Muskie stamp!

[Jameson]

I don't want my license dollars going to muskies anymore. It is my understanding that the new muskie season close date is Dec. 2.

Why should a part of every fisherman's fees go to muskies?

I have to buy a trout, pheasant, duck(s) stamps. I believe the muskie regs have become so many, that now many cannot enjoy fishing for them. Let the few who do fish for them pay for them.

This is coming from someone who started ice-fishing because of muskies. I now hope the DNR quits stocking them, at the least.

[eyehead]

Quote:

---

I don't want my license dollars going to muskies anymore. It is my understanding that the new muskie season close date is Dec. 2.

Why should a part of every fisherman's fees go to muskies?

I have to buy a trout, pheasant, duck(s) stamps. I believe the muskie regs have become so many, that now many cannot enjoy fishing for them. Let the few who do fish for them pay for them.

This is coming from someone who started ice-fishing because of muskies. I now hope the DNR quits stocking them, at the least.

---

Are You kidding me???? I don't fish for Panfish, Does that mean other people who fish for them should buy a "panfish stamp" so that way my lisence fee doesnt go towards stocking or helping panfish in anyway???? I bet if you did a little research on this and looked to where the money goes that comes from lisence fees you would be suprised. The Musky is stocked in like 80 lakes I think, WE HAVE 10,000 LAKES MAN!!!! I got ask you Jameson, why did the musky make you start ice-fishing???

[buzzin for bass]

Wait a minute eyehead, I think the musky stamp might be a great idea, as long as they enforce it like trout lakes where a person can't even get on the body of water without the proper stamp. That way lakes like Tonka and Waconia would either be wide open for musky fishing or there would be a lot more money going to the sport.

[MuskieJunkie]

2 thoughts:

1, I think haveing user fees is a good idea, funding for snowmobiling should come from people that snowmobile. But you have to draw a line somewhere, lets not micro-manage this. The panfish stamp is a great example. We already have the fishing license go twords fishing, to try to start cutting that up into different species of fish could get pretty tedious.

2, how would you distinguish between Pike fisherman and muskie fisherman.

It will never happen but it's an interesting debate.

[eyehead]

I would be all for a Harvest type stamp. Kinda like a sturgeon, if you harvest a legal musky you have to pay like a 5 dollar fee and register it. It would put some money back into our Musky fishery's and plus it would give our DNR and Biologists a somewhat accurate total of actually how many musky's are being harvested. That probably wouldn't fly but it sounds good, but to divvy up the lisence fee to different type's of fish???come on

[10,000 Casts]

First of all,

I am sorry that you can't ice fish for muskies anymore.

Some things just are not worth getting worked up about. I don't drive on some roads so does that mean that my tax dollars shouldn't go to fix them????? I don't fish for bass and they have a very short season so does that mean that my licence dollars shouldn't go towards them??? I don't use some boat access' so should my licence money only go towards the ones that I use? No....... and I have countless examples

Sorry buddy.

[gundy89]

wow, when i first read your post i must admit i was a little peeved. how assanine can someone be to say that they want to pick and choose where their tax dollars go or that the musky would cause someone to start ice fishing. then i realized that either a) you posted this to [PoorWordUsage] someone off or your in your own little world.

this logic of "i dont want my tax dollars going to muskies" would equate to the argument that i dont want my tax dollars going to education because i dont have kids or to welfare cuz i have never used it. both will indirectly improve my life, however, i can argue that both have no immediate effect. one cannot pick and choose what to fund. i have never fished catfish, dont fish bass, and fish eyes a couple times a year. does that mean that my dollars shouldnt go to them? no, i support anything in the industry that i love(fishing and hunting). obviously i fish muskies. i support them, thats why i belong to mi. let me guess, your a walleye guy and the skis are eating them before you can. what a load of cr@p. yeah, i'm sure muskies eat eyes. it's called the circle of life, aka "the food chain". i'll break some more news for you. walleyes eats smaller eyes. bass eat eyes. pike eat eyes. fish are opportunistic and eat anything they can fit in their mouth. if you want bigger eyes' start letting some go. then they'll get bigger.

on the subject: yeah, i would support a musky stamp. i am more than willing to pay to play. fishing and hunting licenses are relatively cheap for if you average over the time that u use them. plus i,ll suppot what i love.

that's great that you only ice fish now as there will be one less boat on the water. it's just too bad that you have'nt realize that there are a "ton" more lakes in this state without muskies than ones that have them.

jameson, in all your expertize can you explain to me that the best fishing lakes in this state are also the best musky lakes? ineteresing thought huh? must be the muskies that took ruined the walleye and bass fishong in mille lacs, lotw, tonka, and vermillion.

brian, you still owe me an email for the v trip.

[Random guy]

Well isn't this interesting.

Here is how I look at it;

We are all sportsmen in a age were many groups frown upon the sportsman, fights among each other is just ammo for the ones that want ban hunting and fishing all together. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to ducks and geese. I hate those flying livers, yuck. Although they are just one part of the whole machine that is the outdoors. Now to say that you do not want any money going to one group of sportsmen or the other is alot like saying I don't like Tom because he wears tube socks and I don't. We all buy a license that puts money towards many many types of game whether it flies, runs or swims those tax dollars are diveded up between all of the groups making for a better outdoors even if we as individuals do not like one program or the other. Heck I can't hunt an area that my great grandfather, granadfather, father and myself hunted for many years because it ws recently made a state park and game refuge, I'm not going to stop grouse hunting because I can't hunt that area.

As far as musky season closing early do not blame the DNR or your fellow sportsmen. Do the research and find what group was the driving the force behind that and once the facts are straight you can then point the finger. I will tell you once you realize who pressed that issue it may surprise you.

Now this is not a new debate to appear on these pages and I have seen how it turns out so keep it clean and civil or I will have to lock it.

[10,000 Casts]

I am curious as to who pressed the issue?

[river rat316]

I don't want my tax dollars going to stocking walleyes in lakes with no natural reproduction, just so Greedy eye fisherman can have another walleye lake, then complain about other species of fish "eating" there beloved walleye

[bubs]

a muskie stamp would be good but it would be nearly imposible to enforce. One of the main reasons for a trout stamp is that they are very few natural lakes and rivers with them in it and most of the native trout lakes and rivers are stocked anyways.

[barnyard]

I agree with river rat. I HATE paying for stocking in lakes with no natural reproduction and HATE it even more when they are stocked in lakes that have histories of winter kill. But how different is it than stocking muskies in lakes with no chance of reproduction???

It's all really a non issue though as the DNR has said repeatedly that they would not do a muskie stamp.

Tom B

[MSRiverdog]

Bottom line, it ain't about the fish, it's about the state being able to find anouther way to impose another tax.

[bigfish21]

I agree, there should be a walleye stamp before any other type of stamp. The majority of funding goes to walleye stocking so people can eat them. obviously every time a fish is removed there are fewer fish....(not as many to catch). I bet that it costs the DNR a lot more to stock one six fish daily limit than it costs to purchase a license. the walleye fishermen are draining the money for the rest of us who don't care to fish for them.

On the other hand, someone mentioned a musky harvest stamp. I think thats a great idea. with the replications as good as they are there is no need to keep a fish. it would create more money for musky fishing and keep more big muskies in the lakes

[barnyard]

Quote:

---

On the other hand, someone mentioned a musky harvest stamp. I think thats a great idea. with the replications as good as they are there is no need to keep a fish. it would create more money for musky fishing and keep more big muskies in the lakes

---

That's a very common misconception. There are not enough muskie fisherman that would buy a stamp to fund the probgram. It would also be an enforcement nightmare. There are already professed "sportsman" that go after muskies as soon as pike season is open.

Tom B

[Bluegills1512]

As a third party reading both Jameson's and Gundys and Jon's posts, I'd have to say Jon makes the most sense in that we are all sportsmen who enjoy to hunt or fish, and there are many other groups who would love to shut down and take away the things we love to do just because they have a problem with it and think it is morally unethical for us as humans to be doing that to animals.

To this topic I personally don't care if there is a muskie stamp, because I do not fish for them, and probably won't in my life, unless fate has me snagging one while I am walleye fishing or northern fishing. I am mostly a panfishing guy anyways and thats my bread and butter species. I also am a meat fisherman so I like to keep a meal or my limit if possible to eat, because I like to eat fish. After stating that Gundy your post makes sense for the most part, and I can understand where you are coming from as a muskie fisherman and a member of Muskies Inc. The only problem I have against Muskies Inc. and fisherman is the reputation they give spearmen. Because now a days heaven forebid that a guy can spear and be ethical about it. Spearman do get a bad rep. in this state now because of what they do and that they can not release their fish which is backwards in what Muskies Inc. and Muskie fisherman believe in Catch & Release. Spearing is a great sport and lets you observe the underwater world and how fish react to baits and so forth, and I believe teaches you more about fish species and fishing rather than you ever would in a lecture hall from a professor or reading some book.

Another problem I have is I am against the stocking of muskies when they are not native to that lake or river system. I think there is enough lakes with muskies in them and more than anyone could ever imagine. You see it a lot with lakes that are on a river chain or have creeks that run into neighboring lakes in which the muskies migrate up to spawn in and sometimes just stay or migrate farther. I look at the Mississippi river and how many lakes that the river runs through or other rivers that branch off from the Mississippi to other lakes, the majority of them have muskie in them, because of the muskie being native to the Mississippi. So there really isn't a need to stock anymore lakes I personally think, especially when you got huge bodies of water like Mille Lacs, Leech, Alexander, Shamineau, Miltona, Minnewaska, Bemidji, Winnie, Vermillion, Pokagama, Lake of the Woods, Cass/Pikes bay, Plantagentte, Minnetonka, etc. Those are just a few of many in this state that I know hold muskies and have had muskies being caught out of them. Then look at the river systems and chains that run through these lakes to other lakes and I'll bet they have muskie in them or a good chance to have them.

Also Gundy those lakes may have good fishing at times ( mille lacs, lotw, tonka, and vermillion) but they aren't the best. Vermillion isn't what it use to be alot of their natural spawn went into the stocking of Red Lake, so that lake suffered a few bad year classes of walleye. But for bass and muskie its a great fishery if thats your thing great, but I could careless. Mille lacs is a good fishery, but its like Minnetona, its to close to the cities which equals to many boats or people on the ice for my liking. And Lake of the Woods I think you could have many species co-exist in those waters with how many acres to roam? I think it depends on the size of the lake and if muskies can co-exist with walleyes and nothern in the same lake. I look at Spider lake by Grand Rapids which the muskie stocking didn't work because I think it was to small of a lake, and maybe the ecological system of the lake could not handle muskies being stocked into it and thats why it failed.

My theory is if God would of wanted muskies in our lakes he would of put them there himself and made them native to our lakes in this state, not to be stocked by man.

[shae1986]

I just have one quick thing to say on this and that is that walleyes were not found in all MN lakes, they were stocked, and if there is the habitat they thrive, just like muskies, oh and they can co-exist, it seams that some people dont understand that.

A. Shae

[bigfish21]

---

Quote:

That's a very common misconception. There are not enough muskie fisherman that would buy a stamp to fund the probgram. It would also be an enforcement nightmare. There are already professed "sportsman" that go after muskies as soon as pike season is open.

Tom B

---

The stamp would be used only as additional funding for the program and not intended as sole funding. I agree not many would participate. But if it costs $35 to stock a sub-adult muskie a stamp would help offset the cost of replacing that fish taken

[MuskieJunkie]

Quote:

---

The stamp would be used only as additional funding for the program and not intended as sole funding. I agree not many would participate. But if it costs $35 to stock a sub-adult muskie a stamp would help offset the cost of replacing that fish taken

---

Yes it would but remember it takes taxpayer money to administer these programs. It's not as easy as saying alright we'll do this and then all the money that comes in goes here. These things take YEARS to get put into place. Like I said earlier, let's not micro manage this.

[10,000 Casts]

I think that one thing that we have to remember about the muskie stamp is that people come to Minnesota from all over to fish for Muskies. Yes, Walleyes, Northerns amd Bass too. (Not really panfish because I don't really know any people that will pull their boats for 9 hours because the bluegills are biting). However, All those fish bring money into the local economies that depend on it every year to survive. If you were to place a stamp fee on any species of fish, it would dramaticaly reduce the amount of people that fish for them in turn it would hurt the small local economies that we all love to visit and spend our hard earned money in.

Example: A man from Iowa wants to bring his 2 sons and their friend to Minnesota to fish for a species that you need a stamp to fish. After buying out of state licences for everyone, you expect him to buy additional stamps. This guy just spent over $200 dollars on Licences!!!! If I am him, I would go to Wisconsin where I don't have to pay for stamps. Now because of that a small town that needs every penny that they can get will lose out on thosands.

I think that this is bigger than is being discused here. Yes, stocking efforts cost money but it is bigger than that.

Just some thought,

John

[Bluegills1512]

Thats true John, I like your example because I guess when you sit down and look at it and think about it, the muskie fishing in this state does bring money to this state and the small communities. I figure the more people that get into chasing muskies the less they are fishing for other species such as walleye, northern, panfish, and bass. I still will stick to my point about spearing though, because with the increasing popularity of muskie fishing there is still a bad reputation given to a guy who spears.

[Jameson]

Sorry to tick anyone off!

I agree micromanaging and more fees are bad. Muskie stamp looks like a bad idea.

I think my fishing opportunities are REDUCED with a close date of Dec. 2 as opposed to Feb. 25. I think some of you will say they are more opportunities, because their will be more/better Muskies, because of the Dec. 2 regulation. I hope you are right. I do hope it improves and enhances the Muskies. But I will not be able partake in Muskie fishing as I once did. (From Jan. 1 to season close.)

How about instead of a stamp we REDUCE the license fee?

I won't hold my breath on that one.

[Jameson]

Eyehead-You, and likely everyone, were wondering how I started ice-fishing, because of Muskies. Small lake (I'll gladly give up the name if asked) is stocked w/ muskies, but has no BOAT access. I tried to go after them through the ice. No success, but started the transition to ice fishing.

Gundy89-You make way too many assumptions of me. I am not a walleye guy. If you want to label me. I'm a trophy guy. Fish taste icky. And Gundy89 I do understand why the skie lakes are the best in the state. Big fish(muskies sometimes include) are very very very very good for the lakes ecosystem. (Thats why the muskie lakes are the best.) You asked.

[castmaster]

10,000 casts:

"

I think that one thing that we have to remember about the muskie stamp is that people come to Minnesota from all over to fish for Muskies. Yes, Walleyes, Northerns amd Bass too. (Not really panfish because I don't really know any people that will pull their boats for 9 hours because the bluegills are biting). However, All those fish bring money into the local economies that depend on it every year to survive. If you were to place a stamp fee on any species of fish, it would dramaticaly reduce the amount of people that fish for them in turn it would hurt the small local economies that we all love to visit and spend our hard earned money in. "

you mean kind of like charging $100+ to hunt waterfowl for 10 days and another $100+ to hunt pheasants?

a harvest "stamp" program wouldnt be any harder to implement or administer than the sturgeon tagging system in WI. for c&r anglers no extra fees would be paid, but for those harvesting muskies they'd need to fork over some extra $$. it would also go along way to help in the harvest of muskies by incidental catch by anglers not fishing for them.

[Black_Bay]

Quote:

---

Small lake (I'll gladly give up the name if asked) is stocked w/ muskies, but has no BOAT access.

---

Does it start with an S and end in tone?