MN-Fish 2023

Hey Dutch – another fundraiser. LOL

Home

I might to the grouse hunt in Remer.

Try this

https://www.32auctions.com/MNFISHFALL23

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Hey Dutch – another fundraiser. LOL

I might to the grouse hunt in Remer.

I know what you are trying to do here.

Two summers ago I was invited to the MN-Fish/DNR meeting. (I’m not sure why I was selected but I was). When I asked the President Ron S if MN-Fish was supporting the two line bill that was in the senate at the time, he said “now you tell us about it, we don’t have enough time to do anything”.

Apparently two years isn’t long enough to take a stand.

I just did a little math. Their fundraiser should easily bring $35k and as much as $70k or more.

BK, did he at least offer up any of his Kinetico water for you ? :crazy: :doah: :jester:

I listened to the podcast and thought most of what those guys said was nuts. They sounded like a bunch of know it all old men sitting around and stroking their egos. Happens every day.

I’m a big fan of two lines in MN, and thank you Brian for your work on that.

I support MN fish because they support fishing in Minnesota. It’s news to me that they didn’t or wouldn’t support the two line bill, and I wish they had. They are far from perfect no doubt, but I don’t see a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I can’t see how taking MN Fish down even a notch helps our community out. Are they hurting Minnesota fishermen? If I’m missing that, please let me know.

P. S. I think I love the idea of guides not being able to keep fish for their clients.

John, I do agree with what you are saying and I also agree that anglers need a voice in the legislature. I’m sure not here to bash a group, especially one that could potentially really help with the things I love. As MN Anglers our group voice is much more powerful than our singular ones, no doubt about it. It just feels like they have put together a group of names and hope to get things done just by that alone (well and $ of course).
I would really like to see the group have elections for board members and also town hall type meetings for their members to whittle down the important issues for MN Fishing, even if could be controversial.
I do remember bluntly asking them about a few hot button issues and was told point blank that they would not be addressing polarizing topics.

Darren, I agree with everything you said. It’s the takedown of a group that supports fishing that seems wrong to me. They could do better in my eyes for sure and I wish they would.

I’ guessing part of the challenge is that it would take a lot more resources (i.e., full time staff) to run things the way you suggest. I would happily pay more to support that.

I’ll add that sometimes there’s merit in avoiding polarizing issues to instead build a big tent for supporters of your broader agenda, and this can be especially true for a group that is structured like MN Fish seems to be. Grassroots efforts like yours (thank you!!) can come in big time on more controversial stuff in these situations. I’m super disappointed to hear that they might have actively opposed the two line bill at the legislature (is that the case?) instead of just standing to the side

3Rivers wrote:

John, I do agree with what you are saying and I also agree that anglers need a voice in the legislature. I’m sure not here to bash a group, especially one that could potentially really help with the things I love. As MN Anglers our group voice is much more powerful than our singular ones, no doubt about it. It just feels like they have put together a group of names and hope to get things done just by that alone (well and $ of course).
I would really like to see the group have elections for board members and also town hall type meetings for their members to whittle down the important issues for MN Fishing, even if could be controversial.
I do remember bluntly asking them about a few hot button issues and was told point blank that they would not be addressing polarizing topics.

2 lines fishing is a polarizing topic?

MX1825 wrote:

2 lines fishing is a polarizing topic?

If the MNDNR opposes it, then by default it is polarizing for sure. My best guess is that around 70% of anglers in MN would support 2 lines and even higher with some other things attached to it.

Too many topics in MN fishing always reverts back to “how will it effect walleye” and for sure MN-FISH has walleye tunnel vision as well. Walleye should be weighted, I get that. It’s the most popular fish in the State, but we shouldn’t rule out things only based on how walleye anglers feel.

Fun fact: An internal survey was taken with the MNDNR fisheries biologists and nearly 60% of them agreed that 2 lines would be fine and came down to mostly to a regional thing with the Northern regions (walleye country) mostly not in favor or undecided.

john23 wrote:

I listened to the podcast and thought most of what those guys said was nuts. They sounded like a bunch of know it all old men sitting around and stroking their egos. Happens every day.

Pretty sure I listened to the same podcast and thought the same thing. Neustrom seemed by talking out of both sides of his mouth when it came to the 2 line subject. On one hand he seemed against it because it would lead to more harvest and then says there no need for it because the average fisherman couldn’t handle fishing 2 lines. Then, when a couple callers point out how they’d like to use 2 lines while trolling so they could try more baits to dial in a bite, he seemed to think that was a good idea. I would think the average fisherman is going to figure out pretty quickly if they can handle 2 lines in a given situation. Kinda like while ice fishing. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn’t.

It seems like the problem with mnfish is that they do seem to have an opinion on the fishing matters of the state. They are a lobby organization, plain and simple. There are two types of representation direct, and indirect. Direct means you support what you are being told by your constituents/donors regardless of your opinion. Indirect means you advocate your own opinion and feel its right for the people you represent. It seems like people are paying celebrities to lobby for their own beliefs.

Can you imagine trying to watch 2 bobbers at once ? :crazy: :doah: :rotflol:

big_g wrote:

Can you imagine trying to watch 2 bobbers at once ?

I usually drink enough Coronas that I’m seeing double anyways.
On second thought I would be seeing 4 bobbers then. :crazy: :rotflol:

At 32:40 Tom asks “why would you want to fish 2 lines?
I’ll let him know next Thursday. :wink:

And yes a couple of their excuses as why 2 lines shouldn’t be allowed made me chuckle.

The best was when one of them stated that he would be OK if you were required to purchase a 2nd license to fish 2 lines. Going on to say that it would be a low percentage of people that would buy one.
Soooo much wrong with that statement!

and an additional $25? give me a break. :roll:

Do not make the mistake of thinking MnFish speaks for the average angler.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Going on to say that it would be a low percentage of people that would buy one.
Soooo much wrong with that statement!

and an additional $25? give me a break.

You can’t even get a few energy drinks and a hot sandwich for that at your local pump and munch. Low percentage my tushie. LOL

Eelpoutguy wrote:

At 32:40 Tom asks “why would you want to fish 2 lines?
I’ll let him know next Thursday.

And yes a couple of their excuses as why 2 lines shouldn’t be allowed made me chuckle.

The best was when one of them stated that he would be OK if you were required to purchase a 2nd license to fish 2 lines. Going on to say that it would be a low percentage of people that would buy one.
Soooo much wrong with that statement!

and an additional $25? give me a break.

The guy seems like a arrogant prick

Riverrat wrote:

It seems like the problem with mnfish is that they do seem to have an opinion on the fishing matters of the state. They are a lobby organization, plain and simple. There are two types of representation direct, and indirect. Direct means you support what you are being told by your constituents/donors regardless of your opinion. Indirect means you advocate your own opinion and feel its right for the people you represent. It seems like people are paying celebrities to lobby for their own beliefs.

This is why this org needs a comprehensive list of initiatives and how they are going to accomplish them. Otherwise they are just taking your money to advocate for things they want, or more accurate what the major donors want. It doesn’t seem like anyone here really knows what they want to do or even what they’ve actually accomplished.

Pretty much everyone on that board has their own significant financial ties to the industry so it’s really hard to believe they have the best interest of the average fishermen of MN. American politics 101 I guess.

What would happen if the peons like us wanted to limit the use of certain electronics because they are decimating the resources? I imagine Johnson Outdoors would have a problem with that.

This is who they are advocating for. If you and I happen to benefit great. But when a conflict arises I’m pretty certain who they are going to side with.

Attachments:

1. 

   IMG_0489.png
   

Or one of these

Attachments:

1. 

   25-1.jpeg