Extra Pole Stamp

[fossil]

Please no new taxes. No new fees. Lets just use tax dollars wisely and we won't need to raise more money. Why not allow more lines if limits stay the same.

[JollyT]

I grew up over in Wisconsin. As a kid it was great to be able to set one line up with a bobber and cast with another. Panfish for eating and a chance to catch something bigger. That is what I liked as a kid. Targeting multiple species.

[S.D. Ice Angular]

I think it would be a great idea after living in South Dakota the last 5 years it be came habit. Now that I live here in Alex it is frustrating not to be able to use a second rod in summer and a 3rd in winter.

The idea of donating an additional dollar amount for the DNR / Wildlife Management sounds nice in writing but most people want to see what they are getting for their additional contribution. It is very tough to tell where the money is spent now.

I would pay an additional $20 - $25 for additional rod but that is because I want to use an additional rod not donate additional money to better the wildlife programs. I would donate that anyway so I spend an additional $50 in Rod and Donations, I can swing that a year.

Heck that is less then a night out on the town.

Currious, what would it take to get legislation started on such an issue.??

[pmcrawler]

While it seems like extra fees are a negetive thing, the idea of this stamp was to create extra money for AZ game and fish for wildlife surveys, extra fish stocking etc. The stamp was optional. If you did not want to use an extra pole, then you did not buy the stamp. The key was to this was the money stayed in the AZ game and fish dept instead of lining the slick politicions pockets.

[waligators]

I think mn needs to take acloser look at the deer numbers you say are so good. We own 2 miles of premier river bottom and in 2 weekends of slug hunting we saw while sitting and while walking only seven deer in two weekends. I know this is a HSOforum dedicated to fishing but i think the dnr needs to find ways to beeter hunting before they start to mess with a third line option.

[klbowe]

Sorry , I still totally disagree with paying per line.

We live in a state where the fishing fees are charged per person. Each individual must abide by the same laws no matter how much they can afford or want to pay.

There is NO reason to charge per line or allow you to have 2 lines because you can afford to or are willing to pay more than another citizen.

Using 2 poles does not mean you will catch more fish or improve your odds as much as having a Flasher or a Camera may.

So why not make permits for every piece of gear you choose to use ? If you are willing to pay more to use a second line I would assume you would be willing to buy a permit so you can use a flasher or camera or a permit to use a gas auger or a permit drive any vehicle on the lake. How about a fee to use a landing net in the summer ?

Give a inch and they will take a yard.

NO NEW TAXES

[river rat316]

geez somepeople get real excited when you mention paying any more money to the government.... Im all for it.... infact they could double fishing and hunting liscense fees for all I care... if it would mean improved oppertunities for everyone to land the bigone and a better operating budget for the Co's to stop the poaching and all the other talk that I see goin on all the time I jump allover paying more money but as stated before we would not be able to control where that money was used ( basically as long as it aint given to the local peta group I could care less what they do with my money, there gonna take it anyway!!)

[bigminnow]

I would pay an extra $20 to be able to slipbobber a minnow in the summer while working a jig. I moved to the TC from Milwaukee last year, I really like the area but don't understand the rational for a 1 pole limit. In WI you can use 3 year round. I think the DNR would be wise to offer the extra pole stamp, after all you can shoot another deer with a (bonus doe tag) same logic applies.

Just my 2 cents

BigMinnow

[LocalGuide]

OK, the extra pole stamp is still a good idea.

Whats the difference between a trout stamp or something else similar?

Anyways they all apply to the same thing, if ya want to do something you have to be allowed to do it. Thats were a stamp comes in. It wont affect the person that doesn't get the stamp other than make them jealous that you can fish 3 lines in the winter and they, that have no stamp, can only fish 2.

You don't even have to be involved in it. It still wont affect you if you don't get one. Like klbowe said, "Using 2 poles does not mean you will catch more fish or improve your odds as much as having a Flasher or a Camera may." So will using 3 poles mean you will catch more fish? I would say no. If you end up catching a limit one day it will just take longer and might be easier using 2 or even 1 line.

This stamp in a sense is just like all other stamps. If you don't want it don't get it, plain and simple. But the conflict on where the money goes (for sure) is beyond me. All I will say is we can just assume that it will go into the outdoors and help aid fish stocking, surveys or something like that.

I have a lifetime fishing license, this would make a person like me pay for extra for something each year when I renew my license. Would it bother me? No. Would I buy it? Probably.

Just some food for da thought. Lets just go fishing now.

[Valv]

There is an issue to consider to this.

How do we enforce it ?

Right now a CO has to just see your line, even from a distance with a binocular. But in a case of a stamp for a second one, they will not know if you have the permit unless they inspect your license. This means a lot more work for them and I believe they are very scarse.

Still a good idea though, I emailed the DNR and will see what they will say.

[RogersResort]

Hey, why not. I have not seen to many fishermen that could handle two lines let alone three or four. Not only would the DNR benefit but we would sell a lot more fishing rods and that would be good…

[riverrat56]

Valv made a good point on how do we enforce it, but maybe they could just raise the license cost 3 or 4 bucks and then just allow everyone to use 2 lines, now i know some people will complain about raising the license cost but honestly 4 bucks is what a Rapala costs and most people dont complain about buying one of those. Also on the stamp idea maybe you could have your license tag on your boat or icehouse changed to a differt color than other peoples if you bought the stamp? that way the conservation officers could tell right away.

RR56

[LMITOUT]

But WHY pay more??? That's the problem with this state. Everyone is so used to paying out their nose for everything, they are used to it. It's called incrementalism boys. Just allow 2 in the summer and 4 in the winter and it's a done deal. No worries about enforcement, no extra paper stamps (waste of resources there too).

A gentleman had a good editorial in the Star Tribune a few weeks back. He said something about how people must like paying more taxes here because we almost give it up now with no questions asked. Sad and scary.

I find it hard to believe that more money pumped into the 'system' will improve our hunting/fishing. Other states charge less for tags/permits/licenses and have better fishing and hunting than MN. Management is the key. Not spending.

[riverrat56]

The thing with better management is that it takes funding to supply the research that is needed to set rules and laws for mangment, such as point restrictions or slot limits. O and if you dont want to buy the stamp you dont have to buy it, just use 1 pole in summer and 2 in winter.

[klbowe]

Agreed I would also like to fish two lines in the summer and three in the winter and I would buy a stamp if they made one.

My only fear is that per line fee could possibly open the door for many other "special permits".

Thats the only point I am trying to get accross.

Seriously it is not about the money.

I agree with Valv it would be tough to enforce. It will be interesting to hear the DNR's reply.

I did find on the DNR HSOforum that you can donate to specific DNR projects so maybe it would be possible for the DNR to direct sales of the stamp to stocking or enforcement.

Here the information found on the DNR Web site.

--------------------------------------------------------

Where gift and donation money goes

What about my gift? Where did my donation go and what did it really purchase?

Many individuals and non-profit groups--Pheasants Forever, the Parks and Trails Council, the Nature Conservancy--donate money for specific purposes. Given that our state government collects billions of dollars, does someone really keep track of all the separate gifts? Can you be assured your gift will be used for what you wanted?

The answer to both questions is an emphatic yes.

Each gift and donation is accounted for separately. Money donated for a particular purpose will be deposited to a restricted account and can only be spent for that purpose. If you visited Douglas Lodge in Itasca State Park and gave $25 for the upkeep of the park and its historic buildings; if you purchased a critical habitat license plate and donated $40 for wildlife land acquisition; if your chapter of the Audubon Society gave $500 to help pay for songbird research; if you made a $5 or $100 donation to non-game wildlife when filing your Minnesota state income tax form, your gift was placed in a restricted account in the state treasury to be used only for that purpose. The DNR appreciates the generosity of your gift and donation and your commitment to protecting our state's natural resources.

------------------------------------------------------------

For those of you above who HONESTLY are willing you pay more to the DNR to improve your chances of catching a trophy send them a check you can be assured your donation will go towards the project you choose.

Or you can Subscribe to the Minnesota Volunteer it is a great publication that is funded by donation only.

Good luck on the lakes this winter and Merry Christmas Everyone !

[CrappieJohn]

Part of the problem with this state's DNR office is that it is not run by "native" minnesotans. I do not mean Indians, but rather the people in the upper echilon are not from here. Many are east coast ritz and glitzers who have an east coast agenda and we have to pay the bill.

To them, everything is "pay as you go" back home and that mentality is being thrust down your throat and up your gicki more and more. This is why we , as fisherfolks, see more and more special interest groups get provisional issues passed and set in place that affect us all, but benefit the few. It is also why, as a state steeped richly in hunting traditions, the deer hunters are seeing changes which most certainly are not benficial to this state, yet are being forced on us regardless of how much public outcry there is or how many hunters voiced objections at public meetings.

We, as sportspeole, should form an alliance to get rid of and stand against all of this special interest intervention....lobby for allchanges in game laws be an election issue of all holders of game/fishing licenses and not some twink from New York who thinks Minnesota is nothing but an extention of his home turf!

[Valv]

Well, here's the reply fron DNR, looks like money is not an issue, and I am pleased with it.

Val-thanks for your comments. We have discussed this concept in the

past. One of the major challenges we face in fisheries management is

trying to keep the average size of fish at a level that satisfies most

anglers. As you know, we have a lot of fishing pressure by a very

knowledgeable group of anglers equipped with some excellent technology

and almost instantaneous information on where the fish are biting and on

what. They are also very mobile. In the cases where two poles have

been allowed (border waters, for example), we have seen higher

exploitation rates. Most anglers focus on larger fish and we end up

with a number of situations where "quality over harvest" is an issue, or

where most larger fish are taken as soon as they reach some acceptable

size. We have opted not to pursue allowing two lines in the summer as

it would make it even more difficult to maintain quality in these

situations. While some anglers we have talked to have felt that two

lines would be ok, most have felt that the negatives outweigh the

positives. Thanks so much for your comments and interest in our aquatic

resources. Good fishing. Ron

Ronald ***

Fish and Wildlife Section Chief-Programs

MN DNR

500 Lafayette Road

St. Paul, MN 55155-4012