Muskie Discussion Forums
| ||
| Moderators: Slamr | View previous thread :: View next thread |
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] Muskie Fishing -> General Discussion -> Minnesota 56 inch minimum debate |
| Message Subject: Minnesota 56 inch minimum debate | |||
lhprop1 |
| ||
Posts: 200 Location: Minnesota | 123 - 2/7/2013 3:38 PM BradP No, #4 (Boinking every fish because you hate them) is NOT ridiculous in that the mentality exists here in MN by far more people than you realize. Two examples (sorry, both on Vermilion where I fish): #1 - A year ago, during the early bass season, I hooked a 44" musky which took a while to land. There were several walleye boats very near to me and were watching the action as it took a while to land the fish on 10lbs line. While fighting the fish, one of the boats was yelling and imploring me to kill the fish if I landed it because they were "eating all the walleyes". The guys in this boat were very vocal and insistent to 'kill that thin!!!'. They told me and everyone around us (several boats floating in the walleye hole) that they slit the throat of every musky they happen to catch. I completely believe them. #2 - I fulfilled a lifelong dream last year when I bought my first ever cabin on Lake Vermilion. That's not important, but what is important is that the seller, an older gentlemen, was an avid walleye and panfishermen. When he found out I was a musky fisherman, he was disgusted. He told me he hated muskies and killed every one that he ever caught. That is why #4 is ridiculous and perhaps why the law MIGHT help to save a few big fish from (hopefully) law abiding walleye anglers - many of whom truly despise the musky here in MN. Brian Putting a 56" limit on muskies (or C&R only) is going to do as much to stop these losers from slitting throats as much as banning guns is going to keep the bad guys from shooting people. I don't know what the whole stamp proposal is, but why not sell a yearly possesion tag? You could only keep a fish above 50" (or some other arbitrary number) with your tag, but once your tag is filled, you're ineligible for another one for 5 years. That way a guy could keep one fish, whether it's because he wants to get it mounted, couldn't revive it, he wants to eat it, etc. every 5 years. Most or all of the money could go to stocking. Edited by lhprop1 2/8/2013 1:45 PM | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | The assumption on stamps and stockings is that all the additional funds will indeed go to stocking. However, we are talking about government. Exactly what guarrantee is there that the additional funds will be used for additional stocking? Or will they be used to continue current efforts so funds currently committed to Musky Stocking can be re-allocated elsewhere. Keep in mind the Walleye stamp lost money it's first few years. You are better off donating to the MMPA or your local MI club, IMO. On the 56" limit and bonking/poaching. I covered that. It obviously will not stop someone who is willing to break the law from killing fish. My point is that is an enforcement issue and isn't a reason, in of itself, to not support the limit. Would you like for there to be no size limit because a few jackwagons are going to criminally kill fish? Maybe we shouldn't have a closed season since a few dinks do not follow that law also? Once again, the corrolary to the position is just silly. I can see how the arguments are logically similar to gun control, but, and I'm sorry, only an idiot would equivocate losing the right to keep a fish with losing the right to protect your family and private property. Protecting a mostly man made fishing resource is not the same as the 2nd amendment. The arguments might be similar in abstract, but morally they are so far apart it is ridiculous to even mention them in the same sentence. Edited by Brad P 2/8/2013 2:01 PM | ||
| lhprop1 |
| ||
Posts: 200 Location: Minnesota | Brad P - 2/8/2013 1:59 PM I can see how the arguments are logically similar to gun control, but, and I'm sorry, only an idiot would equivocate losing the right to keep a fish with losing the right to protect your family and private property. Protecting a mostly man made fishing resource is not the same as the 2nd amendment. The arguments might be similar in abstract, but morally they are so far apart it is ridiculous to even mention them in the same sentence. I never meant to equate the two, I was simply using an example to further illustrate your point. I fully agree that it's an enforcement issue. Guys who want to kill muskies or keep unlimited crappies/walleyes/sunnies are going to do so regardless of the regulations. It's up to the CO's to catch them and up to law abiding sportsmen to provide the tips to the CO's. Edited by lhprop1 2/8/2013 2:43 PM | ||
| jaultman |
| ||
Posts: 1828 | FAT-SKI - 2/8/2013 1:22 PM One of the many problems with a musky stamp. The only people that are going to buy one are those that 'plan' on catching and keeping musky for whatever reason. The stamp would not be a situation where "you have to buy a stamp in order to fish for them legally". You might as well have to buy a seperate license just for musky fishing. Which would never pass. I am not the best one to way in on a topic such as this, but "MuskieTreats" has all sorts of info about this topic (some of which whave been discussed on this thread) and very valid points to why it is a bad idea. I have heard a ton of them, but now that I am on the spot of course I can't think of any. Are you saying that a stamp or a tag is a bad idea? You're blending two different ideas together - stamps and tags. I'm talking about a possession tag, like someone else just brought up after me. You wouldn't have to buy two separate licenses. You can fish C&R with your MN fishing license. If you intend to keep one, you must buy a tag, and the fish must be a certain size to keep. I want to add that you would register the fish when bagged, like a big game animal. Secondly, you're right that the only people who'd buy a tag (not stamp) are those who intend to keep one. That is not a problem with the idea; that's exactly the point. | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | Im not saying that you would have to buy a seperate licesne I am saying it would be like buying a seperate license, or just make it so in order to fish for muskies you can only do so with this tag/stamp/ or seperate licesnse. OK< but with your second point. People can already keep one a day/trip over a certain size. So if that is the point, then there is no point because that is already in play. As soon as the season starts if I catch a 50" and I want to keep it, I can (I would never keep one) without a stamp/tag, so why would i buy a tag if we can do this already. So if there is going to be a stamp/tag implimented then there has to be another point. because the "i can keep one now" point is already in effect. Do I think tags/stamps are a bad idea... Yes, I have heard both side of the argument and I chose a side. The side I chose does not involve ever having a stamp/tag. Again like I stated previously, There are far better people to weigh in on this topic. People that have been back and forth on this for many years. Hopefully one of them will pipe up and explain in better detail than I am capable of doing at this time. | ||
| lhprop1 |
| ||
Posts: 200 Location: Minnesota | FAT-SKI - 2/8/2013 3:27 PM OK< but with your second point. People can already keep one a day/trip over a certain size. So if that is the point, then there is no point because that is already in play. As soon as the season starts if I catch a 50" and I want to keep it, I can (I would never keep one) without a stamp/tag, so why would i buy a tag if we can do this already. So if there is going to be a stamp/tag implimented then there has to be another point. because the "i can keep one now" point is already in effect. The daily limit of one fish would be erased. In order to keep any fish at all, you would first have to have the tag. Once your tag is filled and registered, you're done keeping muskies for the year. Without the tag, you can C&R all season long to your heart's content. One fish per year is a helluva lot better than one fish per day. Edited by lhprop1 2/8/2013 3:37 PM | ||
| bigred2198 |
| ||
Posts: 397 | "I bet those walley guys, cabin owners, whitefish netters, and panfisherman will not be in favor of any 56" size limit. Might as well put walleye eating sharks in their lakes and then try to tell them they will just be eating suckers and wont bite your kids." haha, i am hearing the music to jaws!!!! | ||
| bigred2198 |
| ||
Posts: 397 | Very good discussion and debate, apart from a bit of name calling and wording, this has been a very well written and thought out forum. Instead of bashing each other people are taking the time to think about the response they are writing. | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | lhprop1 - 2/8/2013 3:34 PM FAT-SKI - 2/8/2013 3:27 PM OK< but with your second point. People can already keep one a day/trip over a certain size. So if that is the point, then there is no point because that is already in play. As soon as the season starts if I catch a 50" and I want to keep it, I can (I would never keep one) without a stamp/tag, so why would i buy a tag if we can do this already. So if there is going to be a stamp/tag implimented then there has to be another point. because the "i can keep one now" point is already in effect. The daily limit of one fish would be erased. In order to keep any fish at all, you would first have to have the tag. Once your tag is filled and registered, you're done keeping muskies for the year. Without the tag, you can C&R all season long to your heart's content. One fish per year is a helluva lot better than one fish per day. ----------- I agree with the point of "one a year is better than one a day" That I can understand. But if someone out there wants to keep one, even if they used their tag.. they probably will. Like Brad P said. This would have to go back to enforcement. But because it would change from one a day to one a year. There would be a ton of push back from anglers of all kinds... not just multi speices guys, but some of the musky fisherman would push back just as hard. there would also have to be other benefits for the tag/stamp for it to pass. You can't have a higher keep limit and a tag, its one or the other. and I think that going for a tag/stamp in the case of MN would be us taking steps in the wrong direction. It should be more important to us to have a raised size limit then it should be for a tag/stamp to be implimented, I know it is to me. A raised size limit would all but eliminate which fish are able to be kept. With the exception of the things already discussed on this thread. With the tag, you could keep whatever you want, as long as it was within the terms of the tag right? ok, well there in lies the issue. would the stamp keep ability be lower, higher or the same as the raised size limit. And if it were different, how do you enforce that, how would you know if someone had already kept there fish or not and from what lake. You would need to check every musky boat coming in and out of every lake to see if they caught? how big? get official measurments and weights? have they already registered a fish this year? do they even have a tag? was it caught legaly? Was the tag used by the angler who caught the fish, and not the other guy in the boat that already caught and registered a fish this seaason? There are just too many loopholes in the tag/stamp idea for it to ever REALLY work. This is a debate I wish I could have in person right now. typing all of this with one hand (not to mention, my wrong hand) is driving me nuts. Have an forearm injury, so if I type with my right hand, my fingers go numb. no beuno... Edited by FAT-SKI 2/8/2013 4:21 PM | ||
| DLC |
| ||
Posts: 82 | The problem with a tag is it could possibly open up muskies in Mn to other forms of harvest. | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | DLC - 2/8/2013 4:11 PM The problem with a tag is it could possibly open up muskies in Mn to other forms of harvest. -------- Another great point. | ||
| Brad P |
| ||
Posts: 833 | I just do not buy the tag bit. Two reasons, first, why does someone want to keep a fish, we've been through that ad nauseum in here so I won't repeat my views on that. My other issue has to do with the fundraising aspect. The idea is noble on the surface, but you have to ask who ultimately is in control of the created financial resource and how will it be allocated? In this case it is a government entity, the MN DNR. I see two important issues that arise: 1.) What is the guarrantee that the new funds will be soley used for Muskies? 2,) What is the guarrantee that the existing funds already allocated to Muskies will be maintained and grown? Item 2 is the deal breaker for me. Leave alone all the issues of Government as a resrouce allocator, there is no guarrantee or protection that the tag funds won't just be considered a replacement for the exsiting musky funds so the DNR can reallocate it's budget for some other area. This is why I think we are far better providing funds to the MMPA or local MI chapter. Then you know the funds are going to be used for the fish. It is also worth noting that mortality is not only sad in harming a fishery, it is also quite expense. The 50s we create today are costing roughly $467 based on my armchair math. If that 50 is taken in 12 years when it reaches size, it will cost the Future Value of $467. Even with 2% inflation, that number will be around ~$600. We cannot afford to assume that the stocking budget will increase in kind over that time period. Edited by Brad P 2/8/2013 4:32 PM | ||
| kevin cochran |
| ||
Posts: 374 Location: Bemidji | I can maybe shed some light on the tag issue. I have been involved with this and have talked extensively with other members of the MN Muskie Alliance as well as the MN DNR. Tags encourage harvest plain and simple. One of our fears is the possibility that soft water harvest would be transferred to other means of harvest. This is a real possiblity with the political power of the MN Darkhouse. The tag discussion has been discussed and it has no support amongst the group. There is not a problem in MN with anglers taking multiple fish throughout a season. If this was an issue a tag would be more appealing. However, there is a problem with anglers taking fish that are biologically in their prime. This is the reason behind a higher size limit suggestion. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | What everyone doesn't get in the tag discussion is this: How do you register it? It works with sturgeon because it's a local area with a very short season. It works with hunting because again, it's a very short season. It costs money to maintain the registration of any sporting activity and I'm sorry to say that it would be flat out cost prohibitive to try to implement this with muskies. So essentially we'd be spending a lot of money to encourage harvest and have a negative balance in the muskie fund to stock more lakes. Can we PLEASE drop the stamp talk now? The muskie anglers that know the details about it and the DNR BOTH want nothing to do with it. | ||
| ammoman16 |
| ||
Posts: 130 Location: Duluth, MN | I think the stamp idea is a valid one and don't think it should be just dismissed. It's only cost prohibitive if the cost of the stamp to the angler makes it such. The idea of a stamp would make it illegal for most walleye fisherman to "bonk" a fish, regardless of size. Most of us musky guys have no issue dropping $25 on a bait, so I don't think this needs to necessarily be a $5 or $10 stamp. I for one, wouldn't hesitate to drop $50 on one. I typically target muskies no less than about 50 times a year. $1 a trip is pretty minimal in my opinion. On top of the benefit of less fish being harvested, there would likely be additional funds generated to put back into the sport. Even if existing funding was cut and these funds just got us back to where we currently are today, we would be miles ahead with the lower harvest rate. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | People won't buy it unless it's manditory. Those that DO buy it wouldn't cover the administrative costs associated with it. PLEASE believe me! We've worked the numbers with the DNR for the last 6-7 years on this. The administrative costs alone to just manage a stamp (not including registration) is around $50k. Now include registration stations, the tag's themselves, enforcement, etc and you're probably in the $100-$250 range. Remember, this is Gov't we're talking about. So again, why do we want to mess with a stamp when just raising the limit solves the problem for a small fraction of the cost. Why spend 6 figures ANNUALLY on something that has a simple, inexpensive solution? | ||
| ammoman16 |
| ||
Posts: 130 Location: Duluth, MN | I didn't say anything about tags or registration. I said stamp. There's a big difference. There doesn't need to be a physical stamp other than something printed on your current license. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | 1. The DNR doesn't want to have mandated species specific stamps. That's why we have a license. 2. Again, to manage a stamp costs a lot of money. The walleye stamp (which is voluntary) is $50,000. 3. How do you determine who needs one? Does the guy who's "muskie fishing" with a daredevil need one? It just makes muskies and muskie fishing seem more elitist. Most "muskie fishermen" fish muskies less then 5x a year. Most of these I suspect are generalized fishermen that may throw a bucktail for 1/2 hour on a fishing trip while fishing for other species as well. Do they need one? The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that throw around $25/bait a couple times a week aren't nearly as prolific as you may think. 4. Assuming that any money is actually netted from this (doubtful), where is that money going to go? The DNR has NEVER been denied funds from MI that I know of for any major project that I know about in the past decade. We've volunteered tens of thousands to get new lakes started and have been rejected. The Hugh C Becker fund alone is awarding over $100k to muskie projects THIS YEAR. Funding our muskie fishery is NOT the problem nor the solution. 5. By adding a stamp you also would have to enforce it. That would basically require a registration station assuming you get 1 fish a year. There's no other way of doing it then that. All adding a stamp would be is adding big gov't with minimal results and a big price tag to a problem that has a simple solution which can be implemented very cost effectively. I'm sorry but this is the last post in response to your posts. You either don't read what I have posted, don't listen to reason nor have any clue how the DNR or MI or fisheries management works. Edited by Muskie Treats 2/9/2013 9:03 AM | ||
| Top H2O |
| ||
Posts: 4080 Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | Agree 110% with Treats on this one Boys,....He's the Pro on this kind of stuff, He has spent hundreds of hrs. with the dnr and knows the NUMBERS,....That's good enough for me,......Now let's raise the limit to 56" and maybe get a few more lakes stocked with muskies. Jerome | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | I also agree with Treats and Top H20 | ||
| ammoman16 |
| ||
Posts: 130 Location: Duluth, MN | Muskie Treats - 2/9/2013 8:58 AM 1. The DNR doesn't want to have mandated species specific stamps. That's why we have a license. 2. Again, to manage a stamp costs a lot of money. The walleye stamp (which is voluntary) is $50,000. 3. How do you determine who needs one? Does the guy who's "muskie fishing" with a daredevil need one? It just makes muskies and muskie fishing seem more elitist. Most "muskie fishermen" fish muskies less then 5x a year. Most of these I suspect are generalized fishermen that may throw a bucktail for 1/2 hour on a fishing trip while fishing for other species as well. Do they need one? The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that throw around $25/bait a couple times a week aren't nearly as prolific as you may think. 4. Assuming that any money is actually netted from this (doubtful), where is that money going to go? The DNR has NEVER been denied funds from MI that I know of for any major project that I know about in the past decade. We've volunteered tens of thousands to get new lakes started and have been rejected. The Hugh C Becker fund alone is awarding over $100k to muskie projects THIS YEAR. Funding our muskie fishery is NOT the problem nor the solution. 5. By adding a stamp you also would have to enforce it. That would basically require a registration station assuming you get 1 fish a year. There's no other way of doing it then that. All adding a stamp would be is adding big gov't with minimal results and a big price tag to a problem that has a simple solution which can be implemented very cost effectively. I'm sorry but this is the last post in response to your posts. You either don't read what I have posted, don't listen to reason nor have any clue how the DNR or MI or fisheries management works. There is absolutely merit to this idea as there is with every idea listed so far. Maybe no one of these ideas is the right one by itself. 1. We have trout stamps because they are expensive fisheries to maintain. This directly corrolates to musky fishing. We have a lot of lakes with no natural reproduction, not to mention tigers are sterile. There has already been discussion on this topic about the expense to grow a 50" fish. Wether you believe those figures or not is up to you, but I think we can agree it is very expensive. You've got to pay to play. 2.. This wouldn't be voluntary, and frankly $50,000 is worth the price of protecting our fisheries. Even though, I believe it wouldn't cost that much to have something printed on your regular fishing license that says you can fish for musky. 3. Your target species would most likely be a judgement call by a CO. No different than if you're throwing a magnum Bulldawg on Mille Lacs in May while "pike" fishing. 4. Additional income would be a side benefit of this and not the primary goal. The primary goal is protecting and enhancing our fishery, which would be done through a reduction in harvest. 5. A stamp and a tag are two totally different things. I have been talking about a stamp that says you can fish, and not a tag that requires you to register your catch. I don't recall ever registering a laker. New ideas from new people are never a bad thing and shouldn't be quickly dismissed as they very clearly are. | ||
| DLC |
| ||
Posts: 82 | But I Shawn and others have been told by the DNR that they have no interest in a muskie stamp and Shawn's concerns were what the DNR told us. So this is kind of a dead issue. The 56 inch size limit is our best avenue to protect our fisheries. Edited by DLC 2/9/2013 10:49 AM | ||
| ARmuskyaddict |
| ||
Posts: 2024 | Give the money you would pay for a stamp to MI instead. Much less red tape to use your $$. | ||
| FAT-SKI |
| ||
Posts: 1360 Location: Lake "y" cause lake"x" got over fished | ammoman16 - 2/9/2013 10:02 AM Muskie Treats - 2/9/2013 8:58 AM 1. The DNR doesn't want to have mandated species specific stamps. That's why we have a license. 2. Again, to manage a stamp costs a lot of money. The walleye stamp (which is voluntary) is $50,000. 3. How do you determine who needs one? Does the guy who's "muskie fishing" with a daredevil need one? It just makes muskies and muskie fishing seem more elitist. Most "muskie fishermen" fish muskies less then 5x a year. Most of these I suspect are generalized fishermen that may throw a bucktail for 1/2 hour on a fishing trip while fishing for other species as well. Do they need one? The number of "hard core" muskie anglers that throw around $25/bait a couple times a week aren't nearly as prolific as you may think. 4. Assuming that any money is actually netted from this (doubtful), where is that money going to go? The DNR has NEVER been denied funds from MI that I know of for any major project that I know about in the past decade. We've volunteered tens of thousands to get new lakes started and have been rejected. The Hugh C Becker fund alone is awarding over $100k to muskie projects THIS YEAR. Funding our muskie fishery is NOT the problem nor the solution. 5. By adding a stamp you also would have to enforce it. That would basically require a registration station assuming you get 1 fish a year. There's no other way of doing it then that. All adding a stamp would be is adding big gov't with minimal results and a big price tag to a problem that has a simple solution which can be implemented very cost effectively. I'm sorry but this is the last post in response to your posts. You either don't read what I have posted, don't listen to reason nor have any clue how the DNR or MI or fisheries management works. There is absolutely merit to this idea as there is with every idea listed so far. Maybe no one of these ideas is the right one by itself. 1. We have trout stamps because they are expensive fisheries to maintain. This directly corrolates to musky fishing. We have a lot of lakes with no natural reproduction, not to mention tigers are sterile. There has already been discussion on this topic about the expense to grow a 50" fish. Wether you believe those figures or not is up to you, but I think we can agree it is very expensive. You've got to pay to play. 2.. This wouldn't be voluntary, and frankly $50,000 is worth the price of protecting our fisheries. Even though, I believe it wouldn't cost that much to have something printed on your regular fishing license that says you can fish for musky. 3. Your target species would most likely be a judgement call by a CO. No different than if you're throwing a magnum Bulldawg on Mille Lacs in May while "pike" fishing. 4. Additional income would be a side benefit of this and not the primary goal. The primary goal is protecting and enhancing our fishery, which would be done through a reduction in harvest. 5. A stamp and a tag are two totally different things. I have been talking about a stamp that says you can fish, and not a tag that requires you to register your catch. I don't recall ever registering a laker. New ideas from new people are never a bad thing and shouldn't be quickly dismissed as they very clearly are. ------- The ideas your coming up with aren't anything new. These people like treats who have been dealing with this stuff for many years now and have beatin this horse to death. Know that this is not a good idea for one of the many reason listed above. They have gone over this many a times with many a people and everytime they came out of talks it was determined that this was not somthing worth persuing. I think we all just need to accept and move on, unless you have some BRAND NEW version no one has ever heard or ever considered. This stamp/tag idea has been brought up more than the imfamous question.... -- "whats the best reel for double 10s"?? Edited by FAT-SKI 2/9/2013 11:25 AM | ||
| ammoman16 |
| ||
Posts: 130 Location: Duluth, MN | I didn't come up with them, just supporting others ideas that were posted on here. The ideas may not be new, but if people continue to say no to everything, pretty soon people will not even open there mouths anymore. Plus, the ideas themselves may not be new, but different people have different ideas on how to execute them. | ||
| sworrall |
| ||
Posts: 32886 Location: Rhinelander, Wisconsin | These guys know. I suggest you listen to Treats when talking MN, he and the other folks who have worked hard over there to maintain the fishery know what will pass, work, and make sense. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | Dude, myself, couple other people that have commented here and a couple others (which I can't believe have kept their mouth shut) here are this generations inventors of "outside the box" muskie thinking when it comes to the MN fishery. When I took over the TC Chapter 01 it was the dark ages in problem solving. I peeed off so many people for not keeping an open mind to things we had a mass exodus from MI. We now have freaking think-tank sessions with many people from around the state and all different backgrounds on this stuff on a regular basis. We now have 5-6 figure budgets to tackle the muskie issues of the day. We have connections in the DNR we haven't had in decades. We've added more new muskie waters in the past decade then we had during any other time this side of the great muskie expansion in the 80's. I've sat in meetings with the past 2 department heads of fisheries (and the local offices) as well as 2 DNR commissioners exploring new ways of protecting the resource and coming up with funds for these types of things. We've been down every known road on the stamp idea and it's not a cost effective solution for anything we're trying to accomplish. You can say "I don't think it would be that much", but I've sat through the meetings and have crunched the numbers. IT DOESN"T MAKE SENSE! What we ARE doing is working on things that DO make economical sense and pushing those. Raising money in fundraisers and donations to get political lobbyists in the MN Legislature for instance. Working with the DNR to create the Long Range Plan (where maximizing regulations is a critical component) https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/muskiepike_2020.html. Working with local Gov't agencies, stakeholders, and economic driving businesses to promote a trophy muskie fishery and it's expansion, etc, etc. I do appreciate that you have an interest in furthering the MN muskie program, but please believe me that we have been down this road over and over again and there are MANY other avenues that are more cost beneficial which have a greater chance of improving our fishery for the amount of time and effort spent. If you would like to affect change in a real way I suggest that you join the MMPA and/or your local MI chapter. Use the information you gather through these conduits to educate yourself on the issues and if your idea truly hasn't been brought up then you'll have something meaningful to contribute to the common goal as well as a mechanism for change. Just spouting off ideas on the web doesn't accomplish anything. An old crotchety B that goes by the name Dick Pearson once put me in my place like I'm doing to you right now. I took up his challenge around a decade ago and I think my record speaks for itself. BTW, I now count that man as a friend and my motivation to give more of myself to making a better fishery. If you're truly interested in making things better then I will look forward to meeting with you at one function or another. Shawn Kellett Edited by Muskie Treats 2/9/2013 10:10 PM | ||
| DLC |
| ||
Posts: 82 | Now look at who's the old crochity B. Lol but treats is right we need feet on the ground not just guys that pee and moan on the Internet. I know all of you guys have good intentions but the more that get involved the better we can make our sport. | ||
| Muskie Treats |
| ||
Posts: 2384 Location: On the X that marks the mucky spot | LOL, I had a guy from the DNR say to me one day: "Shawn, when you get old and jaded give me a call." T-minus 7 months and 20 days til I'm 40. Just imagine what's to come!  | ||
| Top H2O |
| ||
Posts: 4080 Location: Elko - Lake Vermilion | 40 ! YIKES !..... That's flipping Old.......NOT ! Edited by Top H2O 2/9/2013 11:41 PM | ||
| Jump to page : 1 2 3 4 5 Now viewing page 4 [30 messages per page] |
| Search this forum Printer friendly version E-mail a link to this thread |
Copyright © 2024 OutdoorsFIRST Media |