fee because I know it's not 'needed' under the current program. If money IS needed for the fisheries program, a license fee increase would be the way to go. As to the 'homework', my son works for the Woodruff Hatchery as a fish tech. His crew nets for the Muskie and a portion of the Walleye propagation program, and currently for the suckers they will feed them for the Northern portion of Wisconsin. He knows a fair amount about how things work in the stocking program, and his statement parallels Treat's above. Most of the lakes with NR are not being stocked now as part of the ongoing Muskie program in the north, and that has nothing to do with whether muskies are available from the hatcheries to stock. They are. More influence comes from Lake Associations than the Muskie fishermen at large, and stocking decisions are made based upon population studies/estimates and creeling, not because there's 'extra money' available or not available. If that 'extra' was available, the money going there now equaling the amount raised form the tag, which would be a very small portion of the budget, would be spent elsewhere. What Pointer is attempting to get through is the stamp revenue IF it passed and was written into law wouldn't change a thing. He's right. Back a couple years ago this came up, and the Madison office of the WI DNR responded to my questions about a stamp. The comments paralleled Treat's above. A poll here wouldn't give an accurate sample of any segment other than the hard core Muskie angler. | ||
| Flambeauski |
| ||
Posts: 4343 Location: Smith Creek | I think probably 75% of trout fisherman release 100% too. I can't imagine a warden having any issue at all as long as there isn't a muskie in the livewell of an angler who doesn't have a stamp. I can fish trout streams without a trout stamp as long as I'm not fishing for trout. But I keep a trout and I get fined with no stamp. Trout stamp's revenue makes up about half of what the DNR spends on trout management, so to say they'll stop funding muskie management because there is a stamp hasn't been historically true. I don't buy the stamp encouraging harvest, either. Guys who harvest will whether or not they're paying an extra $10 and guys who don't harvest will keep releasing. Maybe a few guys like Sled and Pointer won't buy one just on principal, but I think the majority of muskie anglers would buy one. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
sworrall - 5/2/2012 8:09 AM 'The 800 pound gorilla in the room is your claim that this would be an “enforcement nightmare”. I don't see it because if that same game warden finishes his routine check and everything else is cool, he simply issues no tickets. This would be his mandate, no enforcement nightmare that “cans the idea”. Fair enough? ' Exactly, there would effectively be no enforcement. If attempts were made to enforce, the time in court and inevitable loss would be costly. So in effect, the stamp would not be needed. 'For the sake of argument let's hypothetically say that a stamp for a fish with a 90% rate of release would fly just for kicks. How are you coming up with $10 “definitely” reducing the number of folks fishing for muskys? Do you really believe that anyone would take that extra $10 into account before becoming a musky fisherman?' Yes I do. If the general fishing population know they don't HAVE to buy the stamp, they won't, and if they are worried about enforcement, will be less likely to try the sport. If it's a 'harvest' stamp, quite a few muskie fishermen will not as a matter of course, and some will not because there's no way they WILL harvest one. And if it's not a harvest stamp, it's just an increase in fees and won't fly anyway. I wouldn't pay the fee because I know it's not 'needed' under the current program. If money IS needed for the fisheries program, a license fee increase would be the way to go. As to the 'homework', my son works for the Woodruff Hatchery as a fish tech. His crew nets for the Muskie and a portion of the Walleye propagation program, and currently for the suckers they will feed them for the Northern portion of Wisconsin. He knows a fair amount about how things work in the stocking program, and his statement parallels Treat's above. Back a couple years ago this came up, and the Madison office of the WI DNR responded to my questions about a stamp. The comments paralleled Treat's above. Okay, I respectfully disagree with a few of your points same as you disagree with mine, but I'm done also done with it then. Are you seriously in favor of increasing the fee in WI and MN? If so, let's work on that then. | |||
| ulbian |
| ||
Posts: 1168 | What? - 5/1/2012 2:00 PM This is simply not true pointer. What you're saying is that the majority of musky fishermen would be willing to take a chance and not buy the mandatory $10 stamp to musky fish. Really? Then they would have to lie to a game warden if he asked if they were musky fishing. Let's see big kahuna net, 80lb line, d13s, figure 8s, that's right sir, we are fishing for northern pike. "very few would actually buy the stamp" LMAO! I pretty much guarantee you the game warden would be all over the idiots who tried it, and not just for the stamp but any little infraction they could find. As far as enforcement of the stamp? It would police itself, there be no need to run around and check everyone for a stamp, just check for it during a routine stop. Dude, at least argue from a reasonable point of view if you're going to argue it. If our courts would function under a preponderance of responsibility then you could make this argument....the problem is, they don't. How in the heck do you prosecute something like this and make it stick? Enforcement is a huge issue but prosecution is an even bigger one. So many ways to work around it that the Wardens are going to simply say; "screw it, I'm not wasting my time writing a citation that won't hold up." Pig rubbed down with STP Engine Treatment slippery is the type of slope we're talking about. During the spring sucker runs I'll have my big net and heavy rods and reels in the boat and I'll use them. Is it a combination of all things? Net, rods/reels, bigger baits that tips it into that "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard? What about the guys who are still using that crappy 10 dollar Kmart net but have the rest of the equipment to suggest they are muskie fishing? Oops, you don't have a Big Kahuna, but you have everything else, I guess you aren't muskie fishing..you get off on this one. Enforcement would be a headache, prosecution would provide the night terrors. | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 2 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |