Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
[Frozen] Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Lake Bemidji cut from MN stocking list |  |
| Message Subject: Lake Bemidji cut from MN stocking list | |||
Pointerpride102 |
| ||
Posts: 16632 Location: The desert | Some of you need to go back and actually READ all of the posts in this thread. There are some gems. HINT: tfoot and brad nelson wrote some good ones..... 2012 isn't here early, the sky is not falling. Crisis averted. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| 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 "My business yes, for right now, but it has grown over the last several years and that is the point to remember. The interest in musky fishing here in Minnesota is in fact growing. The musky fishery is a limited resource, one that with the consequences of delayed mortality and the time involved to replace a trophy fish, one having needed 12 or more years to grow to trophy size, is not replaced easily or very quickly. When the stocking efforts are being reduced and the expansion of the Minnesota musky range crawls at a snail's pace, it doesn't take much knowledge of Economics 101 that the demand has begun to exceed the supply and in order to meet this ever growing demand, the supply will have to increase." 3) Small number of muskie anglers equals small impact. Can't be any other way, can it? "Small impact from delayed mortality isn't small, it takes far more time to replace than a trophy walleye, bass, blue-gil and other non-musky sporting species. The advancement in fishing technology and fishing skills results in more muskys being caught and released be a smaller group, yet the net effect is the same with regards to delayed mortality and replacing that resource. Now couple these facts with each year having more non-resident musky anglers plying Minnesota trophy musky waters. What has taken from the mid to late 1980's to result into today's trophy fishery isn't going to be sustained very long when lakes are not maintained with the lake by lake basis needed to maintain this wonderful situation, nor expand the musky range." 4) Probably and probable? Is that enumerating? "It's punting. Your the one saying the contributions of non-resident musky anglers and their tourism expenditures are contributing their fair share as equal to the residents of Minnesota, but offer no data to support these claims. As you stated previous, you base this off of talking to locals which is a selected sample and not reflective of the entire resident population that caters to Minnesota tourism." 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. "What difference? The same as you in that I musky fish and want to not only preserve the existing musky fishery, but want to expand it. That takes money for which my fair share of property, income, sales taxes have contributed towards over the last 25 years. Some non-resident musky angler visiting Minnesota for a week to 10 days once or twice a year and only within the last several years is reaping the reward from those who already have proven their dedication for establishing, growing and maintaining the Minnesota trophy musky resouce. This $40.00 license entitlement and what ever sales taxes they pay is a fraction of the monies needed to maintain this Minnesota trophy musky fishery under todays standard of living costs" 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. "Sounds like you do have a reason, then, Spring Bay Resort and this site's club outting". 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? "Now you are becoming more focused in your facts. Exactly, some areas or pockets of areas are receiving the brunt of the demand exceeding the supply. My point of view is that this isn't unlimited and as soon as this falls off and it will due to the reduction of moneys for stocking and the (again) the snails pace of range expansion, the pressure will shift local and the delayed mortality effects will shift to other waters not capabile of sustaining the current pressure on waters such as the Big V or Mille Lacs. The reason my clientel percentage, albeit only 4%, is growing is in fact from the demand exceeding the supply on both these waters with demand being not having to stand in line as is so ever present on these waters. Think of my situation benefitting from the quality of the experience. With regards to the Bemidji area, there are several out of state guides who profit far more than their contributions towards maintaining this resource. While the locals shy away from the local brood stock lakes, these people do not." 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. "Musky anglers spend far more than $100.00 on musky equipment than the ever end up really using. Take a look at the overstock items of accumulation pictures on another thread by this firstsixfeet person. Yet, when $100.00 is asked for really the most important factor, that being preserving the resouce and expanding it, all I see in replys is "a bad idea" or I cannot afford it. As you say, you cannot have it both ways." 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. "Your math failed to compound my resorts effects to all the other resorts, motels, campgrounds that harbor the non-resident Musky Angler. That is the reality of your limiting logic. Again, supply, demand and the supply isn't being maintained when stocking monies budgets are being cut and the range isn't expanded because of lack of funding, yet the increase with the non-resident Musky angler is for me, growing each year, more as an overflow effect than something as widely known as the Big V or Mille Lacs. As you said earlier, "I hear the Bemidji area is getting plenty of non resident pressure", is nothing more than proof of my assertion that demand has exceeded the quality of the experience supply with regards to these lakes and is shifting to other places. As a business man, you would think I am excited about this and be benefitting from this. All true, yet when the primary reason for this overflow shift into my area isn't maintained, it's only going to decline the experience for everybody. Right now, with water temperatures in or near the 80's, I am not fishing muskies, yet those non-resident Musky Anglers, having planned their vacations for the current situation, are here, fishing muskies in warm water conditions, basically because they are on vacation, incurred expenses and gosh darn the resource be darned. Isn't it rather Ironic that these out of state guides who do not fish their home state waters because of water temperatures migrate to Minnesota, yet fish under the same warm water concerns anyways?" 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. "There is no imagining that. More fish caught and released, more delayed mortality. What was up, then goes down." | |||
| Captain |
| ||
| " Isn't it rather Ironic that these out of state guides who do not fish their home state waters because of water temperatures migrate to Minnesota, yet fish under the same warm water concerns anyways?" Very good point! | |||
| lambeau |
| ||
| i donate waaaayyyy over $100 to MN muskie fisheries efforts every year, and i'm happy to do it willingly. when i give that money, i know where it's going and how it will be used to benefit the muskie fishery. i would not be willing to pay a special tax to the government in order to fish muskies. we all know that the money would find it's way into the general fund and not provide full benefit to the muskie fishery. it's very different when you're asked to give something compared to when it's taken from you by Uncle Sam. for those who view high-priced stamps or surcharges as a way to discourage out-of-state interest in MN muskie fishing, be careful about waving that knife too close to your nose. claiming that they're "our fish" because no one else pays for them is just plain wrong. drive everyone and their money away and you'll have tourist-free lakes for awhile, and then eventually you'll have more fish-free lakes too and be back to fishing only the unstocked waters. (i'm a WI resident with family properties in northern MN.) | |||
| Troyz. |
| ||
Posts: 734 Location: Watertown, MN | Is $100 to much, the states have set the bar high for deer hunting, residents pay $20 for 9 day, I now pay $160 to hunt the same 9day season because I am no longer a resident of WI. The real issue finding a solution to the economics short falls of the budgets that are coming for the state of MN, and sure other states will have these same issue. Like pointed out before a guy in the "know" does not know about this. Troyz | ||
| sorenson |
| ||
Posts: 1764 Location: Ogden, Ut | BNelson - 7/22/2010 8:21 PM 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.... Did this bit of information get lost in the stamp argument?  S. Editor's note: S, Yup. But you know how I love a good debate.... | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | Delayed mortality considering the pressure on your lakes is not a real issue. Sorry, you are not correct. Give me the figures on delayed mortality, creel numbers on CPR and the latest figures on base muskie populations in those lakes. Then let's talk about NR and stocking, and the numbers will make more sense. If what you are trying to insinuate is even close to factual, some of your lakes would be devoid of all muskies by now. Your entire premise for asking non resident anglers to pay a surcharge to fish in Minnesota is based upon ... 'the sky is falling' ...and that's not the fact of the matter. if you wish to protect your muskies from harvest and the biologists agree they need it, I'd suggest shooting for a 50 to 54" limit. It's worked for Ontario very well on trophy waters there, and is working on WI waters as we speak. Limiting logic? I'm using your data at 4% of the entire 200 resort association you belong to. On one hand you claim little money is spent by out of state muskie anglers in MN based upon the small number in your resorts, yet on the other you claim delayed mortality will decimate the lakes up there because of all the fishing pressure by out of state muskie anglers. You are not suggesting the state of MN 'asks for' a $100 tax on out of state muskie anglers. You are suggesting they demand it, and all because of some concept that the muskies in MN are dying off at an accelerated and unsustainable rate from CPR by non resident anglers; that stocking will cease, which turned out to be a rumor. That is a bad idea, and I think it has about as much chance of happening as a snowball surviving in Hades. Your tone is anti-tourism, and that's a bad idea. Your insistence the MN residents have 'paid for' the muskies and own them outright as a result flies in the face of reality. Ask us as a group, and you will find muskie anglers across the country are a generous lot. Insult us, and tell us we 'owe you' extra money to fish there, well, not so much then. 'Harbor' the non resident muskie angler?? Bad choice of words, IMO. This isn't a 'club'. And my point was Spring Bay welcomes us out of staters, as any resort in MN would if they value out of state business. If some resorts don't value the business, well...hang a sign out front, and we'll go elsewhere if we choose MN as a vacation destination at all. I bet resistance to expanding the range of Muskie lakes in MN has as much to do with folks not wanting that to happen...folks who live in MN. That's been quite a conversation here over the last few years. Same warm water concerns? Are you trying to say the water temps on Vermilion, Bemidji, and Mille Lacs are frequently over 80 degrees throughout the water column? Your characterization of lack of concern for the resource by non resident anglers is incorrect and rude; if the water temps are too warm, folks should focus on other fish and take care to do 100% water releases, and that goes for all muskie anglers, not just non residents. I bet if I went around and looked at the tags on the muskie boats on many MN muskie waters on this day, the resident tags will outnumber the non. As to the guides, that's been beat to death here in the past. If the State of MN decides non resident guides are not welcome, it'd be pretty simple to make the permit so expensive they will not fish there. I'd have no problem with that at all, but apparently your State does. Don't throw a stone at all out of state anglers because your state fails to regulate the guides as well as you'd like, most of us don't guide over there. Shifting to other places. Sure, numbers of Muskie anglers is on the increase. It is everywhere, because Muskie angling is a growth segment in freshwater fishing. I bet there's a heck of allot more new MN muskie anglers than there are new non resident visitors fishing your waters. Ask them for the stocking funds, and they will help, IF you ask them without all the 'self entitlement' stuff. Ontario Muskie angling is the best it's ever been, across the board, and that's from the fisheries managers in Ontario. Why? Catch and release, and the trophy waters protected by the 54" limit. Conservation licenses guarantee NO muskie harvest, not even a 60" fish. Sure, more CPR means more fish caught, but harvest is a certain dead fish, and CPR is a 90% or better surviving fish. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire Norh American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR. Troyz, There are near 700,000 hunters in WI looking to harvest less than half that number of whitetails, and comparing a hunting tag for a big game animal is not a good comparison. Totally different social set, totally different management strategy, and apples oranges. It doesn't take being some 'insider' to understand budget crisis issues due to the economy. Most state DNR budgets stink right now. They won't forever, and if each state's conservationist/activist muskie anglers want to make sure each State's muskie program is well supported despite poor budgets by raising enough money to fill the void, alienating a good portion of us ain't the way to get that done. | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3160 | Well,,WELL,WELL has usual!!!!!! these threads go on to the point where I get fed up with rumor and finally call the dnr so I did!!! the Bemidji area office at 9:35 am today/friday talked to Gary Barnard Minn DNR told him about the rumor he said 'I heard that too and I dont know where it came from" Lake Bemidji is sced to get 1850 fish again and the plan is to keep on indefinitely. He went on to say "In fact theres some new lakes sced to come about so if that was the case we would cancel stocking the new lakes and continue on with Bemidji he went on to tell me 'please spread this word around so the info is straight" guys the DNR does NOT bite,,,pick up the phone on these things they are a public agency their not going to put you on speaker phone and laugh at your question,,,, | ||
| Matt Collins |
| ||
Posts: 385 | Very happy to hear this was untrue according to the info that Brad was able to obtain. I can't believe that a well intentioned post to get some general thoughts and ideas on how to go about maintaining the resource turned kind of ugly with lots of hostility toward different groups of individuals. The out of state guides point fishing 80+ degree water temps when they won't fish their home waters is a very good point though. Thanks Brad for getting some good info. | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3160 | FYI Bemidji dnr office is 1-218-308-2330 if you want to confirm this | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | I don't see 'hostility', I see a good debate. It's OK to disagree if it's done well, and there's some good points made here by many. Sounds like the stocking in MN is looking good for the future. Thanks for all who contributed and for clearing up the issue. I still think a $100 tag is a bad idea.  If water temps are over 80 through the water column, many of us here think everyone should fish bluegills or something until the temps come down, and that's been discussed here recently, too. | ||
| MUSKYLUND1 |
| ||
Posts: 203 Location: Germantown, WI | I have never fished in MN, but I have been fishing Ontario for almost 30 years. We purchased the Ontario musky stamp when it first came out in Ontario, but it was a small fee compared to the cost of the regular license. It was comparable to the Inland Trout Stamps that I have purchased in WI and PA. Since Ontario has offered a Conservation license we have been purchasing that. If MN really believes that tourism dollars are important and that musky anglers are singnifcantly contributing to that then it would be well advised not to impose a punitive tax on out of state musky anglers. If MN imposed a modestly priced musky stamp that was applicable to both residents and non-residents alike (like the Inland Trout Stamp in both WI and PA) I don't think it would have much impact on tourism positively or negatively. Maybe it's time to see if some of the created musky fisheries in MN can stand on their own without stocking. MN has created a tremendous musky fishery through stocking, but can that really be sustained forever with the kind of ming-boggling numbers of big fish? If you really want to continue the intensive stocking on all the waters currently stocked and even add additional waters then it may be necessary to come up with additional funding sources. A punitive non-resident musky stamp is a bad idea. A reasonable musky stamp applicable to residents and non-residents alike might work. | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "Delayed mortality considering the pressure on your lakes is not a real issue. Sorry, you are not correct. Give me the figures on delayed mortality, creel numbers on CPR and the latest figures on base muskie populations in those lakes. Then let's talk about NR and stocking, and the numbers will make more sense. If what you are trying to insinuate is even close to factual, some of your lakes would be devoid of all muskies by now. Your entire premise for asking non resident anglers to pay a surcharge to fish in Minnesota is based upon ... 'the sky is falling' ...and that's not the fact of the matter." That is a rather blanket and uneducated statement, how would you know what are my lakes? They certainly are not of the size of the Big V or Mille Lacs, meaning 10% of those lakes fishing pressures on these lakes in my area is just as equivalent due to ratios of anglers and musky per acre. We are already close to the handling capacity of some of the smaller waters already. "if you wish to protect your muskies from harvest and the biologists agree they need it, I'd suggest shooting for a 50 to 54" limit. It's worked for Ontario very well on trophy waters there, and is working on WI waters as we speak." Increasing the size limit doesn't prevent delayed mortality from those fish caught and having to be released due to any established size limit. Ontario is further north and doesn't necessarily achieve the warm water conditions we have here and certainly has a broader range of musky options than we here in Minnesota. "Limiting logic? I'm using your data at 4% of the entire 200 resort association you belong to. On one hand you claim little money is spent by out of state muskie anglers in MN based upon the small number in your resorts, yet on the other you claim delayed mortality will decimate the lakes up there because of all the fishing pressure by out of state muskie anglers." The money spent by non-resident musky anglers is vastly lower than the other forms of Minnesota Tourism. My resort books far more non-resident Minnesota vacationers who do not musky fish than those who do musky fish. And this is pretty much the standard for the other resorts in my association. My earlier comment which you fail to address or understand is that while low, that being 4%, it is now growing. "You are not suggesting the state of MN 'asks for' a $100 tax on out of state muskie anglers. You are suggesting they demand it, and all because of some concept that the muskies in MN are dying off at an accelerated and unsustainable rate from CPR by non resident anglers; that stocking will cease, which turned out to be a rumor. That is a bad idea, and I think it has about as much chance of happening as a snowball surviving in Hades. Your tone is anti-tourism, and that's a bad idea. Your insistence the MN residents have 'paid for' the muskies and own them outright as a result flies in the face of reality. Ask us as a group, and you will find muskie anglers across the country are a generous lot. Insult us, and tell us we 'owe you' extra money to fish there, well, not so much then. 'Harbor' the non resident muskie angler?? Bad choice of words, IMO." That's funny. The state should "ask" when they pass regulations that results in a new revenue streams. They demand it when passing these regulations and Minnesota isn't the only state that demands new taxes. Minnesota State budgetary problems are resulting in cuts in MDNR budgets across the board. Stocking muskies is not the only issue here or the only item on the MDNR table to address for cutting activities. My tone is not anti-tourism, its for everybody to contribute a fair share to maintain the stocking and expanding the range. Why would I write this if I did not expect more non-resident Musky Anglers to be coming. I see that in the percentage of my business related to this group growing, albeit slowly and not like other specific areas in Northern Minnesota. I am not unrealistic to think even more will be coming. What I am realistic about is that the waters I address through my business interests, the pressure is close to exceeding supply and our stocking has been cut. Good for Bemidji, bad for the other, more smaller musky areas which are not receiving the necessary stocking to maintain their current levels. "This isn't a 'club'. And my point was Spring Bay welcomes us out of staters, as any resort in MN would if they value out of state business. If some resorts don't value the business, well...hang a sign out front, and we'll go elsewhere if we choose MN as a vacation destination at all." You seemed to be pre-occupied from my subject point at hand. It's getting the funding to maintain existing stockings where appropriate and expand the musky range because the increased pressure is coming as seen over the last several years and so to the effects of delayed mortality." "I bet resistance to expanding the range of Muskie lakes in MN has as much to do with folks not wanting that to happen...folks who live in MN. That's been quite a conversation here over the last few years." Exactly, finally you are right about something. Now compound the increased fishing pressure and delayed mortality, we are right back at Economics 101 with the demand growing, the supply gradually falling and the same number of lakes remaining realtively constant. "Same warm water concerns? Are you trying to say the water temps on Vermilion, Bemidji, and Mille Lacs are frequently over 80 degrees throughout the water column? Your characterization of lack of concern for the resource by non resident anglers is incorrect and rude; if the water temps are too warm, folks should focus on other fish and take care to do 100% water releases, and that goes for all muskie anglers, not just non residents. I bet if I went around and looked at the tags on the muskie boats on many MN muskie waters on this day, the resident tags will outnumber the non. As to the guides, that's been beat to death here in the past. If the State of MN decides non resident guides are not welcome, it'd be pretty simple to make the permit so expensive they will not fish there. I'd have no problem with that at all, but apparently your State does. Don't throw a stone at all out of state anglers because your state fails to regulate the guides as well as you'd like, most of us don't guide over there". Incorrect? How can you say that? While I hope everybody is water releasing, that isn't the case from the reports I receive, the dock pictures I look at, for those resort association members within my association as well as what I see from my customers. Your right, all musky anglers, except the pressure of a picture to take back home is what motivates the non-water release practices I am seeing right now. I wrote that some out of state guides in the Bemidji are putting business ahead of the resource and you construe my comments as throwing a stone towards all out of state anglers? I fail to see that connection. "Shifting to other places. Sure, numbers of Muskie anglers is on the increase. It is everywhere, because Muskie angling is a growth segment in freshwater fishing. I bet there's a heck of allot more new MN muskie anglers than there are new non resident visitors fishing your waters. Ask them for the stocking funds, and they will help, IF you ask them without all the 'self entitlement' stuff." No question, the new crop of Minnesota Musky Anglers are too providing through their income, property, and sale taxes. Again, vastly more than the non-resident individual who pays just $40.00 for 10 days each year. "Ontario Muskie angling is the best it's ever been, across the board, and that's from the fisheries managers in Ontario. Why? Catch and release, and the trophy waters protected by the 54" limit. Conservation licenses guarantee NO muskie harvest, not even a 60" fish. Sure, more CPR means more fish caught, but harvest is a certain dead fish, and CPR is a 90% or better surviving fish. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire Norh American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR." Ontario musky range to Minnesota's musky range is not exactly comparable when you look at the range, the season, the water temperature concerns and other factors. Yes, CPR means more fish caught and more fish incurring delayed mortality. In either case of harvest or delayed mortality, the resource is gone until it is replaced. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'That is a rather blanket and uneducated statement, how would you know what are my lakes? They certainly are not of the size of the Big V or Mille Lacs, meaning 10% of those lakes fishing pressures on these lakes in my area is just as equivalent due to ratios' of anglers and musky per acre. We are already close to the handling capacity of some of the smaller waters already.' No, it's a statement based upon many studies done by biologists across the Muskie's range on CPR and past capture mortality. Been discussed here literally dozens of times with input from biologists from across the muskie's range. Increasing the size limit works, period....if the system has an upper confidence limit that matches/exceeds the limit and/or the goal is to reduce harvest of large fish. That's not debatable. 'Right now, with water temperatures in or near the 80's, I am not fishing muskies, yet those non-resident Musky Anglers, having planned their vacations for the current situation, are here, fishing muskies in warm water conditions, basically because they are on vacation, incurred expenses and gosh darn the resource be darned.' That's what you posted, and that's what I responded to. Educated muskie anglers would avoid mishandling muskies in warm water conditions. It's your job and ours to educate those who don't understand the possible consequences, and they ain't all out of state anglers. There's your 'connection'. 'Ontario musky range to Minnesota's musky range is not exactly comparable when you look at the range, the season, the water temperature concerns and other factors.' Sure it is. Many Ontario water bodies can and do occasionally reach temps too warm to fish muskies for my preference. Too warm is too warm no matter where it is. CPR works everywhere, and your concept of delayed mortality averages is way too expansive. The season nearly mirrors MN muskie season. It's frequently warmer in Dryden than it is in Minneapolis. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire North American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR. And that's a fact. 'No question, the new crop of Minnesota Musky Anglers are too providing through their income, property, and sale taxes. Again, vastly more than the non-resident individual who pays just $40.00 for 10 days each year.' Fair share? If I fish there 6 days, and I pay $750 for a resort, $150 in boat gas, $80 for my wife's license and mine, $125 for food and entertainment, and catch and release a couple fish, I'd say I paid my 'share' towards the overall MN economy. Read the above post by HH from his conversation with the DNR up there, it pretty much destroys your whole argument anyway. | ||
| lambeau |
| ||
| so would the $100 stamp be a sort of muskie fishing "green card"? of course, then MN would have to pass a law requiring out-of-state anglers to show identification and proof that they weren't illegal muskie aliens... "it's a muskie fishermen invasion! they're tunneling under the St.Croix and jumping over the fences! they're setting off bombs in the streets...or...umm...at least killing all of "our" fish by delayed mortality." bwhwhahahaha. if you want to raise out-of-state fishing license rates, talk to Chaudary and i bet he'll include it in the next Fish & Game bill. oh, sorry, nevermind, he lost the DFL endorsement over those kinds of shenanigans. that, or you could just pass a bill making muskie fishing against the law. | |||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | And all the while I was trying (without much success) to say the same thing by responding to the guy...bullseye, l. | ||
| Tfoot |
| ||
happy hooker - 7/23/2010 9:49 AM guys the DNR does NOT bite,,,pick up the phone on these things they are a public agency their not going to put you on speaker phone and laugh at your question,,,, Or just listen to tfoot  | |||
| john skarie |
| ||
Posts: 221 Location: Detroint Lakes, MN | There seems to be a theme that spending money as a tourists is a positive for both the tourism industry and the fisheries. That is not correct. In the case at hand here, muskies, more tourism (by musky fishermen) does not make more money or resources available to the MNDNR muskie program. If that were the case than it's budget would increase every year instead of decline with the increasing numbers of visiting anlgers we have seen for the past 10 years. So let's be clear here on the difference between helping the economy and helping the resource that brings the tourism in. JS | ||
| esoxlucifer |
| ||
Posts: 305 | Two things that most people agree on when it comes to politics during times like these are 1) We need to control spending 2) ...but don't cut(fill in blank with things that will pertain to them). | ||
| Pepper |
| ||
Posts: 1516 | What does make more money or resources availanle to the MNDNR muskie program? | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| "No, it's a statement based upon many studies done by biologists across the Muskie's range on CPR and past capture mortality. Been discussed here literally dozens of times with input from biologists from across the muskie's range." This statement is contrary to recent creel studies done on those waters of interest to me as compared to earlier creel surveys. The lack of consistent stocking in these waters has resulted in an imbalance of across the boat muskies sizes and being able to see the effects of delayed mortality, that being floaters, has increased in correlation to the increase in fishing pressure. How can I extend your point of view as well taken when this reality is something myself and other local resort businesses with a sincere interest of maintaining the current musky fishing environment see otherwise? "Increasing the size limit works, period....if the system has an upper confidence limit that matches/exceeds the limit and/or the goal is to reduce harvest of large fish. That's not debatable." What is not debatable? The reduction of fish under the size limit not being harvested or the increase in delayed mortality as observed throughout my resort owners association of floaters, reduce creel survey counts, as well as the imbalance of population sizes due to inadequate stockings? "Right now, with water temperatures in or near the 80's, I am not fishing muskies, yet those non-resident Musky Anglers, having planned their vacations for the current situation, are here, fishing muskies in warm water conditions, basically because they are on vacation, incurred expenses and gosh darn the resource be darned.' That's what you posted, and that's what I responded to. Educated muskie anglers would avoid mishandling muskies in warm water conditions. It's your job and ours to educate those who don't understand the possible consequences, and they ain't all out of state anglers. There's your 'connection'." How am I able to construe that the local resident anglers within my resort association community are just as responsible when the creel surveys before the non-resident traffic began to show up showed an increase creel survey ratio from census to census? How am I able to construe the increase in floaters that are observed since the increase in out of state Musky traffic is apportioned to just as much as the same locals as before this increase? It behooves our businesses and livelihoods to educate these warm water concerns, but I cannot be in their boat to prevent it from happening. It certainly isn't the non-resident vacationer who reports the floater, just the opposite, it's the local fisherman who discovers and reports it for a majority of the time. "Ontario musky range to Minnesota's musky range is not exactly comparable when you look at the range, the season, the water temperature concerns and other factors. Sure it is. Many Ontario water bodies can and do occasionally reach temps too warm to fish muskies for my preference. Too warm is too warm no matter where it is." Must be global warming finally coming home to roost and how many years of "The Sky Is Falling" transpired before the reality of this became unquestionable? Again, lack of consistent stocking, increase in delayed mortality floaters, reduced creel survey counts go directly against what is what you label un-debatable. "CPR works everywhere, and your concept of delayed mortality averages is way too expansive. The season nearly mirrors MN muskie season. It's frequently warmer in Dryden than it is in Minneapolis. The fact is muskie angling has never been better across the entire North American continent, and it's because of great fisheries management programs and CPR. And that's a fact." I haven't talked about delayed mortality in an expansive manner, just Minnesota where the balance of fishing pressure upon muskys prior to the current wave of angling interests demonstrated furtherance in the viable musky population. I've observed the decline in recent official studies, observed the trend of imbalance in certain musky waters relative to across the board proportional muskies sizes and the correlative effects from non-consistent stockings. Lastly, I've observed enough to be like those early global warming advocates to be concerned that while the sky hasn't fallen, it's not transcending into the direction where one day that will assure it never will. "Fair share? If I fish there 6 days, and I pay $750 for a resort, $150 in boat gas, $80 for my wife's license and mine, $125 for food and entertainment, and catch and release a couple fish, I'd say I paid my 'share' towards the overall MN economy." As a resort owner, I thank-you for your business. However, a mere pittance to the amount of monies we Minnesotans pay in income, property and sales taxes each year, especially when compounded to a grand total amount over the last 25 years for those of us having been here from the very start of the current musky program. Unfortunately, a good portion of your well earned, hard spent vacation monies will never end up in the MDNR coffers due to the current Minnesota Government practices. You certainly must be knowledgable about the Minnesota multiple state lottery system. It's existence was projected as a natural resource funding mechanism. Today, from all the ticket sales, only 22 million is directed back into the resources. There is no question, beyond being debatable as you enlist, that there are musky lakes here in Minnesota that are in decline and soon to be in decline because of limited monetary stocking continuance concerns, increased fishing pressures and delayed mortality. You earlier stated $15.00 would be fine for a non-resident musky stamp. Others have written it's too much too. Your position is based off the amount of money, not the concept of a musky stamp. The $40.00 license fee is for a non-resident annual license so perhaps a compromise here is $100.00 for this type if license and prorated down for those limited day type of non-resident fishing license. | |||
| dcraven |
| ||
| The "elephant in the room" that nobody is talking about here, I believe, is the in-state/out-of-state angler issue and the feelings that go along with it. We (as Minnesota anglers) have noticed a huge influx of out of state anglers over the past 10 years or so. Reefs and weedbeds that we had to ourselves are busy places - too busy to fish and bother with at many times. The North Dakota resident waterfowl hunters felt it (out of state hunter pressure - much from Minnesotans) and complained enough that duck opener just for residents was acted on in their state's congress. I'll be honest - I rarely fish stocked lakes any more due to the fact that I just don't like taking a number to fish a spot. I fished Lake Vermillion and never saw another muskie angler for the first four years I fished it. Pressure started to come and eventually it was common to be on a reef that is about a hundred yards long and someone with another state's letters/license pulls up on it and starts fishing their way towards you (and you are already more than half way across it). After this happens a number of times on a three day trip - it was time to not come back. We have been spoiled here in Minnesota - but as increased fishing opportunities (stocked lakes) became reality - so came the anglers. I remember when three boats on Pelican Reef of Leech Lake was plenty of traffic. That reef is about half a mile long. Look at the 'Conga Line' on the north end of Mille Lacs a few years ago - a boat every forty yards. Boats pulling in front of you (100 yds) on a weedbed when you are obviously working that way. Migrant workers, as many folks call them, (out of state guides) do cause animosity in the local guide pool where-ever and whatever species one discusses. The examples go on but my point is this - we are talking, once again, about allotment (who 'gets' the fish) and the feelings that go along with the issue. We talk about it with commercial fishing vs. sport fishing on the Kenai River, we talk of it with the Native American fishing/spearing on Mille Lacs and now we are talking about it within the muskie world... In the 70's few folks fished for muskies - they were too hard to catch, few in density even in the best of muskie lakes. Folks like Dick Pearson and Mark Windels fished for 30 years before catching a 40 pounder - 40 lbers are fairly common these days - manufactured fish... Like stocked stream trout, they aren't hard to catch any more so more people do it. Sometimes I wish for those days, again. Before stringing me up, ask yourself the tough question - how often do I fish for "real" muskies any more - wild fish rather than stocked fish? All I'm saying is that these sentiments never came up prior to the stocking issue. Allotment... Dan Craven | |||
| Moltisanti |
| ||
Posts: 639 Location: Hudson, WI | With all due respect, where did Minnesotans fish for muskies before they had their stocking program? Didn't the Lindner's shoot a show on Deer Lake where they caught 23 muskies in a day and air it nationally? For untold years, the Polk County lakes were pounded beyond belief and the overstocking to meet demands hurt the fisheries badly in the long term. Hayward Lakes, too. Even today, North Metro Muskies Inc. holds June Jam, their largest fundraiser on 7 lakes in Polk County. But the extra money non-residents pay in Minnesota is now suddenly not enough? Where did this elitism come from? | ||
| Fishwizard |
| ||
Posts: 366 | Mr. Resort Owner, The issues that you’ve observed and are presenting here as justification for a $100 NR Stamp makes little to no sense what so ever. None of those issues, how ever severe they may be, will be solved by this stamp proposal. In fact having out-of-stators pay another $100 for their week vacation would only increase the odds that they will completely ignore water temp issues, ect. and fish anyway. Since what you are proposing is unfair, because it targets only out of state anglers, then it would be up to you to show and prove with real math and numbers that it isn't unfair. It isn't the responsibility of people who aren't proposing it to prove that it is unfair beyond pointing out the fact that you are addressing it only to NR muskie anglers. In fact if you can show in actual numbers and real math that NR anglers don't pay their fair share I doubt that many of them would have much issue paying the difference. The problem is that there are countless advantages that resident anglers have over NR travelers that you don't address what so ever in terms of use of the resource, besides the comparison of an hour fish a lake by the either group of anglers. The blanket notion that all NR anglers, especially experienced muskie anglers, are much harder on the resource isn't accurate. I see a lot more dock photos and dead fish from non-muskie anglers, resident and otherwise, who wouldn't have paid your $100 fee, and which wouldn't have saved those fish no matter the intention. While each of your arguments have a sense and basis to them, none of which are help in the stamp argument with out real facts and figures, and even those can't cover all the intangibles of living down the road versus traveling from out of state. Ryan | ||
| Slow Rollin |
| ||
Posts: 619 | i dont think the out of stater thing is needed. it seems like there is already less out of staters fishing in MN already. i am assuming it will keep decreasing....fishing will never be like it was in the past 10 yrs or so....the pressure is so immense it doesnt matter, any fish that actually does become active gets a cowbell in its mouth 24hrs a day/7days a week, after a enough cowbells it will run into a guy w/o a net or release tools and becomes a floater or sinks to the bottom. there are alot better waters to fish now like LSC and other areas IMO. i think WI has alot nice waters that are being kept a little hush hush for good reason too. Edited by Slow Rollin 7/23/2010 1:30 PM | ||
| Guest |
| ||
| As the gentlemen indicated above, call the MDNR to determine which Minnesota musky lakes have had their stocking fund activities reduced from previous levels. The current economic situation is further reducing these monies. Are these not the facts and figures one really needs to find other ways to restore these necessarily expenditures, especially to continue the quality and sustain the ever increasing demand? A floater is a floater is a floater. The increase over the last several years in my locale is hard, cold facts. What else can be said that is observed with one's own eyes? | |||
| Slow Rollin |
| ||
Posts: 619 | Guest - 7/23/2010 1:27 PM As the gentlemen indicated above, call the MDNR to determine which Minnesota musky lakes have had their stocking fund activities reduced from previous levels. The current economic situation is further reducing these monies. Are these not the facts and figures one really needs to find other ways to restore these necessarily expenditures, especially to continue the quality and sustain the ever increasing demand? A floater is a floater is a floater. The increase over the last several years in my locale is hard, cold facts. What else can be said that is observed with one's own eyes? agree, FLOATER is a FLOATER, POOF - its gone | ||
| happy hooker |
| ||
Posts: 3160 | not to open a whole nuther can of worms but if you DID have an out of state muskie angler stamp what would you put on it,,,FIB with Italian features,,sconie in watercolor because their mostly well diluted anyways when they fish,,Iowan in charcoal because thieir personality is black and white,,or an Indianan and just insert a outtake shot of Jed Clampett | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32944 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | JS, 'There seems to be a theme that spending money as a tourists is a positive for both the tourism industry and the fisheries. That is not correct. ' Seriously? I am being clear. If the rest of the economy wasn't down so badly, the increasing tourism dollars collected in MN from us out of stater Muskie Anglers would be recognized as having much more impact. It's not the fault of Muskie anglers visiting MN and spending discretionary dollars the overall budget is suffering, which is why the state DNR budget is suffering; it would suffer more if those anglers chose to fish elsewhere. it sounds like you want to blame it on out of state anglers...which is ridiculous. As to our resort owner friend, I asked him to back up his statements, and get more meaningless rhetoric like this "I haven't talked about delayed mortality in an expansive manner, just Minnesota where the balance of fishing pressure upon muskys prior to the current wave of angling interests demonstrated furtherance in the viable musky population. ' I sure as hell didn't cause his observed 'floater'...maybe it was one of the 96% of his guests who are NOT dedicated muskie anglers. I've heard this sort of misdirected tirade that is not much more than a condemnation of fisheries management for years from resort owners even in WI, so it's no surprise. We 'tourists' get it, Dan said it clearly. I'm very familiar with what he's saying; been there and done that when Pelican was 'hot', then Enterprise, then... 'agree, FLOATER is a FLOATER, POOF - its gone' If you fish muskies, you inadvertently will kill a few over your career, and that includes MN residents. The overall average post CPR mortality is in the 10% range according to most of what I've read from the experts. Follow the logic...you want fewer CPR post capture moralities, or want every fish killed replaced, and are telling us out of staters we need to fund that effort because we fish there a week a year, yet you do not reduce your time on the water or try to catch fewer muskies 'for the cause'. Show me they are not at 1800 stocked in Bemidji every year; use the data available right here in the research forum and from surveys and estimates the MN DNR offer, and then we can talk about whether the sky is truly falling. If the stocking was stopped there...sure, many would step up... if they weren't told their participation is worthless and unwelcome. | ||
| Pepper |
| ||
Posts: 1516 | I wonder why the DNR started stocking muskies in the first place was it for the citizen muskie angler or to help attract the tourist fisherman and his family? | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 Now viewing page 3 [30 messages per page] | |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2025 OutdoorsFIRST Media |