$5 Walleye Stamp

[skee0025]

Just a quick question. How many of you who support the walleye stamp oppose the amendment?

[pikedreams]

I for one support the stamp but not the amendment. Because (at least for now) the stamp is voluntary and the amendment reaches right in to my pocket. It wouldn't surprise me if we soon saw a day when your fishing license was only good for panfish and then you have to buy a stamp for each of the gamefish species you want to go after.

[Nick Kuhn]

I like the idea. The fact of the matter is a lot more dollars are put into walleyes from the general license and lottery fund than any other fish. The muskie guys will gladly pay for a muskie stamp if it means they get a few new muskie lakes, and it really isn't fair to the bass and catfish guys that their money goes to other fish while their fisheries do quite well because of their fishing ethics alone. I'm sure they'd rather see their money going to improving the bodies of water themselves so they can sustain better fish populations, rather than requiring an amendment for that.

[pikedreams]

The most important part of a multi stamp scenario is that the moneys would have to be earmarked to specificley go to hatcheries, stocking and enforcment and not the general fund or some performing arts center.

[Sandmannd]

IF it stays voluntary, I'm for it. But that's a huge IF in the land of 10,000 fees and/or taxes. I will buy one, $5 doesn't break the bank and it's a good cause. I like it more than the amendment because I have the choice. I also still buy a shelter tag for my portable even though I no longer need it. $12 is nothing.

[skee0025]

I was just wondering because I see alot of people on this site and others saying how they will do whats needs to be done for the resource, will buy tags,licenses, stamps etc.. that they dont need but are rabid when it comes to parting with 38 cents out of every 100 dollars. At least with this you know its not going to a baby making welfare queen or hood rat making their monthly trip to Minnesota from Chicago. This is also about the only time you are going to get a say about what your taxes pay for, might as well make it something worthwhile, odds are you wont get another chance.

[katoguy]

Only 38 cents on 100 dollars... Like Franken said - the public will hardly notice the additional tax...

I voted against the amendment and will not buy a stamp. (I rarely walleye fish, however.) We are getting nickel and dimed to death. Keep the stamp voluntary.

The trout stamp is different, though. You need one to angle on trout streams. Walleye waters also contain other species that can be sought after. I catch my share of eyes cranking & spinnerbaiting for bass.

[Big Dave2]

Just a quick question. How many of you who support the walleye stamp oppose the amendment?

I support the walleye stamp but reluctantly voted no on the amendment.

I think these issues are completely different. A walleye stamp, even if it were mandatory to fish walleyes, would only be mandatory for those who fish. The sales tax increase gets added to everyone's taxes, whether you fish or not. I am a believer in user fees, if you want to use it you pay for it. We spend a lot of money each year stocking walleye in almost every lake in this state. It's no different than a trout stamp or pheasant stamp.

If you like to fish walleye, what's an extra $5 for almost a whole year of enjoyment?

[MSRiverdog]

The hand will always be out as long as something keep's ending up in it. No Stamp and voting NO.

[TMF89]

How do we voluntarily buy it? Honestly Five bucks times a few hundred thousand can really do some good for the environment, and all you lose is a couple (FINALLY!) gallons of gas, or a meal at McDonald's.

If it became manditory I wouldn't mind, nor would I mind if they made musky stamps as well, seeing as those are the two largest stocking programs in the state.

What about special early season stamps? For an extra X amount of money, you can fish for the species a week or two before opener, CPR only? I think that'd be a good idea too, and all they would have to do is make sure that the profit generated is great enough to counter (and help) the loss in fish due to spawning complications.

[Big Dave2]

The hand will always be out as long as something keep's ending up in it. No Stamp and voting NO.

Those who only want to take without giving back are the ones with the hand out.

[katoguy]

Originally Posted By: MSRiverdog

The hand will always be out as long as something keep's ending up in it. No Stamp and voting NO.

Those who only want to take without giving back are the ones with the hand out.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this post. Licenses are still bought. Laws are still followed (by most). Just who are you accusing of taking without giving?

[Big Dave2]

Originally Posted By: Big Dave2

Originally Posted By: MSRiverdog

The hand will always be out as long as something keep's ending up in it. No Stamp and voting NO.

Those who only want to take without giving back are the ones with the hand out.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this post. Licenses are still bought. Laws are still followed (by most). Just who are you accusing of taking without giving?

come on now! You can't think that $5 per year is too much to give for the awesome walleye fishery that we have in this state?

What I am saying is, if you don't want to pay anything for your pass time, how long do you think it will be there?

[Black_Bay]

The only reason there is a trout stamp is because the trout program is so expensive. There are 5 trout hatcheries running 365 days a year. So the price to produce one trout is quite high, especially compared to walleyes. The DNR is on record saying that 90% of the walleyes caught are naturally produced. This stamp is some idea cooked up by a Senator who thinks he knows what's going on. This stamp is not needed, and makes as much sense as a whitetailed deer stamp. If the DNR would stop wasting fish by stocking them in poorly chosen lakes there would be no issue. I will not be wasting $5 on it.

[buddha]

Are people actually complaining about 5$? I get that it's about the principal of the idea but it's also about keeping a valuable resource in great shape. Let's hope that the money is well spent, that can be up for debate!

[Big Dave2]

The only reason there is a trout stamp is because the trout program is so expensive. There are 5 trout hatcheries running 365 days a year. So the price to produce one trout is quite high, especially compared to walleyes. The DNR is on record saying that 90% of the walleyes caught are naturally produced. This stamp is some idea cooked up by a Senator who thinks he knows what's going on. This stamp is not needed, and makes as much sense as a whitetailed deer stamp. If the DNR would stop wasting fish by stocking them in poorly chosen lakes there would be no issue. I will not be wasting $5 on it.

We do have a whitetail deer stamp in essence because we have a separate license for it.

[katoguy]

Yes. Principle of the thing. Perhaps those that say "it's only five bucks" should buy several... Hide the tax somewhere, the people won't even notice...

[jigginjim]

I think a $5 stamp would be OK if it would help, support walleye fishing. The State Capital meatheads really missed up last year. I agree with not needing a lic. for portables. But wheel houses should be have a different license. sleeping in my flip-over is not like a wheel house. I know a little off topic but WE AS FISHERS NEED TO FORM A CROUP LIKE, D.U., Minnesota Deerhunters, and Pheasants forever.

We need our voices also.

[Big Dave2]

Yes. Principle of the thing. Perhaps those that say "it's only five bucks" should buy several... Hide the tax somewhere, the people won't even notice...

It's not a tax. It's a VOLUNTARY donation. If you don't like it don't donate but don't come crying wanting more subsidizing of your pass time. Nowhere in the state constitution do you have a RIGHT to world class walleye fishing.

Take up golf instead and see what that costs you.

[fasternu]

I took up golf this year, and spent almost exactly what it cost me to hunt and fish this year. What's the point? Are they making us buy a golf stamp for each course we play?

Aren't the funds from our licenses already going for stocking? That is what license fees are for. Pretty soon they'll have us buying a license to fish, then a stamp for every species of fish. I can see it now, a walleye stamp, a northern stamp, a perch stamp, a crappie stamp, a bullhead stamp, etc..... Oops, I have to release my Red-Eared Sunfish because I forgot to buy that stamp on the way to the lake. That's [PoorWordUsage]!

[Big Dave2]

I took up golf this year, and spent almost exactly what it cost me to hunt and fish this year. What's the point? Are they making us buy a golf stamp for each course we play?

Aren't the funds from our licenses already going for stocking? That is what license fees are for. Pretty soon they'll have us buying a license to fish, then a stamp for every species of fish. I can see it now, a walleye stamp, a northern stamp, a perch stamp, a crappie stamp, a bullhead stamp, etc..... Oops, I have to release my Red-Eared Sunfish because I forgot to buy that stamp on the way to the lake. That's [PoorWordUsage]!

you must have only golfed one or two times then because even if you buy every imaginable license I doubt if you could spend more than a couple hundred dollars, which gives you in some instances(like fishing) year-round access to that sport. I know that a golf membership is considerably more than that and you can only play 1 course. With a fishing or hunting license you have access to your sport state-wide in literally thousands of locations. I don't think that's such a bad deal.

[katoguy]

Originally Posted By: katoguy

Yes. Principle of the thing. Perhaps those that say "it's only five bucks" should buy several... Hide the tax somewhere, the people won't even notice...

It's not a tax. It's a VOLUNTARY donation. If you don't like it don't donate but don't come crying wanting more subsidizing of your pass time. Nowhere in the state constitution do you have a RIGHT to world class walleye fishing.

Take up golf instead and see what that costs you.

Dude, I was referring to the TAX - as the 3/8% tax was also brought up. If you read my posts (and I guess you didn't), I very rarely fish for walleyes. I would never cry about not having them around since I don't fish for them. If you do, you should consider waaaay more than five bucks.

[MSRiverdog]

Originally Posted By: katoguy

Originally Posted By: Big Dave2

Those who only want to take without giving back are the ones with the hand out.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this post. Licenses are still bought. Laws are still followed (by most). Just who are you accusing of taking without giving?

come on now! You can't think that $5 per year is too much to give for the awesome walleye fishery that we have in this state?

What I am saying is' date=' if you don't want to pay anything for your pass time, how long do you think it will be there? [/quote']

I kept 6 Walleye's last year and 5 this year, in those two year's I've hauled about 12 boats off the river (15 or so in previous years) including the Anoka Sherrif's dept. a couple years ago, no thank you either. Half of them fishermen. I do my part, the gubermint will ask until there is no more to give. If it were spent more resposably I'ld think different.

[Nick Kuhn]

Just some numbers I found:

318 million walleye were stocked in 2007.

Compared to 2.5 Million trout and salmon, 89,000 muskie, and 61,000 catfish.

Regardless of if you keep them or not walleye eat a significant portion of the fishing monies, even though 25% at best of anglers are walleye fisherman.

http://www.finance.state.mn.us/budget/capital/2008/gov/365948.pdf

[Northlander]

I have no problem with a walleye stamp if walleyes are truely what the money goes towards.

The price of a fishing license is the best bargain out there in my opinion and I would pay double for the enjoyment I get from using this license. I would gladly pay $100 a year to be able to fish in Mn.