Special Session - Cass Lake spearing

[CaptainMusky]

. As to "backstabbing backdoor dealings" both sides were represented at the state level both parties presented there sides of the argument (plus a nation wide mass emailing to the governor) and a vote was made by representatives we the people voted in.

Spearhead, the way this finally got passed WAS NOT AN OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION. The governor had already vetoed this once and had a very nice response and the feelings from constituents on the matter. What happened in the last week WAS NOT open to public input, WAS NOT equally represented by all parties with concerns in the matter, but rather a small group of people with their own personal agenda. This wasnt just the case for this piece, but there was countless other bills who suffered the same fate.

[BOUNCED]

Thanks RK.

What specific additional protection was needed for Muskies? Doubling the fines?

[Sackett]

My feelings exactly. This was shot down TWICE by 2 different governors due to public input. That's why it was vetoed. Public input was taken away this time and that's how this thing goes through. Is that a way of doing things you're okay with? How many other issues should it be ok to just shadily push through with nobody getting a say?

It's why the DNR should be the controlling factor. Period.

[RK]

This wasnt just the case for this piece, but there was countless other bills who suffered the same fate.

This is a very important point. In all the bills, terms were agreed upon by the leadership and the administration. Committee members other than the chairs were not involved in the discussions at all, much less any public input. They went into the session with the understanding that no amendments would be allowed, on anything. Right or wrong, that's how it was done.

[RK]

Thanks RK.

What specific additional protection was needed for Muskies? Doubling the fines?

Spearhead...

Even when doubling the fines was proposed session before last, I think the feeling was it was kind of an empty gesture.

The proposal was for C&R on Cass for muskies, but I think even a higher minimum size, like 54", would have gotten it done. The thinking there was incidental, accidental harvest was inevitable (accidents do happen) but reducing the harvest from all sources would help balance that out. Frankly, just doubling the fines or making harsher penalties for a speared muskie misses the point, which is the overall population level. If you're adding a potential additional mortality factor, reducing the overall harvest achieves the desired result regardless of where the additional mortality is coming from. Spearing a muskie is illegal in any case - what's gained by making it "more illegaler." Mortality levels are the point...

Bigger picture - muskie mortality is why I'm considered a radical by some (many?) in the muskie world. When it comes to handling fish and delayed mortality, I'm definitely NOT a moderate

Cheers,

Rob Kimm

[john skarie]

Spearhead,

I would have to disagree with the notion that the DNR didn't take a good hard look at lakes before stocking muskies in the past. That is simply not the case. Lakes were chosen the same way they are today, based on size, forage base and habitat suitability.

I have sentiments much the same as Rob does about Cass. Don't care if people spear there or not. I don't want the ban lifted without changing the pike regs, that would be a mistake. Making Cass C&R only would be a great step too.

I'l love to see all our MN muskie lakes which have native, or natural fish in them be C&R only.

Stocked lakes not, 48" limit seems like a good size, but wouldn't care if we went the way of Canada on some of them, 54".

JS

[BOUNCED]

Spearhead,

I would have to disagree with the notion that the DNR didn't take a good hard look at lakes before stocking muskies in the past. That is simply not the case. Lakes were chosen the same way they are today, based on size, forage base and habitat suitability.

Stocked lakes not, 48" limit seems like a good size, but wouldn't care if we went the way of Canada on some of them, 54".

JS

We can agree to disagree, IMO Eagle Lake in Maple Grove is a prime example of a lake was NOT suitable for Musky stocking.

I don't want to see any part of America go the way of Canada!

[Sackett]

We can agree to disagree, IMO Eagle Lake in Maple Grove is a prime example of a lake was NOT suitable for Musky stocking.

I don't want to see any part of America go the way of Canada!

Eagle Lake kicks out some pretty good fish. I have a friend that lives on it and does pretty well for a lake that gets absolutely hammered. The lake has fish in the above 50" range too. What about it is not suitable? The lake still has good fish populations of its other species, this lake certainly seems suitable.