Walleye Stamp?

[Carp-fisher]

I listened to an interesting conversation on Bear Facts and Fish Tales the other night reguarding a possible future "walleye stamp". Of course my immediate gut reaction was to reject any idea of any new taxes or "user fees", but the walleye stamp does make some sense. According to Dick Sternberg, the "rockstar" of Minnesota walleye biology, Minnesota's overall walleye population is in decline and the DNR actually stocks less walleyes now than it did 20 years ago. His view is that more lakes need to be stocked with more walleyes and that the way to pay for it would be a "3 to 5 buck" walleye stamp. Any thoughts on this?

[TrophyEyes]

I would pay it. I am all for supporting the walleye fisheries in this state. Unfortunately I am not a person to donate on my own, mostly due to financial burdons, but if there was a $5 add on, fine with me as long as someone could show me that $5 went to Walleye stocking and not Bass or Muskie. I would be fine with a bass or muskie stamp as well, as long as I know what I am getting for my money.

[Black_Bay]

And where does Mr Sternberg suggest getting more walleyes from? The state is pretty much maxed out on production now. There is already controversy in raising fish in natural ponds. The state would have to buy a lot of land to build drainable ponds and add more staff to grow fish. Private aquaculture has the same issues. So getting significantly more fish from them will be tough. His push for the accelerated walleye program actually has caused more walleyes to be stocked but in quite a few places they have been stocked in bad places. If DNR Fisheries would do an honest evaluation on walleye stocking they would find there are places that walleye stocking should be stopped and those fish could be allocated elsewhere.

I question his numbers regarding the DNR stocking more fish 20 years ago. I wonder if he's talking actual numbers or pounds of walleyes. I also question the assumption that walleye numbers are in decline.

The whole talk about stamps is a farce. People are up in arms about dedicated funding, gas tax...and now some are talking muskie and walleye stamps, a.k.a another tax. Years ago there was a long range muskie committee and talk of a stamp was brought up and was shot down immediately by high rollers in Muskies Inc. I'm sure some will justify it by saying the sales of stamps would go toward stocking more walleyes or muskies. Well what would more than likely happen is the money would be funneled off. It would also probably cause people to not fish for walleyes since it would cost extra and that would actually reduce sales of licenses. A general increase in the license should be done. The amount of money brought in by raising the license fee a $1 or 2 would be greater that the sales of the combined sales of muskie and walleye stamps. While walleyes are popular, DNR creel surveys show that a vast majority of people statewide fish for panfish.

And as far as Dick being a rockstar...well I'd say more like a diva.

[Carp-fisher]

I believe Sternberg was talking about numbers of walleyes stocked. He mentioned that the state does stock more pounds of walleyes but fewer numbers as compared to 20 years ago. He also specifically mentioned the state purchasing the additional walleye fry from private hatcheries. The plain fact is that most of our walleye fisheries are put and take and with the increase in competent pressure there is alot more "taking that putting". I don't see how anyone could argue that.

Personally, I prefer crappies over walleyes, and if there were less walleyes in the lakes, then there would probably be more and larger crappies. So perhaps I don't support the stamp either.

[tacklejunkie]

no. we already have a trout stamp and the DNR has ended the salmon stocking on Superior but the stamp still costs the same

[tisosy11]

sure i'd pay for it!

I don't mind fees like this when they are sneaking em behind something else~!

[Northlander]

I always believed a trout stamp was a joke. Why should 1 fish species need a stamp of its own. 1 general license should cover everything you can fish for. Keep it simple for everyone. Even if the general license would cost a few bucks more.

[Team Otter]

Just bump up the license fee if something is really needing to be done. I don't like singling out a species either. However, before moving forward, the power's that be better have their ducks in a row.

[Carp-fisher]

I think the trout stamp makes sense. The fisheries are put and take only. If I'm a bluegill guy, why should I have to pay for the stocking of a fish in a lake I'll never go to and a species I'll never fish for? Ok, big slippery slope here, but I think it works for trout. I understand the argument for walleyes too. Sternberg said that the stamp would only go to walleye stocking, not to research or habitat restoration etc.

[Black_Bay]

 Originally Posted By: Carp-fisher

I believe Sternberg was talking about numbers of walleyes stocked. He mentioned that the state does stock more pounds of walleyes but fewer numbers as compared to 20 years ago. He also specifically mentioned the state purchasing the additional walleye fry from private hatcheries. The plain fact is that most of our walleye fisheries are put and take and with the increase in competent pressure there is alot more "taking that putting". I don't see how anyone could argue that.

Personally, I prefer crappies over walleyes, and if there were less walleyes in the lakes, then there would probably be more and larger crappies. So perhaps I don't support the stamp either.

I figured he was talking numbers. It's easy to blow smoke up anglers rear with that one. The state used to stock fry more often and used frylings too. That alone would account for the higher numbers. Fry don't work well in many situations so the state went to fingerlings which have a higher survival rate and return. Illinois also found that larger fingerlings gave better stocking results. The private hatcheries don't have the brood stock numbers to produce enough fry and some of them actually buy fry from the state anyway.

Your right most of the walleye lakes are put and take(a.k.a. stocked) but only because those are lakes that don't have walleyes in them naturally so stocking is necessary. As I stated before DNR Fisheries could do a much better job if they stocked walleyes in placed where they actually worked. I know for a fact that some lakes were stocked only because there wasn't a lake with walleyes within a few miles. The ecology of the lake was never taken into consideration.

BTW many a crappie has gotten fat off eating stocked walleye fry.

[tunrevir]

I am for it if it means that they are going to add a fee for bird seed to tax all of the birdwatchers, put a trail sticker on the trails for hikers so that they pay a share and certainly tax the weekend camper that just wants to get away from it all and spend time in the outdoors. When is it going to end? Oh, I forgot, lets make a stamp for each gamfish species so you can collect more fees from the majority of the people that panfish, fish pike, ect. It is getting out of hand, tax me here, tax me there and make me work that much harder to enjoy something like the great outdoors. I have a better idea, lets make a toll road between the twin cities and hinkley, Mille Lacs, Red lake, Rochester and of course we should have a booth on every road that enters or exits the state so we can gain the most bang from our tourists bucks. Think of the revenue that our prestigous legislators could, ah, put down the drain. We'd have safe roads, safe lakes, safe cars, a budget full of extra things, give me a break. Bottom line, don't tax me anymore, I pay my share as most of us do. Ironically, I would vote for dedicated funding if there was a clear avenue that would fund the fishing interests I have but the whole arts thing, they can stuff it. Parks and trails, clean water, yes, we need them and I support that to get people involved rather then sitting around a big table and dictating what the rest of us would like to pay for. Yuck! Sorry for the rant. I say no walleye stamp.

Tunrevir~

[walleyefisherman]

i agree no walleye stamp, i fish all species of fish in minnesota and lets say i have to pay the lisense fee plus an extra 5 dollars per stamp for a certain fish. i'll tell you what i would do i would stop fishing, or move to another state. as much as i love everything about this state and lived here my whole life why should i have to pay this chunk of money, to do something i love, and im sure there are alot of people in the state that would agree with me. plus im sure tourism would drop a good amount

[LMITOUT]

I don't believe you HAVE to purchase the stamp, isn't that correct? If that's indeed the case, then I think it's a good thing for those who like to fish walleye. I surely wouldn't buy a stamp for trout or turkey just because those aren't something I'm interested in personally. Hopefully there are enough people who pony up the extra $5 and it will add enough to help with walleye stocking in the state. As long as it's not mandatory I don't see much harm in it.

Just as there are subcommittees for the waterfowl stamp, pheasant stamp, turkey stamp, and the trout and salmon stamp, a subcommittee will be required for the walleye stamp to oversee the walleye stamp fund.

BTW, it's proposed that the cost for the stamp be set at $5.

I've added portions of the bill which was introduced yesterday and the new text that deals with the walleye stamp into a thread I have going regarding new outdoors related legislation HERE.

As long as the stamp doesn't look like that recent awful conservation license plate design that was supposed to look like a walleye, I just might buy them to collect!

[JohnMickish]

Tim Pawlenty. No taxes but he will fee you till your eyes turn red.

[LMITOUT]

FYI, the two senators that authored the bill, Chaudhary and Skogen, are DFL'rs.

But I hear ya on T-Pa and his "fees".

[Rainman]

Thats all we need, more stamps.Whats the next thing they will come up with, a fart stamp?

[walleyefisherman]

as you can see from my display name walleyes are my choice of fish, and i dont mind the extra 5 dollars, but how do I know for SURE that the money is going for the stocking.

[teamfish]

NO stamp. If they need more money then add to the license fee. If you pay for a walleye stamp will it not just free up more money in the license fees for the other game fish. Then all game fish should have a stamp and then eack person can select what he wants like cable tv. Do not think that is in the best intrest for the DNR. Should be one budget for all to share as needed.

[matthothand]

I'll pay whatever the going rate to fish happens to be. Fishing is important to me and I don't forsee residential license fees ever getting to the point that I will give up the sport. Complain about it in forums? Sure! I also agree to simply raise the license fee and eliminate all stamps. I'm pretty chapped about the trout stamp situation on Lake Sperior as well...I pay to fish for lake trout, brown trout, brook trout, native rainbow trout/steelhead, king salmon, pink salmon, and coho salmon...and the MN DNR doesn't stock any of them! The only fish the DNR stocks anymore in Lake Superior is a strain of rainbow trout from British Columbia. They introduced a new species. That issue is a whole nother can of worms though.. At any rate it's rediculous that any species should require a stamp. Level the playing field so that everyone can fish whichever species they prefer to fish. All for one and one for all. This seems to be the largest outdoors forum in the state.

I wonder if Rick, Paul, or any of the 'powers that be' from FM/HSO would be interested in using the numbers of sportspeople that frequent the site to attempt to alter/resolve this issue at at higher level with the MN DNR through a petition or some other similar medium? Perhaps that is not what this site is intended for but as a collective I feel that the members of the HSOforum would have a voice to be heard.

[Northlander]

Ya Matt the trout stamp on Lake Superior is one of my biggest beef because I live up here and really dont chase trout. I fish eyes on Lake Superior but have to have a trout stamp (Both Mn. and Wi) because my methods of chasing walleyes are very simular and at times even exactly how one would pursue trout/salmon.

I even had a DNR tel me I was after trout when I was actually targeting deep roaming walleyes up in the water colomn. I couldnt argue the case because I was using the exact technique a lot of guys use to target trout.

If they do a walleye stamp and already have a trout stamp will they go to gill, crappie, bass, catfish, northern, muskie etc. etc. stamps? Then why have a general fishing license? Just go buy stamps for whatever fish species you would pursue?

[Carp-fisher]

I think the argument centers on the "put and take" aspect of the fisheries. Trout are entirely put and take and need dedicated funding for the stocking of the fish; hense the trout stamp. I can understand the argument for the walleye and muskie stamp also. All the other fish mentioned don't have put and take fisheries with the exception perhaps being a few catfish lakes. From the way it sounds the Lake Superior salmon situation is a total ripoff, but that doesn't necesarily mean that it would be the same for a walleye stamp.

Personally, I think all public funding of the "arts" should go to the DNR, but thats another can of worms.

[Lip_Ripper Guy]

I would support an increase on the fishing license, but I question another stamp. One of the things I dislike most is the hassle every fall buying a state duck stamp, federal duck stamp, pheasant stamp, etc. It makes more sense for hunting because you target a specific species, whereas fishing, you don't really know what is going to bite your hook.

[Carp-fisher]

Now this brings up another question: in a designated trout lake, correct me if I'm wrong, but you need to have a trout stamp to even fish on the lake. Would there be designated walleye lakes?

[JohnMickish]

Wait till the public access stamp comes out, along with the live bait stamp, get your boat wet stamp, snow for banking your fishhouse stamp and the list goes on...

Political parties aside, I have a feeling this is just going to be the begining if things in the economy/tax revinue don't change for the better soon.

[LMITOUT]

OK, I need a clarification on this stamp. Is purchasing the stamp completely voluntary? If so, why the panic about raising fees and comparing it to other species of fish? If someone wants to contribute their $5 to the walleye fund because they enjoy walleye fishing, I have a hard time seeing why that's a problem. Seems like a good thing to me. After all, the Walleye is MN's state fish and I'm almost sure the most sought after fish in the state. The other species are still going to get their same share of the revenue for management. This just gives the walleye a little extra bump for the extra pressure it receives every year by fisherman.