|
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Are you seriously in favor of increasing the fee in WI and MN? If so, let's work on that then.'
No, I'm not in WI. If someone can tell me why we need the money in WI, and what it would go to, I'd be interested. More fish techs hired? More administration hired? New equipment? Where is this money supposed to go? Increase the wages of the DNR employees in the field? That I'd support, but the general public won't. If the answer is 'stocking muskies', then it's not needed here. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | If everything Treats is saying is true (not questioning him by the way) then I would have to agree MN doesn’t need a stamp. It also sounds like they do not need a license fee increase. What MN needs is a strong group/organization, which by the way has been formed and am working towards being “strong”, to fight the battles of darkhouse spearing and such.
WI is in a much different scenario in my opinion. Steve perhaps they changed their tune in the DNR, but two years ago they were in support of the stamp program being proposed. Well at least one person was. In fact I believe that person was helping in how exactly wording should be and such so that it made the most sense. Not sure what statements of your sons parallel Treats as far as stocking goes. My question is are we stocking at a rate now that is similar to what we were 5 years ago? Has it declined? Is there more money now for musky management than 5 years ago, and if not why not? I thought it was either last year or the year before you mentioned the DNR was short staffed for doing what your son was helping do. If there was a stamp that could be a non-issue as a portion of the funds from the stamp could be used for the salary of additional staff.
I understand why Steve and others may be in favor of a license fee increase as the additional money can be used for the WI fisheries as a whole, and not just muskies. Makes sense for anglers that target more than just musky. However if your main concern is to improve/maintain our musky fishery then a general license fee increase makes zero sense as that money can be used for anything fisheries related, and not strictly musky related. Let’s not confuse musky fishery management with fisheries management.
Is the trout stamp law enforcement a headache? How about the Sturgeon tag/stamp? Turkey or pheasant stamp? Aside from WI I believe there are other states as well that have stamps including I thought I saw something in Canada. Enforcement is as easy as it is for a general license. Common sense will prevail with the law enforcement. I don’t go jump-hunting ducks with lead, and when a Warden checks me just say I was hunting grouse. This law enforcement point has been blown out of proportion.
Also the enforcement for this would be no different than the enforcement of the correct license in MI for instance. My understanding is in MI if you are fishing on a class A trout water , as well as a few others, then you have to have the correct license that allows you to fish for trout.
Look at page 3 of the regs.
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/DNRFishingGuide2012_377884_7....
If a stamp went into effect the same rules could be written into the regs for WI or another state.
Edited by CiscoKid 5/2/2012 8:59 AM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | In case someone never saw the stamp proposal in WI last year.
http://worldmuskiealliance.com/static/pdf/WMA_WI_muskie_stamp.pdf
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Yes this is trout, but a breakdown of how the trout stamp money is spent. Similar could hold true for musky albeit I know the habitat deal with musky could be a bit harder to tackle.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pubs/troutstamp0407_web.pdf
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | My question is are we stocking at a rate now that is similar to what we were 5 years ago? (yes) Has it declined?(no) Is there more money now for musky management than 5 years ago, and if not why not? (no) I thought it was either last year or the year before you mentioned the DNR was short staffed for doing what your son was helping do (they are, that's an employee issue, not a muskie management issue, BIG difference. Keith works the nets for a couple months for Muskie AND walleyes, then moves on to other projects, including winter creeling, which is paid for by GLIFWC) He knows exactly how many quarts of eggs he needs to meet the demand for stocking, and if everything goes well, they always get what they need. More money won't increase the number of muskies raised unless the money is spent to 'increase stocking', and that has been discouraged by the DNR Muskie Team and Dr. Sloss so we can increase size to meet modern trophy muskie angling expectations...again, look to the current management plan in place. Pelican, for example, has not been stocked in a decade, and I'm happy with that.
'Let’s not confuse musky fishery management with fisheries management.' There are walleyes, bass, pike, panfish, and other fish that command management in all those lakes of which none are being managed ONLY for muskies. Lakes that need stocking are receiving the fish now, and those are the 'put and take' waters with no NR or very little NR or lakes where the population needs a boost. Read the Muskie management plan put in place a decade ago and Dr. Sloss's recommendations for insight.
I'd say let's not try to isolate Muskie management in WI as if there are not other gamefish management issues and social issues to deal with. That is exactly why the Pike/Muskie activists in MN organized, to offer a strong voice.
Trout and salmon stamps are harvest stamps, as are the Sturgeon and Turkey....etc.
Much of the trout stamp goes to stream reclamation and reintroduction of stream trout, an obviously needed and fairly accomplished though very rigorous and expensive process reclaiming trout streams that have sediment or other issues screwing up the current. (Keith did that for a few years, too)
SO if habitat improvement is too ethereal to accomplish specifically for muskies (and it is), and stocking levels are not threatened, why do a stamp unless the money raised frees up money already coming in for other management or budgetary issues...which I suspect is what would be the case. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | "Is the trout stamp law enforcement a headache? How about the Sturgeon tag/stamp? Turkey or pheasant stamp? Aside from WI I believe there are other states as well that have stamps including I thought I saw something in Canada. Enforcement is as easy as it is for a general license. Common sense will prevail with the law enforcement. I don’t go jump-hunting ducks with lead, and when a Warden checks me just say I was hunting grouse. This law enforcement point has been blown out of proportion."
So is this going to be a musky harvest stamp then? Or is this just a stamp to fish for them? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 3147
| trout stamp ????
I'll refer to a concern that sworrall raised earlier in this thread if a stamp wont stick to a musky how would it stick to a trout factor in too that it live mostly in an environment that has current to simply make the stamp slide off how much of these trout stamp funds are wasted on glue and replacement stamps
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Meant to be both IMO Pointer. But only a “harvest” stamp in terms of being able to get a better handle on the harvest numbers in WI to better make management decisions on specific water bodies. That was mentioned in the stamp proposal link in a previous post. As mentioned by another there are lots of trout fisherman that buy the stamp, but are still almost 100% catch and release like most musky anglers.
Steve I do not disagree with needing to manage other species. I am all for it. Heck I would support a license fee increase and a stamp if that means both musky management/fisheries and the other species management/fisheries improve! I have no problems paying for my recreation. I am a strong believer in put and take. Reason being is the alternative really would suck if I couldn’t enjoy the outdoors and what it has to offer. Not everyone has the same viewpoint as me and I can honor that.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | So musky fisherman who are strictly catch and release should pay $10 extra on top of their license for what reason?
What is this money going to go to? Give me some specifics. Steve has already established that stocking hasn't declined. There isn't a shortage of muskies in the state. What, specifically, is wrong with musky fishing that the stamp is needed?
I'm not trying to be snarky here. I haven't fished muskies in Wisconsin in 2 years now. Reports I get from friends back there is musky fishing is just as good as it was when I left for Utah. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 238
Location: Rhinelander | sworrall - 5/2/2012 8:27 AM
'Are you seriously in favor of increasing the fee in WI and MN? If so, let's work on that then.'
No, I'm not in WI. If someone can tell me why we need the money in WI, and what it would go to, I'd be interested. More fish techs hired? More administration hired? New equipment? Where is this money supposed to go? Increase the wages of the DNR employees in the field? That I'd support, but the general public won't. If the answer is 'stocking muskies', then it's not needed here.
Very good post.
Put me down for no stamp......this doesn't mean I won't support a healthy musky fisherie, as I do, but one doesn't just improve musky fishing with out improving the overall fisherie for each water.
Here is a thought...... to improve fisheries hire more fish techs with an increase in salary for the men in the field, including biologists. These men work insane hours, are short staffed and essentially control the direction "your" favorite lake is headed.
Do you want your lake to stay as a "numbers" lake or sustain it's trophy potential without dipping the population too low to still allow a fishable population of musky to target? How is this attainable?......population estimates must be performed and with the vast amount of lakes in northern WI it takes years and years to cycle thru the quanity of lakes to study.
Spend some time with the men in the field within the DNR....they are quite full of information and are more than likely fisherman too. With an increase of manpower the general public could see quicker results regarding more lakes studied per year, which in turn helps to sustain our overall musky fisherie. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 10:11 AM
So musky fisherman who are strictly catch and release should pay $10 extra on top of their license for what reason?
What is this money going to go to? Give me some specifics. Steve has already established that stocking hasn't declined. There isn't a shortage of muskies in the state. What, specifically, is wrong with musky fishing that the stamp is needed?
I'm not trying to be snarky here. I haven't fished muskies in Wisconsin in 2 years now. Reports I get from friends back there is musky fishing is just as good as it was when I left for Utah.
Same reason trout anglers buy a stamp.
Perhaps there is not a problem, yet, Pointer. Or there could be. Isn’t it better to be proactive than reactive? MN hasn’t lost the darkhouse spearing issue, yet. Isn’t it better for them to maintain that than lose the battle, and then try and decide how do they get back what they currently have? For not having any problem with the fisheries in WI there sure seems to be a lot of grumbling and complaining about it as well as a lot of people jumping to MN for muskies rather than staying here.
I understand people want to see specifics on what the stamp money would go to. Keep in mind it is better to have it written up vaguely to what the money would be used for rather than very specific. Reason being is if you are very specifc you then are locked into having to use the money for that. It’s better to be vague so that the money can be disbursed as different needs arise, and other needs diminish. Read up on how the trout moneys is used, and what has to be done to get approval to use it on a project.
The reasons Hodag brings up on what money could be used for are good ones. I will not list items money could be used for as someone will just find reasons, in their opinion, it shouldn’t be needed for that. Ultimately it should be up to the musky management team, along with organizations, on what the money is used for…in direct connection with muskies. I understand this is where a lot of animosity is coming from in terms of the stamp as people want to know what exactly it will be used on. However what we list today will likely be different than what it should be used for 5 years from now.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | Here's where I think we can use money: Grants to study this fish we know almost nothing about. Genetics research. More timely lake surveys. Educating the public on misconceptions they have. Enhancing the hatcheries to include more than 2 or three strains of fish. Rebuilding populations that have had their native strain decimated. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | I know all about how money has to be used. I run my own state budget. General funds, dedicated credits, sportfish dollars, etc.
So if there isn't a problem, why are we needing a tax just to fish? What are we being proactive about? What is it that has the musky populations in Wisconsin in jeopardy that we need to come to the rescue with a tax?
Fisherman grumble, about anything and everything. I deal with it every day. To the old timer, fishing is never as good as it was "back in the day". To a young adult angler, fishing is better than it has ever been. You can never please everyone, but I think a stamp pleases a very small percentage within the musky community and would be a big complaint to the rest of the angling public.
I completely agree with Hodag on what money could be used for. This would be accomplished much easier with a license fee increase than it would with a stamp. If this was done with a musky stamp fund, then does the biologist pulling nets and doing the population estimate have to ignore the bass, walleye, pike etc he catches because he is working solely with musky stamp funds?
Musky fishing has survived how many years without a stamp? Some would argue that musky fishing in Wisconsin is pretty darn good.
Your passion for the sport is there, which is great. I just don't see a stamp benefiting the sport or the fishery. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 11:44 AM
I know all about how money has to be used. I run my own state budget. General funds, dedicated credits, sportfish dollars, etc.
Thus why I am sure you push so hard for a license fee increase rather than a stamp fund. You have more to work with to get get various tasks done in a year in terms of balancing a budget to improve fisheries as a whole. Not a bad thing...Just not what musky anglers like to hear. 
Mind you I am not syaing musky fishing sucks in WI. There is a reason I don't travel outside the sate. However it can always be better. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | CiscoKid - 5/2/2012 11:03 AM
Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 11:44 AM
I know all about how money has to be used. I run my own state budget. General funds, dedicated credits, sportfish dollars, etc.
Thus why I am sure you push so hard for a license fee increase rather than a stamp fund. You have more to work with to get get various tasks done in a year in terms of balancing a budget to improve fisheries as a whole. Not a bad thing...Just not what musky anglers like to hear.
Mind you I am not syaing musky fishing sucks in WI. There is a reason I don't travel outside the sate. However it can always be better.
The problem is, there is a very limited amount you can do to "improve" musky fisheries. I think you could get a lot more done but improving the fishery as a whole as opposed to having a designated musky fund. I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck if you increased license fees by $10 dollars as opposed to offering a stamp for $10. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Guaranteed you would sell less licenses then, and in the end may not gain anything. At least with a stamp you would still hold status quo on license sales.
Lots of young anglers may not spend the extra $10 to fish. Yep we may lose them to musky angling with a stamp, but we wouldn't lose them to fishing all together.
$30 in WI would be the cost with the additional $10. Heck I can get a non-res, restricted (similar to WI without trout stamps) in MI for $34.
I do agree though $10 to a license fee increase would give you more bang for the buck for fisheries as a whole.
Edited by CiscoKid 5/2/2012 12:27 PM
|
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | Pointerpride102 - 5/2/2012 12:16 PM
The problem is, there is a very limited amount you can do to "improve" musky fisheries. I think you could get a lot more done but improving the fishery as a whole as opposed to having a designated musky fund. I think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck if you increased license fees by $10 dollars as opposed to offering a stamp for $10.
No way all the non-musky anglers are going to go for a $10 license fee increase here Mike. A resident fishing license is only $20 now, and a husband/wife one is $31. So increasing it to $30 and $41 (or $51, if you make both spouses pay the extra fee to fish 'skis) is NOT going to go over well here at all in my humble opinion.
You'd have a better chance of getting the stamp accepted, in terms of the added fee. There are definitely pro's and con's to each argument in this thread--and I really don't have a firm opinion on the matter. There have been some rumblings over the past couple years about such a stamp here in WI, but to date I haven't been involved other than to provide some background data that I gathered back in 2007/2008 while preparing to submit a request on behalf of the Green Bay fishery. So I don't have enough information to speak with authority in either direction--other than to tell you that it seems that every time I go to the Spring CC hearings, the topic of fees comes up...and people inevitably complain. Thus I can't imagine you'd ever get all anglers to agree to such a fee increase, when the majority (reportedly) don't fish muskellunge.
This is a complicated issue, to be sure.
TB |
|
| |
|
Posts: 16632
Location: The desert | It will be interesting to see what happens in Wisconsin. I'd venture to guess that we'll see a license fee increase before a musky stamp.
Both would be met with opposition, no doubt. But I think the DNR would have a much easier time justifying to anglers a license fee increase vs a musky stamp. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | how bout an internet user fee that would cause people to type less and fish more? more time on the water might create a little more success and less complaining about how bad it is? it's possible that fishing might be really good???
or open up baiting for fish? ... bucket a corn under your favorite tree so the fish will be on your bait-pile come saturday??
edit:
love the word-sensoring selections ... lol ... signed "sweetness bag"
Edited by jonnysled 5/2/2012 12:36 PM
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | TB, CK, Pointer,
Interesting issue though. I know I'd like to see some new faces working hard for the DNR (which isn't likely until the economy picks up), and see some LTEs reclassified to permanent status. The State uses LTE status to save money, and the commitment to the employee is minimal when compared to a full timer. A TON of the work done on the water is tasked to the LTEs. |
|
| |
|
Location: Green Bay, WI | jonnysled - 5/2/2012 12:34 PM
how bout an internet user fee that would cause people to type less and fish more? more time on the water might create a little more success and less complaining about how bad it is? it's possible that fishing might be really good???
or open up baiting for fish? ... bucket a corn under your favorite tree so the fish will be on your bait-pile come saturday??
edit:
love the word-sensoring selections ... lol ... signed "sweetness bag"
I'm not sure I follow your logic here Sled... You do know that the season is closed right now, right? Pretty much rules out the "fishing more, typing less" part of your argument I'd say. And I am really not sure who's complaining or what they are complaining about, to be honest. Catch records do indeed show that the average fish size is increasing--all one has to do is peruse the MI Lunge Log (or, god-forbid, read the musky forums...) to see that.
I think the effort is to get a true read on just what sort of pressure is being applied to these fish--both in terms of angling effort, and in harvest. When you're trying to manage a population of animals subject to exploitation by a user group, what better information could you ask for? So I really don't follow the logic of your objection to this effort.
TB
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 994
Location: Minnesota: where it's tough to be a sportsfan! | I believe the best place for MY money is to go where the rubber meets the road. The Muskie Chapters themselve's. The DNR can be both pro & con, the legislature always seems to chase the money. The Chapters are more pure at heart they focus on outcomes not on manipulation of funds and budgets. Good Chapters show a history of action and hard work for the resource often despite the govermental agency's. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | jakejusa - 5/2/2012 12:56 PM
I believe the best place for MY money is to go where the rubber meets the road. The Muskie Chapters themselve's. The DNR can be both pro & con, the legislature always seems to chase the money. The Chapters are more pure at heart they focus on outcomes not on manipulation of funds and budgets. Good Chapters show a history of action and hard work for the resource often despite the govermental agency's.
This is true, but MORE can be done by the DNR than a club. Usually a club has to get permission from the DNR to do something. There are some things biologically that the DNR would think of doing that a musky club may not think of because of their knowledge. Again it's not all just about stocking. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 13688
Location: minocqua, wi. | tcbetka - 5/2/2012 12:42 PM
I'm not sure I follow your logic here Sled... You do know that the season is closed right now, right? Pretty much rules out the "fishing more, typing less" part of your argument I'd say. And I am really not sure who's complaining or what they are complaining about, to be honest. Catch records do indeed show that the average fish size is increasing--all one has to do is peruse the MI Lunge Log (or, god-forbid, read the musky forums...) to see that.
TB
Escanaba Lake = open without restriction
Crappies = been biting for 2 months now ... great way to learn and be on the water
Salmon = Coho's been going on Superior in 6'-12' of water
Smelt = drunks biting heads and cleanin' with scissors at least around here
there are more fish and fishing opportunities than muskies, and they all help you become a better musky fisherman. i'd say the fisheries are in great shape and the season is going for many and more things coming as you mention. it's a good time to be a fisherman!! |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Here's where I think we can use money: Grants to study this fish we know almost nothing about. Genetics research. More timely lake surveys. Educating the public on misconceptions they have. Enhancing the hatcheries to include more than 2 or three strains of fish. Rebuilding populations that have had their native strain decimated.'
So far, if we are talking muskies, all of this has already been done, and there were no strains 'decimated', see Dr. Sloss's findings and recommendations. As far as 'more timely lake surveys' there are always a bunch underway, doing more might be OK, or might or might not be needed. As to the rest, that falls within the 'Educating the public on misconceptions they have' bracket, and that will be a rough one. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 4343
Location: Smith Creek | I read Dr. Sloss's recommendations from 06, he goes into some detail about about the difficulties in maintaining broodstocks and even mentions that funds aren't availabe for the pit tags he required. He also points out that there is a lot more research to be done. Think a few extra bucks could solve some of those problems? Why is education a "rough one"? I see signs at a lot of landings explaining why it is important to release SMB, I never see signs that say rough fish make up the majority of a muskie's diet. Or signs that say muskies are present in a low density and need to be handled with care.
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Flambeauski - 5/2/2012 2:37 PM
I read Dr. Sloss's recommendations from 06, he goes into some detail about about the difficulties in maintaining broodstocks and even mentions that funds aren't availabe for the pit tags he required. He also points out that there is a lot more research to be done. Think a few extra bucks could solve some of those problems? Why is education a "rough one"? I see signs at a lot of landings explaining why it is important to release SMB, I never see signs that say rough fish make up the majority of a muskie's diet. Or signs that say muskies are present in a low density and need to be handled with care.
Agree. |
|
| |
|
Posts: 1906
Location: Oconto Falls, WI | Here is a link to a plethora of information on Muskies in WI. Reading through the various links you can start forming ideas of where additional money could be used in the world of muskies that a stamp could provide. You will also see what has already been accomplished.
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/musky/muskymanteam_products.html
|
|
| |
|
Posts: 829
Location: Maple Grove, MN | You are all discussing a $10 Muskie stamp? I spend that on gas in a couple hours of fishing. It costs me almost that just to trailer the boat to the nearest Muskie lake - never mind if we're fishing somewhere else.
How about $10 for a bumper sticker and then have the proceeds go to Muskie stocking? We could give it to someone like Paul Hartman who knows all about that sort of thing. A few possible bumper stickers could read:
- "Muskie fishermen have bigger rods".
- "Get slimed - go Muskie fishing"
Anything other ideas? |
|
| |
|
Posts: 32883
Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | 'Here is a link to a plethora of information on Muskies in WI. Reading through the various links you can start forming ideas of where additional money could be used in the world of muskies that a stamp could provide. You will also see what has already been accomplished. '
There's a big difference between what 'would be nice' and what is needed. If you are going to suggest the State REQUIRE the stamp, the funding better go where its needed and not be deflected to some other area of management or replace money in use now. If it's on the 'want' list, then Herb_b has it right.
Paying for posters like the ones mentioned above other than the 'legal size and bag limit' posters the State puts out from the fisheries budget is not likely to happen; what the fisheries managers would say and what we, as muskie activists, might say are not necessarily the same thing. Those sort of posters come from groups like MI. Pay the $10 to some organization to place educational posters at every landing; sure, I'd kick in for that. |
|
| |
