Thought I’d start a new thread about MN Fish, the new organization setup to represent fisherpeople of all species in the great state of MN. I signed up for the free 2 year membership to try and stay tuned in while determining what they will be advocating for. They have a lot of the big names in the fishing industry promoting it, so I’m optimistic we will have a stronger voice in the state. What are your thoughts?
I’m taking a wait & see. Somehow I don’t see the Linders going to war on our behalf.
I’m taking a wait & see. Somehow I don’t see the Linders going to war on our behalf.
Same here. I sent an email to get their POV.
I think it’s a weird name for a lobby group. That group should have been able to do better IMO.
I’m taking a wait & see. Somehow I don’t see the Linders going to war on our behalf.
That’s why I just did the free membership. I think that is a better option than not participating, just so they realize how many people would support them if done properly. The Lindner’s have built a multi media empire off of our resources, so I’d hope they are fully invested in representing their fellow anglers and primary market. Both the Lindners and Schara have been more public on controversial topics in recent years, so I’m cautiously optimistic.
My concern is both of them are aligned closely with marine companies for sponsorship of their product. Are they going to risk alienating the larger portion of boat owners (and sponsors) for a few fisherman?
well i signed up just to see……………can always tell them bye-bye!!!!!!!
My concern is both of them are aligned closely with marine companies for sponsorship of their product. Are they going to risk alienating the larger portion of boat owners (and sponsors) for a few fisherman?
Does this make sense to anyone? Who would have a larger stake in protecting accessible waters than a boat and motor manufacturing company, rod, reel, lure, life jacket manufacturers etc….
Lets face it, Fishermen are in general, are Idiots. We have the potential for a Lobby group that could be as large as the NRA but would rather fight and argue with each other rather than put energy to good causes. What other lobby group has the numbers available to it yet fight among them selves like cats and dogs over things as meaningless as, if a bass is better than a walleye, if Merc is better than Yamaha, Bird Vs Lowrance…..wait for it. TUCR vs Thorne or Marcum vs anything…. The group as a whole is fragmented by species specific, brand specific BS.
If this MN FISH deal can at least bring a portion of the over all numbers together, for the good of the waters futures, I am for it and will support it.
These personalities are all associated to sponsor manufacturers but there are a number of personalities involved in the effort, all sponsored by different manufacturers. It does not seem like this is as much a sales ploy as a lobby effort to protect and serve members.
I commend them on this effort and wish them all the luck.
If this MN FISH deal can at least bring a portion of the over all numbers together, for the good of the waters futures, I am for it and will support it.
These personalities are all associated to sponsor manufacturers but there are a number of personalities involved in the effort, all sponsored by different manufacturers. It does not seem like this is as much a sales ploy as a lobby effort to protect and serve members.
I commend them on this effort and wish them all the luck.
x2!!! And if you have a certain issue that is important to you, become active in the organization and make your case. If you look at the comparable organizations (PF, DU, Muskies Inc etc.) they have a huge influence and largely in directions that the members advocate for.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wormdunker wrote:</div>
If this MN FISH deal can at least bring a portion of the over all numbers together, for the good of the waters futures, I am for it and will support it.
These personalities are all associated to sponsor manufacturers but there are a number of personalities involved in the effort, all sponsored by different manufacturers. It does not seem like this is as much a sales ploy as a lobby effort to protect and serve members.
I commend them on this effort and wish them all the luck.x2!!! And if you have a certain issue that is important to you, become active in the organization and make your case. If you look at the comparable organizations (PF, DU, Muskies Inc etc.) they have a huge influence and largely in directions that the members advocate for.
AND ALL SHOULD COME TOGETHER IN the name of our natural resources and access to all.
They have a lot of the big names in the fishing industry promoting it, so I’m optimistic we will have a stronger voice in the state. What are your thoughts?
Well we know what EPG’s thoughts are on this, he’s already ponied up for a life membership. 
My thoughts? Mine would be right along with yours too. I first saw notice of this coalition about a week ago and I know they had a booth at the NW Sports Show. What got my attention was the names involved with them and I looked at their Board of Directors which include some respected individuals not directly related to a “for profit” enterprise . Such as Dick Sternberg, former MN DNR biologist, Craig Wilson-Lake Superior Steelhead Assn., and Garry Leaf-Sportsmen for Change.
I will join for sure, although I’ll hold off on the Life Membership for now. 
MN-FISH Board of Directors:
RON SCHARA
President
Schara Enterprices
JOHN PETERSON
Vice President
Northland Fishing Tackle
DAVE OSBORNE
Treasurer
Clam Outdoors
CHIP LEER
Secretary
Fishing The Wildside
Tom Mackin/Rapala | Babe Winkelman/Winkelman Productions | Steve Pennaz/Pennaz MultiMedia,
Frankie Dusenka/Frankie’s Marine | Jeff Arnold/Reed Family Outfitters
Dick Sternberg/Hunting & Fishing Library | Tom Neustrom/Neustrom Fishing Promotions,
Craig Wilson/Lake Superior Steelhead Assoc. | Garry Leaf/Sportsmen for Change
Jay Pederson/MN-Fish Legal Council
I’m in.
I read through their statement and like what they’re trying to achieve.
Trust me, I spend $35 a year on far more useless things…..if it can help to organize and advocate change, it will be worth every penny.
We need the state to reinvest more money from tax revenue already received from the fishing industry.
Spend that money on lake studies, stocking fish, public accesses, fishing programs, improving habitat, and making the DNR accountable…..not mowing ditches or welfare benefits…..
If you have ever made a complaint about how our State’s fishing is managed, here is your chance to put your money where your mouth is and make a REAL DIFFERENCE.
Are they hook line and sinker in on all the ais restrictions based off sound science, or going to just play the game of we can stop the spread by picking the visible weeds off a trailer at a public access, all the while private accesses go unmonitored?
Laying the burden on the public and restricting public access is a real sore spot for me personally.
I don’t personally see anyone on that list willing to stick their necks out to far to go against the grain on anything for fear of backlash to sponsors. These guys are bought and paid for mouth pieces with public images they don’t want to risk over anything controversial. Maybe I’m wrong and hope I am, but only time will tell.
If they fall in line with the status quo on more restrictions over ais that are already in many watersheds and going to get in many more through natural vehicles, like flowing water and bird and animal transfer, I’ll have a hard time accepting that cool aid drink.
If they start addressing ways to deal with ais and other things facing the resources vs targeting anglers as the bad guys, will be way more inclined to join. But the reality is these guys are yes men promoters for the pimps paying their mortgages. That may seem like an unfair assessment, but reality has a bit of a sting to it that I’m not sure these guys can stomach when they are forced to decide between what they believe over their paydays. Have seen nothing from them to indicate they are truly going to buck that in past results, but am hopeful most have made their money and might be finally willing to stick their necks out a little more willingly and sacrificing a sponsor or two along the way. Most won’t go near hot button topics without vague, safe generalizations on topics.
Time will tell.
Are they hook line and sinker in on all the ais restrictions based off sound science, or going to just play the game of we can stop the spread by picking the visible weeds off a trailer at a public access, all the while private accesses go unmonitored?
Laying the burden on the public and restricting public access is a real sore spot for me personally.
I don’t personally see anyone on that list willing to stick their necks out to far to go against the grain on anything for fear of backlash to sponsors. These guys are bought and paid for mouth pieces with public images they don’t want to risk over anything controversial. Maybe I’m wrong and hope I am, but only time will tell.
If they fall in line with the status quo on more restrictions over ais that are already in many watersheds and going to get in many more through natural vehicles, like flowing water and bird and animal transfer, I’ll have a hard time accepting that cool aid drink.
If they start addressing ways to deal with ais and other things facing the resources vs targeting anglers as the bad guys, will be way more inclined to join. But the reality is these guys are yes men promoters for the pimps paying their mortgages. That may seem like an unfair assessment, but reality has a bit of a sting to it that I’m not sure these guys can stomach when they are forced to decide between what they believe over their paydays. Have seen nothing from them to indicate they are truly going to buck that in past results, but am hopeful most have made their money and might be finally willing to stick their necks out a little more willingly and sacrificing a sponsor or two along the way. Most won’t go near hot button topics without vague, safe generalizations on topics.
Time will tell.
I’m thinking they’ll be on the fisherman’s side when it comes to AIS.
Nobody wants aquatic invasive species, but privatizing or over restrictions will never stop the spread.
The big sponsors are corporate and/or local fishing companies.
Corporations and companies want to make money.
Lake associations aren’t big tackle buyers.
Fisherman are…..I think MN-Fish has our interests.
But the reality is these guys are yes men promoters for the pimps paying their mortgages.
Wow, most of us work for a living and have a mortgage, why do you think they are any different than the rest of us? I joined their organization and am willing to take a wait and see if their organization can make a difference rather than run them down before even giving them a chance. I believe the linders are sincere, they did not have to lend their name and energy to starting this organization and like all organizations of this type their agenda will be dictated by the members who are involved and are supporting the group. One topic that has come up on IDO is the wright county ais. How many on IDO sent emails maybe 20 or so, I know I sent my emails. What impact do you think that will have? Not much IMHO. Now if this group can muster thousands of fisherman/women voicing their angst against wright county program, elected officials will take notice.
Don’t deny I’m being harsh.
If let’s say the access issue comes up, and they take a stance on it. Then lake association’s band together and start emailing campaigns to their sponsors, I don’t see many standing on principles over their sponsors. Truly hope I’m totally wrong.
Get they have to make a living and we can all understand that. But in an organization that by its very nature is going to dive into controversial subjects, it makes me jittery with having so many different angles where they can get pressure from in the corporate sector.
I’ve grown tired over the years of the pleasantries. Guys like Steve Rinella and Randy Newberg’s willingness to take unpopular or uncomfortable stances on issues is refreshing in the hunting industry. Don’t see the pitch artist’s in the fishing industry having the same guttural fortitude to take hard stances on much. They have a lot of angles to see pressure from and they might not want to alienate customers.
Again, hope I’m wrong and best way they can prove that is to take a stance on hard issues vs playing the pc card on every hand.
Don’t deny I’m being harsh.
If let’s say the access issue comes up, and they take a stance on it. Then lake association’s band together and start emailing campaigns to their sponsors, I don’t see many standing on principles over their sponsors. Truly hope I’m totally wrong.
Get they have to make a living and we can all understand that. But in an organization that by its very nature is going to dive into controversial subjects, it makes me jittery with having so many different angles where they can get pressure from in the corporate sector.
I’ve grown tired over the years of the pleasantries. Guys like Steve Rinella and Randy Newberg’s willingness to take unpopular or uncomfortable stances on issues is refreshing in the hunting industry. Don’t see the pitch artist’s in the fishing industry having the same guttural fortitude to take hard stances on much. They have a lot of angles to see pressure from and they might not want to alienate customers.
Again, hope I’m wrong and best way they can prove that is to take a stance on hard issues vs playing the pc card on every hand.
……gotta ask….who are the official lake association sponsors??? (other than some politician who’s on the board)
You have to start somewhere to protect our lake rights. For me this is a good start. I’m a fan of and have confidence in Al, Ron, and Babe.
To me it’s principal, after reading the Wright county proposal I felt it was pushing “un-American” the lakes are for everyone. Plus they didn’t express any type exit strategy, nor did they mention monitoring AIS in the lakes. (unless I missed that). The only thing they were going to monitor was the monitoring, and if what is proposed doesn’t work well enough, they will put more restrictions on.
Clearly they want to make the lake(s) their personal domain.
Once something like this happens, it will never go back. Never.
OUR PURPOSE
The MN-FISH Coalition, LLC is a grassroots sportfishing, marine and angler advocacy network that gives anglers a legislative voice and works to achieve public policies.
The MN-FISH Sportfishing Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit organization designed to inspire Minnesotans to restore, protect and enhance sportfishing for the present and future generations to enjoy.
From the Mn-Fish web site.
Minnesota’s only nonprofit organization formed as two entities in order to represent the fishing interests of all Anglers, Clubs, Local Organizations and Industry Stakeholders. We want to give you the opportunity to have a strong voice and be heard where it matters most . . . at our State Capital!
First I’m not sure what is meant by formed as two entities. As you can see they are trying to represent both sides of a issue. They are trying to represent both individual anglers as well clubs and local lake organizations. To me it would seem they are always going to be trying to find the mushy middle ground and act as more mediators than come down on one side or the other of a issue.
So it’s not only their corporate sponsors they are going to be keeping happy they are tasked with trying to keep a entire membership happy who are on opposite sides of a issue and will likely continue to be so in the future. I don’t see them as advocates for anybody but rather mediators for everybody while keeping their nose clean. And perhaps there’s nothing wrong with that.
I know somebody here sent them a email directly asking them to be a voice in opposition to the Wright County Proposal. So far I haven’t heard if there’s been a response. I would also like to know if they believe global warming is shortening the ice fishing season every year. I heard this being espoused on one of the Sunday morning fishing shows a couple weeks back.
OUR PURPOSE
The MN-FISH Coalition, LLC is a grassroots sportfishing, marine and angler advocacy network that gives anglers a legislative voice and works to achieve public policies.The MN-FISH Sportfishing Foundation is a 501c3 nonprofit organization designed to inspire Minnesotans to restore, protect and enhance sportfishing for the present and future generations to enjoy.
This is almost enough to make anyone jump right in with both feet. I just need to see an official stance on something specific, like the Wright Co Inspection Program. Until then, I’m holding tight.
EPG, you left out the first part that sends up a tiny little red flag for me.
Minnesota’s only nonprofit organization formed as two entities in order to represent the fishing interests of all Anglers, Clubs, Local Organizations and Industry Stakeholders.
I want to believe they want to increase overall participation in fishing activities to benefit the stakeholders and not just fight for legislation that would help line their pockets. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not going to get hung up on this, I just need to see some proof that they really do represent me.
One thing I was hung up on a week ago is that there was no proof that these people were even a part of this organization. I see now they have posted short clips of the board members explaining the goal of the group.
I’m this // close. Show me a position on something.
Don’t deny I’m being harsh.
If let’s say the access issue comes up, and they take a stance on it. Then lake association’s band together and start emailing campaigns to their sponsors, I don’t see many standing on principles over their sponsors. Truly hope I’m totally wrong.
Get they have to make a living and we can all understand that. But in an organization that by its very nature is going to dive into controversial subjects, it makes me jittery with having so many different angles where they can get pressure from in the corporate sector.
I’ve grown tired over the years of the pleasantries. Guys like Steve Rinella and Randy Newberg’s willingness to take unpopular or uncomfortable stances on issues is refreshing in the hunting industry. Don’t see the pitch artist’s in the fishing industry having the same guttural fortitude to take hard stances on much. They have a lot of angles to see pressure from and they might not want to alienate customers.
Again, hope I’m wrong and best way they can prove that is to take a stance on hard issues vs playing the pc card on every hand.
Well their sponsors should be on the front lines of these issues too. Who is going to buy a new Lund with a Mercury outboard, Northland Tackle, Rapalas, Humminbird graphs…if there are so many hoops to jump through just to launch a boat. Why would I need a new truck from Brandl GMC to tow my Skeeter Boat with my trusty Yamaha from the Boat Center if I have to drive miles out of the way and spend my valuable time waiting for someone to wash my boat
it goes into an infested lake.
Minnesota is home to Lund, Crestliner, Alumacraft, Warrior, Larson, Northland Tackle, Lindy Fishing Tackle, numerous pontoon builders, Otter, Clam, Normark and on and on. These corporations need to fight the good fight and maintain open access or their business will dry up.
Keith and Gil,
I hear ya loud and clear.
Mushy middle ground – It’s better than no ground at all.
Line their pockets – Unfortunately nothing will change that and I except that as collateral damage as long as they make progress.
MN-Fish is in it’s infancy. There’s going to be strikeouts, but hopefully a few home runs mixed in. I’m hoping those guy’s are sitting around a table once a week or so figuring these things out. Some big right names there that carry a lot of persuasion who are potentially sticking there reputations on the line when this heats up.
@Basseyes I’m not going to waste my time refuting a lot of the garbage and negativity you’re spewing here, I’ll just ask how your method of screaming online for your issues is doing? Can you point to anything you’ve gotten changed? Maybe trying something new isn’t a bad idea… 
I have no problem taking a wait and see approach like Keith and Gill, or like I basically have with the free membership. But running something down without knowing anything about it is ridiculous.
Keith and Gil,
I hear ya loud and clear.Mushy middle ground – It’s better than no ground at all.
Line their pockets – Unfortunately nothing will change that and I except that as collateral damage as long as they make progress.
MN-Fish is in it’s infancy. There’s going to be strikeouts, but hopefully a few home runs mixed in. I’m hoping those guy’s are sitting around a table once a week or so figuring these things out. Some big right names there that carry a lot of persuasion who are potentially sticking there reputations on the line when this heats up.
Agree 100%. I can get on board with the bold part too. I just want some shred of proof. I’m a data driven person so I like to see indisputable facts to make a decision.
The last I checked, I never saw mention of AIS on the entire website.
The following mission statement on their site is good but I’d like to see something similar in regards to AIS that doesn’t restrict access.
Support scientific and common-sense fish management for all gamefish species,
I’m in with both feet if they can give an official stance on a present issue.
It’s a brand new foundation and coalition. Here is a good write up about it.
http://www.boreal.org/2019/03/17/190788/ron-schara-founds-mn-fish-to-give-anglers-a-stronger-voice-
but will take positions on stocking and invasive species work.
Wake me up when a position is taken. 
First off I support EPG’s decision to support Mn-Fish as well as anybody else who has signed up. You guys are all smart enough to know these guys aren’t going to support your way of thinking on everything every time out. They promote themselves as a advocate entity and not a activist entity. There’s a big difference. They will advocate for what their mission statement says but I don’t expect them to enter the fray into many if any controversial issues.
I think they are going to be pretty soft core compared to groups like the NRA for instance.
This is most likely why they mention nothing about AIS in their mission statement and most likely won’t respond to emails asking them to be your voice on many issues. They just don’t plan on getting involved in those things. But if all they do is try to promote youth fishing, stocking of lakes and fisheries programs they are worth supporting just on that.
They will advocate for what their mission statement says but I don’t expect them to enter the fray into many if any controversial issues.
Well, there’s this:
Provide a strong voice for Minnesota anglers and fishing related businesses before the State Legislature and DNR regarding all things fishing.
In fact, it’s the first one.
I’m still waiting for the outcome of the Mille Lacs cause I donated to.
I will join this one if the group (IDO) is on board.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
