How about a Musky Stamp?

[CaptainMusky]

Just wondering what some of my fellow musky fishermen felt about having a musky stamp in MN. Similar to a pheasant or duck stamp. Thoughts? The goal would be to get more dollars for stocking and management efforts and ultimately more lakes. I think there should be a portion reserved for education of Catch and Release along with the impacts muskies have on a lake to aid in gaining new waters.
Personally, I am for something like this provided the dollars go to the right place. Now there would be a level of enforcement required so that would take up some $$$, but hopefully the majority could go toward the good of the specie.
What do you folks think?

[topraider]

hey L'capiton i like the idea also because there is way to many non muskie fisherman keeping them like they are pike. and some times they are to small. i also think they should raise the limit on some lakes in the state. As for the stamp idea 5 bucks would not be bad. they have a stamp for trout and salmon.

[gundy89]

Really don't want to buy another stamp but wouldn't **** and moan if I had to. As far as the money, I don't think it would go as far as one would think. Just my thoughts.

[CaptainMusky]

How much of the $5 for a pheasant stamp goes to habitat? Not sure, not close enough to it. How about trout stamps? Now there is a fishery that is pretty much managed 100% by stocking and it would be interesting to find out the percentage of those stamps going toward stocking efforts.
Say the stamp wouldn't work, what about a tag system like deer hunting? This sounds kinda dumb, but if you didn't want to harvest one, you wouldn't have to buy a tag. You could only "tag" one fish per season etc. Thoughts on this? Of course there would have to be registration and this involves enforcement, but I think this way you could really focus stocking efforts on lakes that are receiving the most pressure from kept fish. Just another idea.
There needs to be more work done to ensure the status of muskies in this state remains strong. I would argue that we MN fishermen have the best opportunity for trophy fish in the US. The sport is changing, so we need to make changes to ensure its future.

[CaptainMusky]

esoxmn, I think someone would be foolish to believe that every dollar from the stamp would go toward musky efforts. As I stated, there are management expenses and other adminstrative type costs that would take away some of the dollars. But for every $1 that is retained, that is $1 MORE than is put to it today. The MN DNR really has no handle on how many people fish muskies or how many fish are harvested each year or which bodies of water get hit the hardest. I am proposing an approach that will 1) give the DNR an idea how many people target muskies because asking a question while filling out your license is NOT going to give accurate results and 2) put some money toward the management and education of a fish that receives little focus right now. We only have 81 lakes in MN of those only 63 are stocked. We need more lakes and we need the lakes we have managed more or the quality of the fishery will decline.
So many people are eager to take the boon of musky fishing and catch fish and have all the successes, but not many are willing to do anything to ensure its future.

[RK]

Hiya,
The Muskie Stamp idea is one that seems to pop up every few years...

There are certain aspects of it that have merit. It would be a dedicated source of funding for the muskie resource, but, having given it quite a bit of thought over the years, I do have some real reservations about it...some practical, some social...

One real concern is the actual returns that would be realzied. I've discussed it with some DNR types, and their general feeling was the cost to run the program would be more than what it would bring in, especially if a stamp is only required if you intend to keep a muskie. Or would a stamp be necessary just to fish for muskies at all?

Either option has potential problems. Requiring them just to fish them would be tricky - if I'm on a lake with muskies in it using a flipping stick, 20 lb mono and a 6" minnow bait, am I fishing muskies or not? (if you see me doing it this weekend, the answer is 'yes...') How about a guy soaking a sucker under a bobber on the same lake? Is he muskie fishing, pike fishing, or just fishing for whatever?

Requiring a stamp to keep a muskie may be worse. From a social standpoint, I think it would be bad PR for muskies, and make no mistake, PR is one of the single biggest challenges to muskies in MN, especially on stocked lakes (see the last Outdoor News re: 'No More Muskies' as a case in point.) Muskie anglers get slapped with the 'elitist' label a lot, and I think requiring a stamp to keep one would add to that. Along with that, is the 'I bought my stamp so I'm keeping one' attitude that may be a factor, especially with non-muskie anglers catching one by chance. Would it bring with it a sense of entitlement?

Incedental harvest is a reality with muskies. There will be anglers fishing for other species that will happen into a muskie and may keep it. I think you can look at things like that two ways, *especially* when it happens on a stocked (non-native) fishery. On the one hand, it's too bad the fish was kept. All of us would rather see it released, for sure. But, on the other hand, there is an angler for whom the goals of the MN muskie program (to provide anglers with an opportunity to catch and enjoy a trophy fish) were a success, and who is likely to walk away with a positive impression of muskies being introduced into that body of water. When groups like 'No More Muskies' come calling, you can't place a value on that kind of good will. Incedental harvest is a recognized reality in the stocking program, and with good reason, because it does happen. I think the large majority are harvested by casual muskie anglers or non muskie anglers though. Will a muskie stamp help curb harvest if most of the people who would buy one are muskie anglers that release their fish anyhow?

Those are just some thoughts on stamps. None of that is to say there isn't progress to be made when it comes to muskies. Adding lakes would be great, but the reality is, for all our 10k lakes, there really aren't that many that are suited to muskies. According to some of the biologists I've talked to, the number of candidate lakes is shockingly small. I think doing a better job of protecting the fisheries we do have is a better long term hope than getting more lakes. I'd really like to see C&R only on our native lakes like Leech, the Boy River chain, the Mississippi River, etc., and I think protecting spawning habitat on those lakes is absolutely critical.

As far as harvest goes, I'd maybe like to see something similar to the sturgeon regs, where you are allowed one fish per season. When you harvest the fish, you have to immediately sign and date the back of your license. That's your fish for the year...

The main thing in protecting the fishery though is education on proper catch and release techniques. Just when I think there's progress being made on this I see something on the water that makes me think otherwise. I saw a fish 'released' this summer after a good 10 minutes on the bottom of the boat. I could hear it playing a drum solo on the deck from 25 yard away. The fish was released, so the anglers had the best of intentions, but the fish was as good as dead. They had the right intentions, but lacked the knowledge. I had someone this week tell me that during a recent tournament, a fish was held in a judge boat for more than 5 minutes. These were guys who supposedly knew what they were doing... That fish is dead too - guaranteed. This isn't a knock on tourneys, but rather an example of how poor handling and lack of information can negate the best of intentions, and that's a tough hurdle to overcome, especially at a time when more and more bew abglers come into the sport every season...

Anyhow - enuff rambling. Just some thoughts on the subject. Time to pack for the weekend...

Cheers,
RK

[Swamprat72]

I would pay for the stamp, but a question for you. As it is right now, you need a stamp to fish on a designated trout stream so do you need this stamp to fish on a designated muskie lake? What about the other fishermen who fish for other species on these lakes (Leech, e.g.)?

[CaptainMusky]

RK, excellent post and some real valid points.
"As far as harvest goes, I'd maybe like to see something similar to the sturgeon regs, where you are allowed one fish per season. When you harvest the fish, you have to immediately sign and date the back of your license. That's your fish for the year..."
I like this idea too, but I don't see how the management of this is any less than a stamp or tag like I was commenting. I do think harvested fish MUST be registered for a multitude of reasons, but mainly to track where they are coming from and focus more stocking efforts on those waters.
Maybe a stamp or tag system wouldn't work due to complexities in management, but the registration of harvested fish could be implemented.
Swamprat- there are few designated musky lakes in MN so I am not sure if restricting stamp usage to those lakes would work. Perhaps it would be easier to manage since it is fewer bodies of water, but that wouldn't help the entire "state" of muskies.
As I have stated several times I think the education is the most important aspect of this. Topics around properly handling of fish, muskies in an ecosystem-what is the impact, etc are all important. Many of the truly devoted musky fishermen have learned all these things, but I think there is definitely more room to grow.

[half2fish]

Sorry guyes i am with esoxmn here. i have to say no too. i cant even catch one despite my many efforts. maybe i am fishing in the wrong place but i gave up for the year. now on to the hunting. if i had to buy a special licence i would just use some smaller bucktails and fish for northerns. muskies bite these too.

[cheesehead]

I am not much of a Musky fisherman however I would nix the idea of a specie specific stamp and just raise everyones license by a dollar. Being a Wisconsinite who vacations in northern Minnesota I have no problem paying for a license that I will only use for one week out of the year. Because the area is beautiful and for the most part the fishing is good.

------------------
Say cheese

[Esoxmn]

Do you realy think the money would go towards muskie stalking? I say no. Just my opinion.

------------------
Why did'nt Noah swat those two mosquitos?

Gary

[ARMAN-21]

I like the idea. I think you should really give it some thought and push the idea, if that's how you feel. if there is anything i can do to help, feel free to ask.

thanks

Scott

------------------
ARMAN-21

[Chris-Neises]

I'd have to vote no on a musky stamp. Use the money we pay for licenses.

[Esoxmn]

I don't think registration would be a bad idea. Extra cost to a fishing license would stir things up a bit if anglers knew that extra money was for muskie stocking. We do need a way to get more lakes stocked. Some one just has to figure out the best way to do it with the least problems.

------------------
Why did'nt Noah swat those two mosquitos?

Gary

[Hockey Guy]

I don't think anyone should be able to keep a musky PERIOD! Someone give me one good reason to kill a beautiful fish that is already very elusive. I have heard people say that they would keep anything over 50" to mount it. Talk like that ticks me off!

You net the fish, keep it in the net in the water until it is free, and then take it out to measure length, girth, and snap a few pictures from different angles. The fish should never be out of the water for more than a couple minutes. A replica mount will last forever and will look identical to the fish you caught. They show scars and everything.

I can honestly tell you I wouldn't even kill a 60" fish if I caught it. Wouldn't we all like to hear about the 58" fish that someone caught and released so we know there is a chance we might catch her someday as well? A true musky hunter should have respect for the fish as well as the sport. In my opinion, anyone that is out there searching for a fish to kill doesn't have any respect for the sport or other anglers.

We talk about stocking and regulations in order to increase the number of fish, but none of that would be as effective as natural reproduction in combination with current stocking efforts. If the DNR decides there are too many Muskies in a lake, then they can be harvested. Until then, someone tell me why anyone needs to keep one!

[CaptainMusky]

HockeyGuy, I am probably in the same boat as you in regards to questioning the keeping of muskies. I would like to make a clarification to one of your points however. You mention a fish should never be out of the water for more than a couple minutes. They should not be out of the water for more than a few SECONDS. This is a very critical time for these fish. Picture yourself doing "Herbies" (being a hockey guy I think you should know what that means) and then immediately holding your breath for a few minutes because that is essentially the same thing. Perhaps I was reading your post too literally, but there are many people who fight fish too long, lay them in the bottom of the boat to unhook and then snap a roll and a half of photos and toss the fish over the side of the boat. Mind you, these are mainly folks who do not fish muskies on a regular basis, but it happens.
Though I do not support or believe in keeping muskies, I would not condone Catch and Release Only here in MN. That would cause a real uproar. We already have infighting amongst Muskies Inc about tournaments, we sure don't need it in regards to someone's right to keep a fish.

[muskybuck]

I would say yes to a Musky stamp even if none of the money went to helping fish. I think it would be a great idea to keep the accidental angler from harvesting them. I would also favor one tag per year just like deer hunting. The true musky fisherperson would probably never use the tag unless it was a true mounter anyway. I would also be in favor of charging twenty dollars for the tag or stamp as that would also keep the accidentals from buying one anyway just in case. Probably not a popular opinion but it is my opinion!!

[CaptainMusky]

Chris, little of the money that we pay for fishing licenses goes toward muskies. I am looking for something that would be ear-marked specifically FOR muskies and couldn't be lopped off in lieu of budget concerns or sacrificed for other efforts. I want hard dollars that go toward musky stocking and education programs. Maybe a stamp isn't the right idea, but "using the dollars we pay on licenses" isn't working now, so why would it later? We have excellent musky fishing in this state. We need to devote more time and money to the management of what we have to ensure it will be there for years to come. It has already been documented on this board and others like it the impacts anglers have on certain lakes because of keeping fish and mishandling etc. If we have something with real dollars dedicated to education and management of the specie, we can better counter the effects before the lake suffers.
The biggest thing that threatens muskies right now is the bad publicity it gets from certain groups. Groups that claim muskies eat all the walleyes etc. What these groups lack are funds to do research and back up their claims. The DNR has studies as does Muskies Inc, but they lack the funds to educate the public on the fundings. There was an attempt to get money for a video and such earlier this Spring I believe from the Brainerd Chapter, but I believe it fell short and didn't happen. This is the reason we need things like this. Without dedicated money it won't happen.
I think fish registration is another key component here. Like deer registration, make the angler register the fish. This will do two things: 1) make the angler think twice about harvesting the fish, in hopes of a larger one (who bags a button buck on sunrise of opening morning?) 2) give visibility to which bodies of water are getting hit the hardest to increase stocking and other efforts there.
Maybe charging ever musky angler for a stamp is not the anwer. I think most people would give $5 if they knew it would go toward stocking efforts etc. Personally, I really can't believe that people wouldn't spend $5 on a lousy stamp. So much for giving back. What's $5 when you have $200 dollar rods, $20 lures and $80 nets?
I think we determined that many people are against that idea, but that still leaves tagging harvested fish. The tags would cost money and those dollars would go toward the education and stocking efforts (or portions of). As I stated earlier, I think the registration piece is the most important.

[muskybuck]

Hockey Guy, You are coming very close to saying why should anyone be allowed to fish Musky period. Why harrass such a beautiful fish!! Besides harrassing it you you might just wear that old girl out enough to kill her anyway even if she is released!! I have yet to see a replica that looked like a real fish. They might be out there but I have not seen one. I would not keep one myself but that is the only thing I agree with you on. Be careful what you wish for.

[bassman186]

I support the idea of a Stamp for Muskies I think its a great idea, I'm sure not all proceeds would go to help out but as long as some did that enough for me! Also to respond to the C&R idea I think its great, the fish would live better in turn making for a better population, there for more chances to get people involved in the outdoors. Replicas are the geratest thing ever. The idea of putting the actual fish on your wall serves no purpose, I mean nothing more than the replica would serve anyway. Some may argue well, its the memorie on the wall or theres the one that didn't get away, but isn't that what keeps us coming back, the one that got away! I mean if we caught everyfish we ever played out it would never be any fun, and in turn this site may not even exist.

Just my 2 cents.

Matt

[This message has been edited by bassman186 (edited 10-05-2004).]

[Giant_Jackpot]

Although I would buy a muskie stamp if it went that way, how about this? How about dedicated funding for wildlife? You know, 3/16 or ¼ of one percent of the sales tax? Then everything gets proper funding. Any thoughts?

[muskieboy46]

What if we just pay and extra 5% tax on top of the 6 1/2% on any muskie you keep and mount. And the tax would go straight to the dnr muskie program.

[J-Hawk]

I'm afraid that even if this stamp is made mandatory for the right reasons, some fellow Minnesotans will refuse to buy it no matter how inexpensive the stamp might be.

They may choose not to buy, and still fish for muskies. That would not be fair to the stamp holders. You might as well just donate cash to a musky organization then.

They may also choose not to buy and stop fishing for muskies entirely. That fact makes the musky stamp theory very selfish in my perception.

Why can't every fellow liscensed Minnesota angler enjoy this resource without further penalty? The expensive gear alone for this sport has stressed my financial situation to the point were I've considered quitting fishing muskies (briefly considered). RK brings up a good point about the elitist stigma musky anglers may have. It costs substantially more money for musky gear than lighter tackle. That alone excludes many licensed anglers from this sport. Do we need a stamp to thin us out even more?

[This message has been edited by J-Hawk (edited 10-06-2004).]

[J-Hawk]

"Captain," Jeer me all you want. I feel I have already contibuted to this resource by ways of my annual liscense fees. That, in my opinion, is a considerable contribution.

If the stamp comes, I'll buy it. I promise you that many people won't buy it and still fish for musky. Then we can all complain I guess.

No, duck hunters and pheasant hunters don't call themselves elitists. On the other hand I have also NOT heard a duck or pheasant stamp holder complain about non-stamp holders using natural resources that those stamps secured. Do you realize that even non musky fishermen contribute to the sport through their fees?

[CaptainMusky]

J-hawk, I am quite sure that dollars from musky stamps wouldn't go toward creating any new lakes. That is thousands of years of hard work by mother nature.
You are missing the point. The dollars from licenses that go toward muskies are miniscule. Contrary to your belief there are many people that whine about others not paying a dime for something that stamps and vehicle registrations helped procure but getting to enjoy. Ask an owner of a snowmobile with a studded track how they feel about the many paved trails in this state. Their dollars went toward paving it, yet they cannot even use it now, but we have bicyclists and roller bladers that are reeping the benefits.
GP, you are right that more dollars would likely come in if it was a % of every license, my concern there is that is relatively easy to slash. In budget crisis they just hack away and since musky fishing is a minority in this state it would be the first to get axed. I am sure nothing will ever happen to bolster our musky fishing opportunities in this state. More lakes would be great and better management of certain lakes and rivers, but the way things go around here nothing will ever happen. The one thing that I feel as a must is fish registration though. Even if there isn't a stamp or anything, I think all kept fish should be registered to better focus stocking efforts.
One thing few people realize is that the vast majority of our muskies in this state do not have sufficient reproduction. Without stocking the fishing would be poor. We need to make sure this is funded continually.