You have got to be kidding me...

[Ray Esboldt]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, 2/18/08

Subject: $200 per club fee introduced

H.F. No. 2952, as introduced - 85th Legislative Session (2007-2008) Posted on Feb 13, 2008

1.1 A bill for an act

1.2 relating to game and fish; establishing an alternative fishing contest fee for

1.3 certain fishing clubs;amending Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 97C.081, by

1.4 adding a subdivision.

1.5 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:

1.6 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2006, section 97C.081, is amended by adding a

1.7 subdivision to read:

1.8 Subd. 3a. Fishing clubs. (a) A fishing club is exempt from the permit fees

1.9 established under subdivision 3 if the club:

1.10 (1) has 24 members or less; and

1.11 (2) collects data, such as the size and species of the fish caught, and submits the data

1.12 to the commissioner after every contest the fishing club holds.

1.13 ( The commissioner shall charge an alternative annual fee to a fishing club

1.14 exempted from the permit fees established under subdivision 3. The annual fee is $200 or

1.15 the total amount of all prizes to be awarded for the year, whichever is greater.

Anyone care to help interpret this? Basically sounds like every club (if the bill passes) will be subjected to a $200 flat fee. Am I reading that correctly?

[TonkaBass]

Looks like it, unless the the total winnings add up to more than $200.

...I give up.

... lets tax fishing tournaments!!! Taking 30% of their paychecks isn't enough. Then we can pump it into our welfare program!

[Ray Esboldt]

I just dropped Rep. Dean Urdahl a note asking for some clarification. I'll let everyone know his answer.

I will now assume the fetal position and cry.

[Deitz Dittrich]

it does look that way Ray.. please let us know what comes of your e-mail..

I also ask, what if your club has more than 24 members?

[Superduty]

I am far from a legal expert, but it looks like a club could be exempt from standard permit fees if they submit the fish data from their tournaments. I interpret it as a way for clubs that do not fish for money can get by for only $200 per year.

[katoguy]

It does state "an alternative fishing contest fee" and "exempted from the permit fees established under subdivision 3. The annual fee is $200".

So in lieu of the permit fee per contest, they only pay once.

Why shouldn't clubs pay the same fee whether there is prize money at stake or not?

[bassNspear]

that is a great question deitz. What happens when it does get over that number. Im interested to see what you hear back as well ray.

[East Rush Rules]

there is a pretty good write up about it on (the HSOforum with all of the fishing tournaments on it)!!!!!

[Ray Esboldt]

"Why shouldn't clubs pay the same fee whether there is prize money at stake or not?"

Kato, give me a good reason why they should? I figured someone would have that train of thought.

I did hear back from Dean Urdahl. He is already considering dropping the bill. He believes that some larger clubs were subject to permit fees already on the books. He was trying to reduce the amount they paid. However, he still did not clarify who would need to pay.

Truth be told, there is no definition "on the books" to a club and the rule would be virtually unenforcable. Or, the flip side, it would be enforced at the discretion of a CO or sheriff. That would not be good.

[Fluker]

What I don't get is why are they targeting the tournaments? From a BASS perspective, they are all catch and release. Seems the non tournament anglers that are catch and keep are affecting the fishery's more?

During the last debacle, the legislators were asked why a 50 boat tournament pays as much as the 10,000 participant ice fishing contest in Brainerd / Bemiji (can't remember where). They were asked if they thought a 50 boat catch and release tournament affect a fishery as much as that big ice fishign event (catch and keep). There answer was yes, and more. ????

If they need to raise money, why not raise the MN Fishing license a couple bucks? Or put a "tournament stamp" on there that one has to purchase for $5. I can't remember the numbers that were ran, but the latter would have brought in as much money as what the last bill does, and then a person is only paying once rather than each tournament they enter. Put the levy on ALL fisherman and don't just target tournaments.

[Daze Off]

As for the big clubs over 24 members, did they not already enact a bill requiring additional fees for events over 12 boats?

[ikeslayer]

you will never hear about me complain about the Dnr's quests for more money. However there means to getting it i might squirm at times. Waht i do know is that from the time i was about 7 until i was 18 or 19 license prices never changed. Now i don't think they did anyone a favor by not keeping up with inflation and just the general demand. I know though just from being a duck and goose hunter that the dnr have gone to a "Pay to Play" And most guys accept it well. If you want to hunt ducks you have to buy a ducks stamp, want to hunt pheasants buy a pheasant stamp want to fish a bass tourney buy a bass stamp. I know that guys wouldn't blink an eye at paying a 7.50 bass stamp charge when they have a 50,000 dollar boat in the garage. My 1 cents

ike

[katoguy]

A contest is a contest. Clubs are no better or worse than any one else. This includes BASS affiliates or father/son clubs.

I thought all contests (maybe not in your neck of the woods...) share their catch information with the DNR.

I would love to hear your reasoning, Ray, why you don't think some clubs should pay when others do? (I figured someone on here would think they deserve preferential treatment... )

[Ray Esboldt]

"I would love to hear your reasoning, Ray, why you don't think some clubs should pay when others do? (I figured someone on here would think they deserve preferential treatment... "

Umm, did I say that? You must be pretty good at reading between the lines.

Look, I am not looking to start an argument on who should or who shouldn't pay. I don't believe the tournament fee structure is very solid from a the perspective of collecting revenue to offset related costs. Fluker is probably more on track with the license endorsement idea. Seems like the DNR would have a more consistent intake with less associated administration. I really think what is behind all this is a vendeta to curb organized fishing - that's another topic all together.

My beef with this item in particular is that it is yet another potential tax. In fact, it may be a refinement of an existing tax. Where does it stop? It doesn't seem reasonable to me that if 10 people get together for bragging rights once or twice a year, that they should pay the DNR $200 to use a fishery they are already paying for.

So, will it end up, everytime Katoguy and myself get together to fish, and we put a dollar on the line we are in violation because we have not coughed up $200?

[Deitz Dittrich]

I would be all for a Tournament Stamp... but cost of that stamp would have a little to do with my decision on that as well.. I would think a $10 or less.. which would include all tournaments...

[katoguy]

Ray, you might not have said it, but you questioned me why I think they should be treated the same. Either you are agreeing with me or opposing. Re-read your post, it reads as you are opposing. (With the "You have got to be kidding me..." and all.) If one group is required to pay the fee, while another is not charged the fee, that is certainly preferential treatment.

I do strongly feel that if one contest is required to pay the fee then "paper" contests should also pay the fee. (After all, the DNR has stated they need the money to recoup the 3 hours of time to approve the contest permit.)

[Hotspotter]

Bass are a public good; everyone owns them and no one owns them. Tournament anglers participating in a contest for prizes or money are engaged in a business activity (you write it off on your taxes don't you?) Much like the government charges logging companies to harvest trees from national forest land, there should be a fee for those bass they take/kill. These are fish removed from public ownership by those engaged in a profit-making venture.

What they should really do is assess the economic value of each bass caught per lake (some are worth more than others), as this has been done for everything from the water supply of New York, to the cost of a Manatee swimming in South Florida, and charge tournament anglers according to that cost X the number of bass they kill.

Mortality information based on water temperatures, bag limits, and other regs are readily available in peer-review fisheries journals. Make mortality curves, and apply them to the tournament, date, and/or water temp. at hand. Or, analyze the data for MN and charge the avg. to every tournament out there similar to what Deitz suggested in the form of a stamp.

That oughta make everyone mad

Joel

[Deitz Dittrich]

post removed by myself.

[Ray Esboldt]

Nope. I still fail to see where I explicitely stated that anyone should have preferential treatment. My implied conclusion to your comments is, you must think club guys are an inferior breed to non-club guys. Sounds kind of dumb doesn't it.

I will publicly admit that I find this whole fee thing frustrating. I really find it frustrating that a fee be imposed on clubs. Which addresses Joel's comment. Most clubs do not do anything for profit related to fishing. It's just people going fishing generally. Fish may be weighed or measured, but profit generally does not fit into the equation. Every, guy and gal that fishes organized events has already contributed directly to the existance of that resource through DNR mandated license fees. I do believe that this population may be willing to voluntarily contribute additional funds (like trout stamps and trouters) to add additional funding to their choice of hobby. But, where does this type of taxation end is my question?

So, Katoguy, do I hope this never passes and does not apply to clubs. Yes. Now I have publicly stated it and you can be happy. What I really hope is that definition is created around who pays additional fees or does not. I am in favor of everyone falling in the not category, but really don't want to see informal groups like the BFL be subject to a fee because they measured a fish or two.

[Hotspotter]

I interpreted the rule incorrectly towards all tournaments, rather than just small clubs as Dietz corrected on via email.

I'm entitled to the opinion that large weigh-in tourneys still cause great damage to the resource; this is well-documented and studied in peer-reviewed journals, unlike comments regarding "weekend anglers killing more fish and 99% of tourney anglers do this or that." These are common suppositions with little to no founding save personal experience and observation.

Like anything environmental, pay to play.

Joel

[Hotspotter]

 Originally Posted By: Deitz Dittrich

My licence fee pays for re-stocking programs. Mostly of which if not all of which do not go for stocking of bass as they seem to do a decent enough job on their own. If we were to do as you wish, then I suggest we pay some sort of DNR officer to sit at each landing 24/7/365 and charge people for all fish kept and add 10-20% on top of that catch for ones delayed mortality. Get real!!

Weekend anglers kill FAR more fish/bass than any tournament angler. FAR MORE!!! And I would be willing to bet that 99% of tournament anglers in MN do not write it off on their taxes.. I know I dont. Maybe I should..

Then only reason I would be willing to pay some sort of Tournament tax/stamp is because we do take up boat landing space... YET WE WOULD ANYWAY!!!! even if it wasnt a tournament.. It just would be spread out differently.

We all pay for creel surveys, meant to offset the need to pay someone to monitor 24/7/365.

Regarding the "I would be fishing somewhere else anyway" comment, it's true. The simple fact, is that multiple fisheries can much better support greater numbers of overall angler hours than can a single lake, intense pressure, over a short-window of time. Not only is this common sense, again, it's a well studied and supported tennet of fisheries management. Not all lakes are the same however, and what is overkill for one, is not necesarrily for the other.

Similarly then, the boat-ramp space you would be taking up anyway, would not be from a large number of anglers, all at once, on the same boat ramp. Again, a question of concentration; which is at the heart of the matter for both fish and boats.

Joel

[katoguy]

Ray, I didn't say anything about "explicitely" or anything about inferior breeds. You are reading between the lines something that is not there. I simply stated that we all should be treated the same!

I disagree with this fee, too, but the govt (in this case, the DNR) should treat all people the same.

[Duffman]

Yuck, tourneys.

As Obi Wan stated "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

[DaveC]

There is a simple reason why this $200.00 fee is wrong. The fees that are in effect as of now, has noting to do with restocking or creel studys. It was put in to effect to offset the cost of the amount of money the D.N.R felt they spent on prossing tournament permits.

The new $200.00 dollar fee is a new fee to a user group that does not need to get permits, so this is not a what good for the goose, is good for the gander thing.

It is a new user fee, a new tax.

[katoguy]

DaveC, you are right. If there was no permit fee in the first place then there is no extra work for the DNR (it also makes my previous argument moot). It is just a way to gain revenue.

I am sorry if I came off a little rash earlier.