Muskies under attack again

  • Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16233
    #1845079

    Well they are at it at the capitol again. Finding ways to attack the Muskie population in Minnesota.
    I did a copy & paste from another site. If you are a Muskie guy or even somebody pro fishing read this and look around for more information on these guys.

    ***********************************************************************************************

    Am forwarding an e-mail from a friend who keeps close tabs on the politics that are relative. These are his thoughts/opinions.
    Too Bad Frank Scheider Sr. isn’t still with us!! May he rest in peace.

    ? Hi Everyone,
    By now, many of you have heard that there is a bill moving through the Capitol that would create a mandatory $10 license or stamp for muskie anglers (Persell, Heintzemen HF2145). It’s been stated that this would be a way to get an actual count of muskie anglers in Minnesota, and to create more funding for the program.
    This idea has been discussed repeatedly within the MMPA and at the DNR pike and muskie workshops for as many years as I’ve been involved in muskie management. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. Both of those stated goals would be a very good thing, and I really don’t think the average muskie angler would disagree with putting a few more dollars into the program. But it’s much more complicated than that…

    Before I get into the reasons, I think it’s worth pointing out that the muskie stocking program is not the great financial drain that it is so often portrayed to be. Sure, an individual muskie costs significantly more to stock than an individual fish of another species. But the number of muskies stocked in MN is miniscule by comparison.
    According to DNR data handed out to the pike/muskie work group, from 2005 through 2016 muskie stocking cost 8% of the total fish stocking expenditures in Minnesota!
    The muskie program is not running short of funding and is not detracting from funds that would otherwise be used to stock more walleyes.

    So, one significant problem with a muskie license would be the overlap in anglers and techniques for other fish. We all know that there are times and places where very small lures catch very large muskies. But there are also a lot of anglers out there fishing for bass and northern pike. Some of them use some pretty big lures. And some of them catch quite a few muskies. So who decides what’s intentional or accidental? How do we define what someone is fishing for? Does everyone fishing on a muskie lake need a muskie license? It might not seem like a big deal to those of us who fish all the time, and who target muskies, but what about the average casual angler who just wants to go throw a few lures around- how are they going to feel about muskies when they’re forced to buy a license for a fish they’re not trying to catch?

    So, acceptance and enforcement would be a problem, but here’s the real meat of the issue…

    This Legislation was not brought forth by anyone involved in muskie fishing and it wasn’t asked for by the DNR. It is a Trojan Horse.
    It seems like it could be a good thing, but it would only open the door for more legislation attacking the entire muskie program. Don’t forget that we have key Legislators looking for any angle they can find to destroy muskie fishing in Minnesota.
    If this bill were to pass, the next thing would be legislation limiting the muskie program to be funded ONLY by the money from the muskie license. And no existing program would continue to function solely on the revenue from its specific license or stamp.
    After that, we can expect another attempt to lower the muskie size limit. And then, we’ll see Senator Ingebrigtsen state that a dead fish is a dead fish, regardless of how it was harvested, so if anglers can buy a license that allows them to keep a muskie then spearers should be able to buy one too! And anyone who doesn’t believe that is his ultimate goal hasn’t been paying attention!

    Dave Majkrzak recently testified in favor of the muskie license bill.
    That should really tell you all you need to know.

    It proves 100% beyond any doubt that this is hostile legislation with hidden intentions. There is a plan in place to use a muskie license to sabotage the muskie program.

    Opinion is that:
    Dave Majkrzak is one of the most zealous, outspoken anti-muskie advocate in Minnesota, doesn’t care at all about muskies, doesn’t care about other species of fish either, or healthy lakes, or habitat. doesn’t even fish. So we believe he wouldn’t drive 4 hours to the Capitol to support a bill that doesn’t somehow work to his advantage
    For those that don’t know, Dave appears to be the one who’s created/built up the entire Ottertail County muskie “problem” by using his ample time and money to influence local lawmakers and government entities. He’s worked his way into various COLA positions and used it as a platform to spread muskie lies statewide.

    Majkrzak has connections to the Gull Lake lake association through his COLA position. He’s found anti-muskie followers there. That’s where Representative Heintzemen comes in. It’s his district. We haven’t seen Heintzemen take an active role in the past, but he is anti-muskie, and I guarantee Senator Ingebrigten is waiting in the weeds on this.
    Majkrzak has connections at the Capitol through Jeff Forrester (Lobbysist), and his anti public-access/pro lake-privatization organization.
    And finally, do not forget that Senator Ingebrigtsen is the Chair of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Finance Committee…. does anybody really think he’s going to let that money do anything good for the muskie fishery?!

    Don’t be fooled.
    These are the people pushing/supporting this muskie license bill. And as long as people like these are trying to destroy the muskie program we can never support legislation like this.

    At the same time, Senator Ingebrigtsen has introduced a phony fish hatchery bill, which is all smoke and mirrors. It reads like it’s supposed to be doing something to improve hatcheries and increase walleye production, even though it proposes doing that by having people who’ve never even been to a hatchery, much less know how to operate one, apparently deciding how they could/should be run more efficiently. But the part of it he’s really after is where he gets to reassess what stocking programs are important for Minnesota. The entire thing is nothing more than the Senator building himself a committee, creating himself a new Chair position, so that he can take control of fish stocking in Minnesota.

    Put these things together and what we have is the foundation for the destruction of Minnesota’s muskie fishery built on one Senator’s personal vendetta and one wealthy nonresident’s efforts to spread muskie hatred statewide so he can privatize “his” lake in Ottertail county.

    So there it is- Welcome to the 2019 Legislative session.

    gimruis
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 15313
    #1845082

    Thanks for posting Dutch. Clearly its just more jibberish coming from the same anti-muskie crowd. There is literally no science to back any of this up either. As for the additional $10 on a license to target them, that’s BS. Why not charge $10 more to fish for catfish, sturgeon, or any other specific species of fish too then? While I do not think that muskie fishing targets the majority of the general angling population out there, it has a very dedicated following. And that following is committed to conservation because they have a very strong catch and release ethic. If they really wanna get a good idea of how many anglers specifically target them, why not just ask them when they buy a license? Duh.

    Rodwork
    Farmington, MN
    Posts: 3865
    #1845083

    I have said it before and I will say it again. These people will never stop until all muskies are gone. It just makes me sick the power and influences they have. Most of it is based on lies. flame

    This reminds me of a joke.
    A couple went on vacation to a fishing resort. The husband liked to fish at the crack of dawn; his wife preferred to read. One morning the husband returned after several hours of fishing and decided to take a nap. The wife, to escape her snoring husband, decided to take the boat out. Since she was not familiar with the lake, she rowed out to the middle, anchored the boat, and started reading her book. Along came the sheriff in his boat. He pulled up alongside and said, “Good morning, ma’am. What are you doing here?” “Reading a book,” she replied, thinking, “Is this guy blind or what?” “You’re in a restricted fishing area,” he informed her. “But, Officer, I’m not fishing. You can see that, surely.” “But you have all the equipment, ma’am. I’ll have to write you up.” “If you do that, I will charge you with rape,” returned the irate woman. “But I haven’t even touched you,” the sheriff objected. “That’s true; but you have all the equipment.”

    mark-bruzek
    Two Harbors, MN
    Posts: 3847
    #1845087

    I really don’t see how a stamp is attacking muskie anglers.

    However, I will add that this specialized stamp for things is really become a bull$poop excuse to just get more money.
    Not only does a guy need a fishing lic but then stamps for trout, spearing, icehouse that is already taxed by DOT…
    Then there is the hunting side where guys need a small game tag, state stamp, federal stamp, pheasant stamp, trapping maybe too?

    Really cant justify this BS stamp program when we have people sitting on their a$$es at unused boat landings all summer long looking for weeds.

    uninc4709
    Posts: 165
    #1845091

    I really don’t see how a stamp is attacking muskie anglers.

    However, I will add that this specialized stamp for things is really become a bull$poop excuse to just get more money.
    Not only does a guy need a fishing lic but then stamps for trout, spearing, icehouse that is already taxed by DOT…
    Then there is the hunting side where guys need a small game tag, state stamp, federal stamp, pheasant stamp, trapping maybe too?

    Really cant justify this BS stamp program when we have people sitting on their a$$es at unused boat landings all summer long looking for weeds.

    Its more about the background tactic they are trying to use here. They want to get a “real” number of musky fishermen/women to use it to showcase how all musky stocking efforts should be stopped because there is not enough demand.

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59946
    #1845092

    One thing I’ve learned over the years is that all fish are important. Not only to you and I but for the system.

    I don’t agree with stocking ski’s in lakes that don’t have them naturally and can support natural reproduction. I feel the same way with walleye, catfish and sturgeon.

    Being the frugal person I am, I don’t want to give anymore of my money to the DNR unless I get something out of it. I can fish ski’s now without a stamp.

    I didn’t know there was so much hatred for them. coffee

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 10503
    #1845109

    That seems like a lot of speculation and as much as I love a good conspiracy theory, I have a hard time believing Senators are spending that much time colluding on a bill that will have little to no impact on them getting reelected. I know we are biased because fishing is a big part of our lives, but that is not the case for the overwhelming majority of Minnesotans (remember most fishing license holders aren’t avid fisherman getting out 20+ times a year).

    However, if the Gov’t goal is to find out how many muskie fishermen there are, it should be a question when buying a fishing license, like when they survey how many ducks you shot last year. And if the muskie groups are truly worried about it, they should self fund muskie stocking so they have control over it, and kill the argument for the additional fee. I’d happily chip $10 into that fund every year. Just my .02

    blank
    Posts: 1725
    #1845112

    Werm, I share your same thoughts. Lots of speculation regarding the bill from the muskie guys. And I had the same thought regarding how to find the number of muskie fishermen. Simple yes/no question when buying a license. With that said, I am interested in the reasoning behind the bill.

    Smoker
    Blaine, Minnesota
    Posts: 85
    #1845113

    I think they should just ask when we buy our license- no additional stamp needed.
    Personally I find the thread about Wright county boat inspections to be much more of an attack on fishing then this.

    4eyeguy
    Posts: 5
    #1845118

    I agree that there is a fair amount of speculation from the musky guys but when the guys supporting this legislation have spread non science backed claims of how muskies are “eating all our walleyes” I cant help but be weary of the intent. A simple question when buying a licenses seems adequate.

    Like Smoker said the Wright county Boat inspection stuff should have all of us much more concerned.

    blank
    Posts: 1725
    #1845128

    I agree that there is a fair amount of speculation from the musky guys but when the guys supporting this legislation have spread non science backed claims of how muskies are “eating all our walleyes” I cant help but be weary of the intent. A simple question when buying a licenses seems adequate.

    Like Smoker said the Wright county Boat inspection stuff should have all of us much more concerned.

    I’m not sure that the authors of this current bill (HF2145) are the “eating all of our walleyes” guys. Persell is from Cass Lake/Winnie/Leech district 5A.

    Dutchboy
    Central Mn.
    Posts: 16233
    #1845213

    Muskie guys should stock their own Muskie’s? Do the Walleye guys stock their own (other then the guy on Minnetonka) Muskie fishing is no less important to the Muskie guys than it is to the Walleye guys. And at $40+ a piece for lures Muskie’s might contribute the same percentage of money to the economy as Walleye guys.

    As far as the access fight being more important…….how can one assault on the hobby be any less important then another? If the anti’s stop Muskie fishing whats to stop them from turning their attention to the access fight?

    wkw
    Posts: 626
    #1845246

    It’s not about the fish, it’s not about the money. It’s about them having control over you.

    matt
    Posts: 659
    #1845278

    Forrester is the lobbyist attacking lake users over ais,muskies are just another way to help further the attack.ALL anglers better unite and stand up to any attack involving all species of fish and or lake access/ais issues.Its only going to get worse than muskies or Wright county lakes if we dont..

    Michael C. Winther
    Reedsburg, WI
    Posts: 1480
    #1845303

    To be clear, they HAVE surveyed angler interests. It was bona fide research through the Univ of Minnesota. Not surprisingly it showed a minority of dedicated muskie anglers with a strong majority of anglers interested in catching them. Making people pay each year would peel away these casual anglers to make the numbers look different.

    The DNR stocks fish so that we can catch them, plain and simple. The science shows muskies help systems, they do not impact other gamefish. It’s not a wildlife restoration project. A policy of stocking fish only where they were native and can be self-sustaining would shut down walleye stocking way more than muskies…

    blackbay
    Posts: 699
    #1845353

    To be clear, they HAVE surveyed angler interests. It was bona fide research through the Univ of Minnesota. Not surprisingly it showed a minority of dedicated muskie anglers with a strong majority of anglers interested in catching them. Making people pay each year would peel away these casual anglers to make the numbers look different.

    Good points. This group should be careful with trying to correlate stamps or specific licenses with interest. Just look at the walleye stamp. The number of actual people who fish for walleyes is far larger than those who purchase a walleye stamp. Yea it’s voluntary, but this group doesn’t seem to care about valid statistics or science.

    aaronbecker
    Mantorville, MN
    Posts: 46
    #1849065

    what about stocking walleyes in lakes that they don’t naturally produce in? Why should we stock at all if fish can’t sustain themselves enough for a healthy population after they’ve been fished. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 20059
    #1849071

    what about stocking <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleyes in lakes that they don’t naturally produce in? Why should we stock at all if fish can’t sustain themselves enough for a healthy population after they’ve been fished. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    In general I get your point and it does certainly hold merit. The main difference is the scenarios you reference are what is considered “put and take”, really no different than many of the trout lakes that are stocked.
    Difference with Muskies is there is very little harvest.
    One of the goals of the DNR is to provide a diverse opportunity for a variety of fish. Obviously there is more interest among the majority of anglers for panfish, walleyes than muskies, but a true trophy fish opportunity is rare.
    I don’t think this whole musky stamp idea is a good thing. The only thing it is going to do is be used for fuel by those who hate muskies.
    The funny part about their argument is that they say fewer than 10% of anglers fish muskies. Muskies are in fewer than 1% of lakes and the cost of musky stocking is around 10% of overall stocking $. Seems about right to me looking at the cost vs usage. I would like to see more lakes or at least more stocking on some native lakes that do not currently receive stocking.

    gimruis
    Plymouth, MN
    Posts: 15313
    #1849157

    CaptainMusky, I agree that muskie fishing not a “maintstream” style of fishing. It caters mostly to a specific demographic of anglers out there because of the physical requirements and the mental fortitude that is needed. Do I think they should be stocked in more lakes? Not necessarily. What I don’t agree with is these dumb politicians who make claims that muskies are eating the lakes out of panfish and walleyes when there is literally no science to back that up. Countless data and studies have shown that they have a very minimal impact on other species of fish, yet someone wants to keep saying the opposite because they can’t catch enough walleyes or panfish anymore. So let’s go blame the biggest fish predator out there instead. The only person eating lakes out of walleyes and panfish are the politicians and anglers themselves, not the muskies.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 20059
    #1849168

    What I don’t agree with is these dumb politicians who make claims that muskies are eating the lakes out of panfish and walleyes when there is literally no science to back that up. Countless data and studies have shown that they have a very minimal impact on other species of fish, yet someone wants to keep saying the opposite because they can’t catch enough walleyes or <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>panfish anymore. So let’s go blame the biggest fish predator out there instead. The only person eating lakes out of walleyes and <em class=”ido-tag-em”>panfish are the politicians and anglers themselves, not the muskies.

    100% agree. Management of the state’s fisheries should be handled by the DNR NOT some politician.

    Trevor Ecklein
    Posts: 5
    #1853937

    Just another thing to pay for and another way for the state to get our money, next thing you know you will have to buy an additional stamp/license whether hunting for fishing for everything because apparently it’s getting to expensive for our state and federal government to do what they have been doing for 240+ years, provide adequate services for their tax payers, sorry to go on a political rant guys. It just makes me mad all these false claims that have no facts to back them up. Muskies take a very long time to grow big, it’s not like even half the fish stocked become monsters and are destroying pan fish and walleye habitat they are not a invasive species, and for anyone who believes that I have ocean front property in Arizona I’ll sell you.

Viewing 23 posts - 1 through 23 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.