Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If you want access to members only forums on HSO, you will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member. 😀

  • RECEIVE THE GIFTS MEMBERS SHARE WITH YOU HERE...THEN...CREATE SOMETHING TO ENCHANT OTHERS THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE

    You know what we all love...

    When you enchant people, you fill them with delight and yourself in return. Have Fun!!!

Sign in to follow this  
rushing

New stamp rates!

Recommended Posts

I don't mind at all. If they will use the money for stream improvements/easements and continued stocking of trout lakes I'm all for it! I know thats not always the case but... To me $10 is still a good deal. Maybe it will also keep some of the riffraff away. Just my 2 cents.

Tight Lines!
Rob

[This message has been edited by rushing (edited 08-15-2003).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rushing,

What do you mean by "riffraff"?

considering the stamps are no longer issued at face value. I'd like to see the DNR eliminate the "Stamp" and call it a management fee or something similar.

[This message has been edited by Bogsucker (edited 08-15-2003).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mind paying a little more as long as that little bit more is going to stream improvements, easements, and stocking of our trout lakes and streams.

------------------
"Study to be quite"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm not so sure I am happy about the nice increase in the 2004 Trout Stamp! Up to $10!

What's everyones take?
Ofc ourse it could be money spent elsewhere, but as we know it doesn't always get used the way it's set up to be!

Jim W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would not mind the increase if I believed it was being wholey dedicated to just improving trout fisheries. I have heard in the past, that is not the case.

Does anyone know where I can find a breakdown of where that money goes? It could be very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if that's the way it's gonna be than we should at least get the actual stamp without having to pay a buck or two or whatever it is. I enjoyed collecting those until they started charging us. I am o.k with this as long as the money is used for its intended purpose. I too Sarge would love to see how and where they plan to use the extra cash. There must be somewhere we can obtain this info??

smellz

[This message has been edited by smellzalilfishee (edited 08-16-2003).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bogsucker - What I meant by riffraff was basically the people who don't have the respect for the beautiful places trout tend to live or for the people that share the same streams or lakes.

Tight Lines
Rob

[This message has been edited by rushing (edited 08-16-2003).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The general concensus is that no one minds paying for the improvment of habitat and fishery. Knowing exactly where the dollars go is important. Over the years people have become accustomed to hiked up prices under false pretenses. SHOW ME THE MONEY!...and show me what I bought for my $10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm sorta glad the trout stamp fee will hike up a bit. It may be a deterrent to the riffraf previously mentioned. Not to preach at the choir here, but I went to one of my favorite streams last Sat. morning (8/16) and came across four half-empty Miller lite cans laying on the ground in two different areas. On my way back to my car at noon, I cleaned up the cans and now my creel smells like stale beer. I'm griping about this because I earned the right to gripe about it by cleaning up after the freaking bozo who thinks that streamside banks are as much as their property as their house (trailer more likely). C'mon man. Aluminum cans do not belong on the ground by a stream. Maybe a higher-priced trout stamp will keep these morons away. Just my two cents' worth. Besides, delicate ecological conditions require more attention and thus money. The cost of everything else inflates. MN DNR does do a heck of a job under tough conditions. They clean up after the imbeciles, stock our lakes and streams to improve fishing, and then get laid off every time a new politician figures out how bad the budget is overbalanced. Not to mention put up with all sorts of angry hunters and fishers who equate the DNR with the local PD. When I get checked for stamps/licenses I'm not offended at all. The DNR regulates the bums that wreck it for the rest of us, like 'em or lump 'em. I'd rather have an organization like that around and if they need a couple extra bucks to make it work, then sign me up.
Did really well on Saturday too. Caught a grip of strong brownies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've often wondered how much our trout stamp fees covers. I suspect that raising a coldwater species is more expensive than the cool water species. I also think there are less of us trout fisherman than walleye fisherman. I guess what I'm getting at is I have a feeling that revenues from fishing license sales help support trout stocking. I don't think it could be maintained on $8.50 from each trout angler. I have no real basis for my feelings, just a hunch.

------------------
Erik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of years ago DNR fisheries put out a publication called "Report to MN Anglers."
I believe it had the info you guys are looking for. If I remember correctly, it had various pie charts of how the Fisheries divisions' budget is broken down. Very nice informative publication. Of coarse, it costs money to produce and distribute such material. I think you now can get this info off the DNR HSOforum, costs them less. You guys should make an effort to find this info for yourselves and not just expect to get it handed to you on a silver platter from St. Paul. After all, would you rather have them out doing trout research, stocking and improving habitat, or working on a glitzy magazine to show you that they are actually out in the field doing something?

The reason that you now must pay for the stamp itself is for the very reason you guys are discussing; so that the money raised for trout management is used for trout management, not printing and mailing stamps.

I believe we have one of the most fiscally responsible DNR agencies of most anywhere, and they don't get credit for it. You guys shouldn't let a couple incidences from years ago effect the great reputation our agency has. Ask yourselves this... Would you rather be trout fishing 20 years ago, or now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fishforever1000,

Speaking formyself, I'm not disgruntled, [PoorWordUsage]ed off or anything, just want to see where things are at.
Work for the DNR ?

It would be safe to say most of us avid trout anglers appreciate(for the most part) what we have and how things have been taken care of.

Your sentiments are appreciated!

I take a "look see" on the DNR's site "for myself".

Jim W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have found thus far:

Available fund balance for Trout and Salmon Management at years end in 1999 was $163,465.
In 2002, it jumped to $876,861. All(most) from
revenues collectd on trout stamp.

I have asked a couple DNR officials for beakdown. Not sure about you, but I don't believe I have personally witnessed "great" change in the last 3 years? Whether or not we have a great DNR.

More to come.

Jim W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

INteresting,

The "Over sight committee"(appointed by the DNR commisioner, appointed by the Governor) has changed(on a regular basis) what the revenues would/could be spent on. The last change wasn't just for Trout Management it included State purchase of easements?(hmmmm).

ALso, only 10% of these year end funds are dedicated to administrative costs. Kind of low if you ask me. TO me this opens the door for "dip-netting" more freely.

I'll pay the increase, I trout fish. Just thought that we all shouldn't put on our blinders, openly agreeing to increases with out just cause and a detailed itemization of expenditures! THese are more direct dollars here, not like most taxes.

We need RAIN!

Jim W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fish4ever, I'm sure most people know how and where to get info on the breakdown of fishing revenues, I know I do. Fancy pie-charts and pretty brochures are all nice, but not neccesarily needed, IMO. Mcdonalds, burger King, and other restaraunts have beautiful illustrations of the burgers that you'd "like" to recieve....Quite honestly mine never look like that! When I said "show me" this did not mean in paper, I would like to see obvious improvements. More trout and stream restoration to name a few. I dont want to see pictures and pie-charts, just trout!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wade22
Don't clump me in your generlization of people who live in trailer houses. I can't afford the luxury of owning a 100,000+ dollar house, but I was able to afford a 40,000 dollar home, Yes I live in a trailer and am [email protected]#n proud of it.
I always clean up my own trash and whatever is left there by other people. I learned at a young age to leave a place cleaner than what is was when I arrived.
Just so you don't take this the wrong way my goal in life it to loose the rest of my teeth and find a woman who will beat me up every day, just so I can be on the Jerry Springer show LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right on Danny Berg. The only people I was trying to clump are the ones who leave streamside trash. Really gets under my skin and I needed to vent. I've found more trash with each trip and I've picked up quite a bit of other people's mindless waste-worm cans, styrofoam cups, beer cans, broken lines with hooks and more. If it read any other way, I profusely apologize. It's pretty unfortunate that these types of people make hard feelings for so many others, like our thread has demonstrated. I guess fishing on streams and rivers has turned into a part-time volunteer waste conservation gig, EVERY time I fish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year was the first year I've ever had a perm fishhouse on any metro lake. I joined in on the Waconia clean-up after houses had to be off the lake and I was so suprised with the trash and the wanton waste of fish left lying on the ice it made me sick. If somebody is out fishing and he catches a small perch or pan fish he should let it go back. There was one house where they had a pile of over 100 small perch and panfish.
I wish I knew whose house that was. I am pretty sure I would have called a CO...

Sorry needed to vent.
But to the original posting, 10 bucks ain't much. if in the future we don't clean and take care of mother earth then we won't have the right to fish or hunt .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't it all go to stream maintenance? If it doesn't it should. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't trout fishing the only fishing that requires a stamp? If this stamp fund gets pilfered then there really should be a lake fish stamp too. What do you guys think? Why can't the DNR guarantee all the stamp fees go to streams, or do they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wade

They do NOT all go to stream maintence. As mentioned, 10% goes into the Game and Fish fund.

The Citizen Oversight (or lack of sight committee) makes the decisions(recommendations on where the fee should go and how much the increase should be.

Granted the fee has only gone up 3 times since it's inaugural year in 82 but where the money goes has changed each time as well.

The latest activites eligible for funding are the purchase and easement and fee title land along trout streams, research(whatever that means) and special managment projets on Lake Superior and portions of its tributaries(info directly from the DNR's Trout and Salmon Management.


For me I haven't witnessed a "ton" of change in streams, granted I am not on everyone of them either.

If I didn't mention this earlier, the year end available funds in 1999 were 163,465 at year end 2002 it was $876,861. After year end 2004 there should be a nice fund balance.

I haven;t had time to see the breakdown, but hopefully I will soon. I e-mailed Ron Payer director of fisheries a week ago and have yet to hear back.

If you have time give it a try.

[email protected]

Jim W

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I haven't seen much stocking data lately, I'm curious as to how much of this money goes into stocking. Also what's the ratio between stream stocking and lake. Lake stocking seems to have petered off a bit IMO which bothers me as that's mostly what I fish. Hope to see you guys on Burntside this winter!

chunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is like the third message I've posted this morning so i'll shut up for a while but wanted you guys to see this article on the star tribune's web site today about SE trout fisheries management. i think this is the guy that Jim mentioned in a previous post:

http://www.startribune.com/stories/531/4064296.html

i will say that the wisconsin trout streams i frequently fish have similar slot limits and i think these are responsible for producing some outstanding fishing. hopefully our dnr fellas can successfully allocate these trout stamp fees to make our streams and fish healthier for a long time. if we're paying for the streams then keep the money focused 100 percent on the streams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just recieved an e-mail fron the Trout and Salmon management Consultant. He claimed he would be sending me a detailed itemization of trout stamp allocations!

As soon as I get it I'll try to share it.

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IF YOU WANT TO SEE YOUR DOLLERS AT WORK GO TO SEVEN MILE CREEK NEAR MANKATO YOULL SEE THE WASTED MONEY THERE. i dont know what the dnr is thinking but that stream has almost no water at all times of the year with the exception of after a rain. another example is little jordan creek nice improvements no fish.(granted i havent fished it since spring but i cant see them appering out of no where.)

this is just my 2 cents but i dont think we need to spend mony on a stream that just might hold fish on a nice wet year but losses all its fish on a dry year.

troutman72 CPR always

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Whatever it is, it looks to be over 50 and I’d like to see more. 😉😁
    • Day 1. We got back into my favorite spot around 615am...waited on the trail until sun up, plenty of bear sign around we didn’t want to push it. Legal shooting was about 715. Not very many hunters out here this year. One local told us it’s due to the bears...anyways we sat til about 10 then starting moving ridge to ridge. Didn’t see anything. I may have taken a small nap after lunch for a few mins according to my son. Around 1pm we moved to cliff edge where we could see out around 300 yards and sat until dark. About 430pm mulie does moved past us...probably 20 of them. Then all was quiet until 530 when I thought I heard a cow. My son then says ELK!! 3 cows were 40 yards from us but with the timber he couldn’t get a shot off. They then bolted back to where they came from which was a big clearing. Cole looked at me and said can I go look...I said ya... you crest the top and I will call and see if we can get them to stop. He disappeared from sight and i let off a small cow call and the woods erupted with cows making all kinds of noise and half hearted bugle.  I was waiting with anticipation for what comes next. I hear his rifle bark and then a flash of orange on the cliff above me....huge grin and I nailed hear. He waited for about 5 mins never saw the bull come out, there was 30 cows in the field and he got a dandy. Elk down on day 1 of his first elk trip. We gave each other a huge hug and some high fives! Then the work began. Finally made it back to camp around 10pm. We are worn out and ready to get back out in the morning to find that bull! Stay tuned it’s been everything we could ask for and it’s just beginning! 
    • its interesting thats for sure. puma for sure me still thinks. Leaves are about foot and a half would put the head at about 3 feet or so. Me double thinks cougarumamountainlioncatamountpuma ! 
    • Can-ya-mount a panther in Minnesota? 😉
    • be careful Eyeguy!! I would like to ice fish with you a few time this winter.
    • Well, that was pretty pathetic! Regardless of Annexstad’s health status, Morgan has to be the starter next week! Offense looked so much better with him under center. That’s about the only positive thing I have to say.
    • Big Dave I'm thinking it's a mountain lion or maybe a catamount. 
    • Sorry guys didn't realize posting a video would cause such a controversy! 😆. Anyways, yes, isolated cover has been what has seemed to work great for me, especially on pressured lakes. As far as catching bass goes, it's what I target 90% of the time in summer simply because I love the fight! Spring and winter I mostly target walleye then.
    • Wow did Butler look good lastnight! Saw a lot of things (particularly in the 4th quarter) that show this team is NOT very good without Butler. Apparently the fans have no ill will towards him, as they MVP chant was getting pretty loud.
    • Well, my disappointment in the team has kept me quiet for the last couple weeks. Watching game day right now. Everyone, including Drew Bledsoe picked Nebraska to beat the gophers today. Nebraska is clearly better than their record, but come on! They CANNOT lose to an 0-6 team today!
×