$5 Walleye Stamp

[BUSHWAC]

I have no problem with a walleye stamp if walleyes are truely what the money goes towards.

The price of a fishing license is the best bargain out there in my opinion and I would pay double for the enjoyment I get from using this license. I would gladly pay $100 a year to be able to fish in Mn.

Northlander, I know you would pay a lot more than that!!

[fasternu]

Big Dave2, Not that it's any business of yours, but I spent $249.50 this year on hunting and fishing fees/licenses (ALL INSTATE). I feel that is enough of my money. By the way, I kept 1 walleye.

I paid for a nice golf membership for $270. No, I don't golf at Pebble Beach, but a very nice course in my area. 1 course is enough for me. Now that I am done justifying it to you, I feel that I have already spent plenty of money with the DNR for one year. With a wife and kid, and a modest income, it does slowly bleed me dry. I only have so much money, and the time is coming on choices on where it is being spent, I hope the DNR doesn't make me choose. These stamps and fees are getting out of hand in my opinion. I'm entitled to it, and sticking with it. I won't be buying one.

[BobT]

So now that we've passed an amendment to add a bunch of money to support the environment and such, can we still expect to see more stamps, fees, excise taxes, etc. placed on hunting, fishing, and related gear until we tax ourselves right out of being able to afford these amenities save for the wealthy only?

Oh heck. That's a stupid question.

Sorry,

Bob

[Desperado]

[Sandmannd]

So now that we've passed an amendment to add a bunch of money to support the environment and such, can we still expect to see more stamps, fees, excise taxes, etc. placed on hunting, fishing, and related gear until we tax ourselves right out of being able to afford these amenities save for the wealthy only?

Oh heck. That's a stupid question.

Sorry,

Bob

I was on board with the walleye stamp as it was voluntary. As long as it stays that way go a head and put it out there. But with the sales tax passing, they are getting more from me already so I haven't decided if I'm going to buy it now. I probably will, but it depends on my fundage when I go to buy my license.

[c&amagn]

It has both good and bad points to it. At least it's voluntary so far. The problem I have with walleye stocking is that there's a group out there that doesn't contribute a dime to the DNR and or walleye stocking efforts and yet get to net thousands of pounds of walleye's every year but yet here we pay for the restocking efforts.

They even lost some nets last spring with walleye's entangled in the nets, has anybody heard if they got fined yet or not?

Look what happended to Red Lake years ago, who had to restock the fish in that lake and with who's funds?

The DNR gives quota's of walleye's for both groups but yet only asks (so far) one group for $$$$$$. Very one sided.

[Northlander]

Please Lets not make this racial.

Both our money and Native money paid for Red by the way.

[Desperado]

It's not racial, it's political.

So where did the "Native money paid for Red" come from by the way?

[Big Dave2]

Big Dave2, Not that it's any business of yours, but I spent $249.50 this year on hunting and fishing fees/licenses (ALL INSTATE). I feel that is enough of my money. By the way, I kept 1 walleye.

I paid for a nice golf membership for $270. No, I don't golf at Pebble Beach, but a very nice course in my area. 1 course is enough for me. Now that I am done justifying it to you, I feel that I have already spent plenty of money with the DNR for one year. With a wife and kid, and a modest income, it does slowly bleed me dry. I only have so much money, and the time is coming on choices on where it is being spent, I hope the DNR doesn't make me choose. These stamps and fees are getting out of hand in my opinion. I'm entitled to it, and sticking with it. I won't be buying one.

You don't have to get upset with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that the amount I pay for hunting/fishing licenses is very reasonable for the amount of year-round enjoyment that I get out of it. The fact is that the conservation programs have to be funded from somewhere. I would rather see them funded with user fees rather than out of the general fund.

I don't keep a tally on my fee expenditures, but I don't think I spent as much as you did last year. It's good that you participated in that many outdoor activities. I always wish at the end of the year that I had done more!

[c&amagn]

Please Lets not make this racial.

Both our money and Native money paid for Red by the way.

I never made it racial, that's a FACT that the DNR limits pounds of walleye's to two seperate groups, I didn't do that, the government did but the government only asks one side for more $$ for restocking the resourse not both, and BOTH USE the same resource. I'd like to know as you say where the Red Lake $$ came from???? For restocking that lake please, that the same resourse nearly became extinct from over harvesting?

[Big Dave2]

I don't know for sure if this answers your question but I found this on the net.

Quote:

an agreement was signed in April 1999, which called for stocking 40 million walleye fry up to five times during the next ten years, a zero-walleye limit on all Tribal and state waters until walleye stocks recover, and increased enforcement efforts. The Red Lake Band would pay $40,000 of the $68,000 annual cost of the project, with the state DNR paying the remaining $28,000 from money generated by fishing license sales.

[Desperado]

The question goes just one or two steps deeper than that.

So here's two questions (because the answer to the first question may give a hint to getting the second answer correct).

1. Where did the $28,000 that the MN DNR paid come from?

2. Where did the $40,000 that the Red Lake Band paid come from?

[Sandmannd]

The 28k was answered by Dave that it was from money generated by fishing license sales. The 40k came from the Red Lake Band.

What are you getting at?

[Northlander]

Those looking for funding info and stocking info call the Mn. DNR. Lets get back on track of the Walleyes stamp please. Are you for or against it?

Continueing the path of a beatin horse like red lake and mil lacs netting will only get this closed and I dont want to see this.

If it hasnt turned racial already, wich I think it has, it most certainly will.

[Desperado]

OK here's what I'm getting at. The state of MN doesn't just print money, neither does the band. That money came from somewhere.

The money that the DNR paid came from the TAXPAYERS OF MINNESOTA. The money that the band paid came from the TAXPYERS OF the US.

So whenever someone says the DNR only paid for a third and the band paid for two thirds it sounds like that is an arguement which is supposed to make us feel better about who paid for what.

But what it really means is that I just got screwed twice; once through the state channels and once through the federal channels.

[Northlander]

Desperato I can see where your coming from. I think you have some valid concerns. However whenever we start talking Native treaty rights etc. these posts always go sour.

Myself I dont concern myself with it and no matter I will gladly pay whatever I need to, within reason of course, to be able to have the privelage to fish in Mn. Only concern I have with this $5 walleye stamp is that every cent out of the $5 go towards walleye programs. Not stalking salmon, musky, bass or sturgion.

I still think a hunting/fishing license is one of the best values I have ever found.

[zepman]

Couldn't have said it any better Norselander. My feelings exactly.

[wanger29]

I have been following these threads on 2 separate forums and have to admit it's been fairly interesting reading. There's been some very convincing pros & cons altogether. Even getting fairly extreme at times. The bottom line for me 1st of all is it's voluntary. That should give no one a solid reason to complain? Secondly, most of the lakes I hit, down south, I owe all of the good days primarily to a successful DNR stocking. I am absolutely convinced of that. So from me if 5 bucks will help that out a bit well...

[Iambjm]

Am I mistaken, but doesn't the money from our licenses go into the general fund and then the state determines what the DNR's budget will be. Rather than quibbling about a voluntary $5 walleye stamp we should unite to fight for every license dollar to go to our fisheries.

[glenn57]

myself i am still up in the air weather or not i will get the walleye stamp. i fish walleyes but if i keep 3 a year thats it. i more than likely will get the stamp, heck i by the pheasant, migratory stamps $5 isnt much to help the program, but as long as it helps the lakes all over mn not just the premier walleye lakes. i might start another fire here but i could argue that i already have a fishing license why should i need to buy a special licence to spear? because i enjoy the sport and thats what the law says i need to do it so i pay the fee. if i didnt like it i would quit doing it.

[Pickelfarmer]

Desperato I can see where your coming from. I think you have some valid concerns. However whenever we start talking Native treaty rights etc. these posts always go sour.

Myself I dont concern myself with it and no matter I will gladly pay whatever I need to, within reason of course, to be able to have the privelage to fish in Mn. Only concern I have with this $5 walleye stamp is that every cent out of the $5 go towards walleye programs. Not stalking salmon, musky, bass or sturgion.

I still think a hunting/fishing license is one of the best values I have ever found.

I fish walleye and I think that before we try to add another MONEY MAKER to the DNR they should reduce the limit for walleye if its really that big of an issue. Less fish takin will not hurt true walleye fisherman as a food stand point as 5 to 6 fish takin per year is the most I've seen in this post.6 fish takin over a year span and its worth HOW MUCH? I think thats the trouble with todays world. I have no idea how much a pound I spend for walleye but in the end I know its too much and its alot cheaper to go to the store and buy it. I know I go for the fun of it but there's still a limit to what I'll spend,I still would like a meal without spending a fortune on it. And what about those who fish for a meal? why should they have to pay an Industrial price for there fish? I don't understand the DNR in todays "Day and age", so to speak. They have New trucks that roll down the road every day. I see it. I drive a 2000 F-150. they got nice motors on there boats that seem no older than 3-4 years old. I got a 15 year old motor (that I call new to me because it is NEW TO ME). I'm sure there's alot of room for more money in the DNR just as I could use more money in my household but adding another stamp or TAX or anything like that should not be an option or if nothing else it should be a last resort. Drive a JUNKER and LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS....NO I WOULD NOT BUY THIS STAMP. I Posted a while ago about walleye numbers in the state and there was very little response to that post. It basically said "out of 14 million harvestable walleyes only about 4 million are harvested each year". I really don't think we need more walleyes we just need to learn how to catch them. There for, we DO NOT NEED more money to stock them. DNR do your Job with the money you have and target the lakes you need to target for stocking. STOP ASKING FOR MORE MONEY. I could go on as to what I think about the deer liecense price and where that money goes. I guess now the DNR some how spends money on the deer that are grown off of mine and my fellow Minnesotans feilds???? I havent seen a check yet for my feilds up keep, have you? I also could show you where the DNR owns land that is only accessable through roads that can only be traveled by foot or by large 4x4's when roads that where built from DNR money that access this same land are gated off because of bordering land owners complaining........... Im sorry for the rant but Im not sorry for the words I've used. Its all true. ask me and I'll email you with why I'm so darn tired with our DNR.I'm done,LOL

[upnorth]

I would rather pay a user/service fee than another tax or an overall increase in the price of a license. Like now buying a trout stamp to fish designated trout waters. I don't mind paying for my recreation as long as the money enhances the resource.

Quote:

Only concern I have with this $5 walleye stamp is that every cent out of the $5 go towards walleye programs. Not stalking salmon, musky, bass or sturgion.

I also have a concern that they would pull some or all of the money that they spend on the Walleye program now and replace it with the new money instead of adding to it.

[chasineyes]

The fact is less and less people are fishing. Look at the lastest In-Fisherman magazine and in a summer issue of the MN Sportsmen magazine they did a survey that said onl 25% of the population targets walleyes . The DNR is simply looking for a way to make money or at least continue with what they have. The underlying issue is why they have no money. I would love to see how much of their budget is for 1)Legal and 2)Retirement and or Employee benefits. Would someone have this information? Do they pay for their own health insurance and do they have a pension system/retirement program?????

[davesfriend]

I still think at $14.99 a pound at the grocerie store(that won't even feed my daughter let alone my son) I will if I have to pay the extra $5. I need to bring at least 2 17inchers home if I plan on a feeding. If you figure out around 1lb for each that's at least $60 to feed my family. It costs less than that for the lic with the $5 tax. I am not counting the luxery cost of boat, that is my choice to have. You can catch walleyes out of the river on a $7 lure using a cheap rod and real. I work in a place that sells stuff, and if raising our cost can assure me a pension and retirement, do it. If you don't want to spend the money...DON'T. If I was DNR employed, I would want health care and all the goodies.

[Big Dave2]

Originally Posted By: Northlander

Desperato I can see where your coming from. I think you have some valid concerns. However whenever we start talking Native treaty rights etc. these posts always go sour.

Myself I dont concern myself with it and no matter I will gladly pay whatever I need to, within reason of course, to be able to have the privelage to fish in Mn. Only concern I have with this $5 walleye stamp is that every cent out of the $5 go towards walleye programs. Not stalking salmon, musky, bass or sturgion.

I still think a hunting/fishing license is one of the best values I have ever found.

I fish walleye and I think that before we try to add another MONEY MAKER to the DNR they should reduce the limit for walleye if its really that big of an issue. Less fish takin will not hurt true walleye fisherman as a food stand point as 5 to 6 fish takin per year is the most I've seen in this post.6 fish takin over a year span and its worth HOW MUCH? I think thats the trouble with todays world. I have no idea how much a pound I spend for walleye but in the end I know its too much and its alot cheaper to go to the store and buy it. I know I go for the fun of it but there's still a limit to what I'll spend,I still would like a meal without spending a fortune on it. And what about those who fish for a meal? why should they have to pay an Industrial price for there fish? I don't understand the DNR in todays "Day and age", so to speak. They have New trucks that roll down the road every day. I see it. I drive a 2000 F-150. they got nice motors on there boats that seem no older than 3-4 years old. I got a 15 year old motor (that I call new to me because it is NEW TO ME). I'm sure there's alot of room for more money in the DNR just as I could use more money in my household but adding another stamp or TAX or anything like that should not be an option or if nothing else it should be a last resort. Drive a JUNKER and LIVE WITHIN YOUR MEANS....NO I WOULD NOT BUY THIS STAMP. I Posted a while ago about walleye numbers in the state and there was very little response to that post. It basically said "out of 14 million harvestable walleyes only about 4 million are harvested each year". I really don't think we need more walleyes we just need to learn how to catch them. There for, we DO NOT NEED more money to stock them. DNR do your Job with the money you have and target the lakes you need to target for stocking. STOP ASKING FOR MORE MONEY. I could go on as to what I think about the deer liecense price and where that money goes. I guess now the DNR some how spends money on the deer that are grown off of mine and my fellow Minnesotans feilds???? I havent seen a check yet for my feilds up keep, have you? I also could show you where the DNR owns land that is only accessable through roads that can only be traveled by foot or by large 4x4's when roads that where built from DNR money that access this same land are gated off because of bordering land owners complaining........... Im sorry for the rant but Im not sorry for the words I've used. Its all true. ask me and I'll email you with why I'm so darn tired with our DNR.I'm done,LOL

I understand that you have some underlying frustrations toward the DNR for some reason, I get that, but relax this is only voluntary.

On your first point about lowering limits, you answered your own question. If people are only taking 5 or 6 per year on average, what is lowering limits going to accomplish?

Another thing is that people seem to be equating the money spent on a license with how many fish they keep a year. First of all, you are not guaranteed any fish with the purchase of a fishing license. You are however guaranteed a year of fishing PRIVILEGE.

It is up to you to find and catch fish. I'm not sure what a fishing license even costs now because I always buy a sportsmans combo for my wife and I plus pheasant stamp and other things when I buy a new license, but I know that if I fished hard even every-other weekend I would bring home more than enough fish to cover what a single person fishing license costs. Just a couple fishing trips a year nets my friends and I a good size fish fry, most of those fish being stocked walleyes.

As far as your comments about the DNR employees having decent equipment to work with. Use your 15 year old motor and junker truck every day instead of once a month and see how long it lasts. I don't see anything that DNR employees have as excessive by any means.

BTW, Chasineyes the DNR posts their biennial budget right on their HSOforum, complete with pie graphs and everything for all to see. I don't think anyone would begrudge any employee for having health and retirement benefits. Don't you have these where you work?