Walleye Stamp?

[matthothand]

How do you figure that trout are a put and take fishery and nothing else is?! That is rediculous to me man. You think trout are the only fish that people catch and keep???!!!! Walleyes have got to be the largest put and take fishery ever in the state! The DNR puts them in and the anglers take them out...without a stamp. Why is there no sympathy for the guys that fish trout and get stuck buying a stamp while every other angler in the state gets to fish for their stocked fish at no extra fee....and then take them home and eat them. Trout fishermen could be easily argued as the most ethical fishermen around with huge emphasis on C&R. I consider trout fishing mostly take (catch) and put (release)..not put and then take.

[Carp-fisher]

 Originally Posted By: matthothand

How do you figure that trout are a put and take fishery and nothing else is?! That is rediculous to me man. You think trout are the only fish that people catch and keep???!!!! Walleyes have got to be the largest put and take fishery ever in the state! The DNR puts them in and the anglers take them out...without a stamp. Why is there no sympathy for the guys that fish trout and get stuck buying a stamp while every other angler in the state gets to fish for their stocked fish at no extra fee....and then take them home and eat them. Trout fishermen could be easily argued as the most ethical fishermen around with huge emphasis on C&R. I consider trout fishing mostly take (catch) and put (release)..not put and then take.

I think trout are primarlly "put and take", and semantics aside, I think you know what I mean by this. For instance, the trout that you are catching and releasing, unless they are native strain lakers or a rare coaster brookie, are the result of an expensive and intensive stocking program. The bluegill I caught yesterday was not. Therefore, the argument could be made that people who want to fish for expensive stocking dependent fish should be the ones paying for them and not the average joe blow bluegill guy who wants to take his father in law out to catch a few sunfish for the pan. I think this is an important distinction in the discussion.

[Kyle Sandberg]

The cost of raising trout are very expensive because they have to be kept indoors, in a cool place, and in a raceway with running water. Imagine the cost for cooling the air/water as well as other general matinece costs. Walleyes on the othere hand, can be placed in a rearing pond and the DNR lets them grow and harvests them when they're big enough. Only some matinece to maintian acceptable water levels and such.

[Coach1310]

As much as I can't believe it I am with LMTOUT on this one. Why is this such a big issue? Is this where as an outdoorsman/woman you say enough is enough and say "NO" to the walleye stamp? I guess I don't see it as a big deal and if it means better walleye fishing, I am all for it.

Most seem to prefer an increase in a license fee vs. a walleye stamp. Some are the same people who complain about those on Welfare or assitance programs....you complain because you pay for these programs and get nothing for them....So the guy who only fishes crappies and bluegills will have to pay a couple extra bucks so the walleye guys/gals have more walleyes?????

If it means money dedicated to walleye and doesn't lead to a decrease in the funding already there for such things, I have no problem with it.

[LMITOUT]

 Originally Posted By: Coach1310

As much as I can't believe it I am with LMTOUT on this one.

Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

[LMITOUT]

S.F. 3666 establishes a walleye fishing stamp for the purpose of increased walleye stocking. Chaudhary said purchasing the stamp, for a $5 fee, would be voluntary under the bill. The measure was approved and re-referred to the Finance Committee.

[eyepatrol]

No need for anyone to fuss if it's voluntary like that. I for one would spend the extra $5 and support it. I pay $1000's of dollars just to go after the fish. An extra $5 isn't going to hurt my pocketbook one bit. In fact, I bet I've got that much change lying on my dresser right about now.

[Coach1310]

 Originally Posted By: LMITOUT

Hey, what's that supposed to mean?

Just that it seems we are on opposite sides on most issues and this one I am with you. Even if it wasn't voluntary and they made it a stamp you had to buy to fish walleyes I would have no problem. Thanks for all the good info by the way.

[LMITOUT]

Yeah I know. Just joking with ya. I'll try to keep tabs on this bill and the rest of the ones I have posted in the other forum as best as I can.

[Team Otter]

Good information. Thanks for sharing.

[JohnMickish]

Remember when seatbelt use was voluntary? Just wait, there will be more.

[Black_Bay]

 Originally Posted By: LMITOUT

S.F. 3666 establishes a walleye fishing stamp for the purpose of increased walleye stocking. Chaudhary said purchasing the stamp, for a $5 fee, would be voluntary under the bill. The measure was approved and re-referred to the Finance Committee.

Since the $5 stamp is voluntary and to actually get a stamp you'd pay an additional $2, I be this would actually cost the DNR money because they would have to print the stamps. I bet the general angling public won't spend the extra money. I know I won't.

[DEADhead]

pretty dumb idea if you ask me. either it's required, or no go. like BlackBay mentioned, it will likely cost the DNR more money to print the stamps and administer them, and I just don't buy the idea that anglers are going to voluntarily purchase them.

[tisosy11]

pretty soon postal stamps will be 5 bucks each!

[Chode2235]

let me keep 8 with a stamp and 4 without. I hate the fragmentation of the license. I buy the license so I can go out and fish everything, not half of the fish in our dear state.

another idea. Put it on the state income tax form like the non-game wildlife fund. Make it into a moral issue of supporting the 'state fish.' That may work too.

The reliance on the stamp for fund raising alarms me. I am fed up the Pawlentyism.

[walleyeslammer]

I am in the camp that says either require it or don't have it at all. I would have no problem paying an extra 5 dollars plus 2 for filing fee. I fish a lot of small lakes that rely heavily on stocking in order to prosper.

[james_walleye]

 Originally Posted By: 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

If you had to pay for a $5 walleye stamp you would stop fishing or move to another state? I feel sorry for you.......

[james_walleye]

Ok so voluntary as in i can pass on buying it if i want but still fish walleyes without the stamp? Or voluntary but if I want to fish walleyes i have to have it, if i dont fish walleyes i don't need it? I'd buy it either way, $5 if it goes to stocking efforts isnt a big deal to me.

[james_walleye]

 Originally Posted By: 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.

Are you saying that if a lake can't sustain itself at all via spawning that it shouldnt get any stocking? I hope i'm taking it wrong. If thats the case there wouldnt be many walleyes in southern MN.

[eyepatrol]

James...seems as though it would be voluntary as in you can buy it or not buy it, but no matter what you do, you can still fish for 'eyes. Kind of like a donation really is what it seems to be.

[UncleKes]

I would be willing to pay it so long as the DNR actually uses the money for stocking and water quality improvement programs. The current administration has siphoned off much of the DNR's budget into the general fund so they can use it elsewhere.

But the big question then becomes can we trust the politicians to actually do what they say they would do? For my money NOT UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION at the State capital.

They would probably siphon it off to be used on golf clubs, and those lakes used by the rich and big money boys who give to the current administration! They get the walleyes and we get the bill!!

Uncle Kes

[matthothand]

Lick it and stick it.

[Chode2235]

 Originally Posted By: UncleKes

I would be willing to pay it so long as the DNR actually uses the money for stocking and water quality improvement programs. The current administration has siphoned off much of the DNR's budget into the general fund so they can use it elsewhere.

But the big question then becomes can we trust the politicians to actually do what they say they would do? For my money NOT UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION at the State capital.

They would probably siphon it off to be used on golf clubs, and those lakes used by the rich and big money boys who give to the current administration! They get the walleyes and we get the bill!!

Uncle Kes

Finally, someone said it...

[Black_Bay]

[Scott M]

A walleye stamp's proceeds, voluntary or not, wouldn't go to politicians to be divided elsewhere, it would go towards walleye projects. Look at trout stamps. If you contact the DNR's head offices in St. Paul they can give you a budgeting breakdown of where every dollar went. I hear a lot of racket about where DNR Fisheries spends its money, but the truth is they track their money like a miser and every dollar is accounted for. They are the measuring stick for other state agencies as far as fiscal responsibility.

As K Dawg pointed out, trout stamps are in place because of the higher costs of coldwater hatchery production. The coldwater hatcheries are located in SE Minnesota, and there is one by Remer. All those fish have to get trucked around the state. Not to mention cooling the water as has been pointed out.

Black Bay, I think you are right on about walleye stocking. Sternberg pushed for and got the Accelerated Walleye Stocking Program in place. Historical stock numbers are lower since many smaller lakes are getting fingerlings from ponds instead of fry. Sternberg is probably actually dead wrong considering that in the last 8-9 years we've pumped MILLIONS of fry into Leech and Red. Most anglers have this misconception that if we keep stocking walleyes we just get more and more, like we're compounding interest in a bank or something. It doesn't work that way. Density dependence that you read about in biology class is a fact of life, as are other stocking-created problems like year class suppression. If you keep putting those fish in on top of natural reproduction you run into problems. Last week the Outdoor News ran an article on the front page about how Walker's representative Larry Howes is pushing for 25 million fry for Leech lake in '09 and '10. This is another example of politicians pushing the envelope. The DNR doesn't want to do it, but (as an example) a biologist for hire like Sternberg and an uneducated legislature will jump all over it for their own personal gains.

This state's walleye infatuation is amazing. We have these lakes that could be tremendous for particular species, but we overstep those facts and stock walleyes regardless. Check out the DNR's lake reports and look at the ecological classification of most lakes...they read Walleye-Centrarchid or Walleye. Basically that just means that the principally managed species is walleye, and even though bass or panfish may be a better fit they are pushed to the back burner or ignored alltogether.

There are many different types of stocking. A few guys have talked about walleye and trout put and take stocking. Minnesota basically uses 3 types of stocking: introductory, supplemental, and maintenance/rehabilitative. Put and take or put grow and take fall under enhancement stocking like supplemental and maintenance/rehabilitative. Introductory stocking in this day in age is very rare. A recent example is the proposal to add new musky lakes to the state where they currently are absent from the lake. Like the name implies introductory stocking is putting a species of fish in a body of water they have never been in before. Supplemental stocking is stocking done to enhance weak year classes, whether it be a poor year on what is normally a good lake or an average year on a lake where poor reproduction is common. Maintenance/rehabilitative stocking occurs when reproduction fails entirely or some other circumstance occurs. A great example of this has been the return of walleyes to Red lake. Of all the stocking types, the one that does the least according to several sources is supplemental stocking. I believe what Black Bay and others are saying is that we can trim the fat on our walleye stocking by taking out some of the lakes where we really aren't getting any return. Stocking on certain bodies of water is having little to no effect at a considerable cost. The DNR already is collecting the information they need to make these decisions, they just aren't making those cuts because they are forced to spend the money by the accelerated walleye program and lake associations that would raise heck if their lake isn't stocked.

Sorry if that was off topic. I'm in agreement with most that a walleye stamp is unnecessary. I would like to see fishing and combo licenses increase. Look at what it costs to fish in other states (I mean really do it!), Minnesota has THE BEST resources as far as angling is concerned for size and numbers of inland fisheries and yet our license is one of the cheapest in the nation. We could do so much better to maintain this great fishing, keep a blue ribbon staff of managers, researchers, and biologists, and have great facilities/amenities for our use on MN's lakes and streams but the powers that be have decided its better to run cheap and keep having to make budget cuts and be understaffed. I'm not saying we need to price our kids and future generations out of fishing but with inflation and the costs of everything else rising we could throw a few more bucks at fisheries in this great state. It still is (and would be) the cheapest and best IMO form of entertainment in the whole state.