Musky Stamp

[TheHawgTrough]

I think this might have been brought up a couple of months ago, but what would it take to get a musky stamp approved by the legislature?

It looks like we'll have a new voluntary $5.00 walleye stamp for 2009, which is awesome. Funds go directly to walleye stocking or related activities.

I would think this would be a big boost to the musky stocking program if a musky stamp was approved.

[Shawn Kellett]

Here's the reason why we haven't pushed it:

If the "stamp" is added, there is a huge danger that they will just use that money for the muskie resource and allocate the money they currently have budgeted for other things (read walleye stocking). So in effect it would gain us nothing except being $5 lighter in the wallet.

If you'd like to put money directly to the resource, contact one of your area MI chapters and inquire about their stocking programs. The TC Chapter currently has an order in for $20-25,000 worth of fish for 2009. We're also committed to stocking for the next few years as a part of our joint research project with the DNR.

[b1gf1sh1]

Hey Shawn,

i'm sure you've hashed this out but for those maybe thinking the same thing i'll ask it. would there be a way to get around the funding issues if the stamp/fund was for MI through co-operation with fisheries? i mean like the question would be asked when you do taxes or buy a new license. ''would you like to contribute to MI for... '' or are private orgs. prohibited?

[Musky Buck]

I'd like to see it if the funds would be an asset. I'd like to have our non-resident crowd contribute to the musky fishery, there 38 dollar license isn't much. I'd have no problem paying for a musky stamp to fish in another state. Quick ? What is the fee to guide for muskies in MN ?

[Shawn Kellett]

I don't think that you can do that with a private organization. The other problem would be that the Gov't would have to provide oversite over the chapters. I know I'd rather give up the money then have to deal with that mess.

The other issues is that not all chapters are alike. Now some chapters are active in improving the fishery and others spend their time as being a fishing club. What a particular chapter does is basically the personality and talent of the people running the club. This changes all the time since it's not a paid position.

The best thing to do is to research the chapters that are close to you and/or those that are involved in areas that you would like to support. You can contact John Underhill (Muskyfool) and he can get people in touch with their local chapter that's involved.

[10,000 Casts]

roughly how much of the budget is slated for muskies each year?

[TheHawgTrough]

So maybe now that there is a walleye stamp, they can reallocate funds to musky stocking?

I've been meaning to do it for a while, but I just printed out the Musky Inc. form. I'll get it sent in as soon as I can figure out what the Twin Cities Chapter # is.

Thanks for all you do with M.I. Shawn. I'm excited to hear how everything goes with your studies on Tonka.

[b1gf1sh1]

Quote:

I'll get it sent in as soon as I can figure out what the Twin Cities Chapter # is.

#1

[50inchpig]

Registration for MI is super easy through muskiesinc.com

Makes it easier on those Sconnies in the front office when they don't have to deal with paperwork, gets you your access to the HSOforum faster.

[Shawn Kellett]

John I'm not sure the total dollars. A lot depends on the yield they get from year to year. I know that their quota is for roughly 30,000 fingerlings a year for the state.

[10,000 Casts]

Quote:

Makes it easier on those Sconnies in the front office when they don't have to deal with paperwork, gets you your access to the HSOforum faster.

hahahahahaha, thats good

I tend to think about the flip side of things and it would make it impossible for people that aren't targeting muskies to keep a 45"er. Don't they say that with all the $$$ and efforts of stocking that a 50"er is worth $15,000. We're money ahead already. I certainly see what your saying Shawn and you make a solid point as it would give the state an excuse to allocate their funds elsewhere.

Help me out with the figures here...

$10 per Muskie stamp.

approx. 10,000 sold. (Is 10k sold accurate?)

$100,000 for MN Muskie program.

Now how many fish would be savedper year? Lets say 50 a year. What do you value those fish? Lets say Lets say avg. $5,000, thats $250,000 savings annually which in turn leads to less stocking and less funding and happy Musky nuts in the future.

Just a thought. Don't know if I am right or even close or not.

[propster]

That's kind of what I was thinking, that even though Shawn brings up a great point about the net effect on funding (even though that's not a sure thing), there's the not-so-intangible proposed benefit of fish not being kept if they don't have a stamp in posession. In my mind it would certainly save many of the big girls that are killed by those who don't target them, just because they can. Don't know if the numbers work out, but...I still think it may be worth knockin' it around a bit.

[b1gf1sh1]

along with the above, my question would be... has the trout stamp hurt the trout fisheries? before the trout stamp our trout fisheries were pretty slim at best, except for maybe old timers who had their secret haunts. it's been what? 15 years now? maybe longer i don't know. superior seems to be doing pretty good. i agree with prop, 10,000. it's worth a hash mark at least. besides if muskie can get by without as much funding that could help too. like more money for habitat. or i suppose the money from a stamp could be allocated to habitat only. that would be ok, huh? two birds, two stones. then theres no reason to touch the funding. (take it away)

[dcmusky]

I hear ya 10'000 Thats why I like the idea, even wrote my congressmen on the subject in tenth grade for an assignment(that was 20yrs ago) So when I buy a trout stamp am I throwing my money away, or why is it the trout guys figured out how to make it work. All I hear from the antis is how expensive muskies are. I think this would shut them up. But Shawn brings up a good point too. Government, go figure.

[b1gf1sh1]

Quote:

in tenth grade for an assignment(that was 20yrs ago)

just wait till you can say 30 years ago.

the anti don't understand economics. the legislature does. a walleye angler buy's a couple lures for 12 bucks... fed. exise tax 10%, state, 6.5% about 2 bucks tax, give or take a penny or two.... a muskie angler buys two lures for say 45 bucks, same tax%... 7.50 or there abouts. can we talk line cost differential? rods, reels nets, TACKLE BOXES. everything, man. if the powers that be can't see the benefits of our muskie fishing as it is and that it's growing then why isn't anyone telling them? and if they know why are they in there? there is no way they can deny muskie funding/allocation/waters. no way. the state loses if they stay as is. if they see it's growing and about to stagnate from lack of room to grow, and they let it happen? the $&*( will hit the fan. i'm sure they have advisors on that right now.

[TheHawgTrough]

The walleye stamp for this year is voluntary and not required to be purchased for fishing for or keeping walleyes. Would be nice if a voluntary musky stamp could supplement current funding. A required stamp to have in possession when fishing muskies would be a whole different story.

Regarding the trout stamp, the DNR does a pretty good job overall managing these fisheries. My only complaint would be the lack of management for trophy fish, especially on waters that have larger fish.

[propster]

At the risk of almost sounding anti-fishing, which I don't intend to, a mandatory stamp might weed out the "less-than-dedicated" musky anglers. Now we've all proven to ourselves and anyone that matters, that we are willing to pay big bucks, or even just more bucks on a smaller scale, to do what we are passionate about. If you are not passionate about it, and don't think the $10 is going toward something beneficial, then so be it. I realize this may seem harsh (slap me if I'm out of line), so we may want to explore ways to still introduce new people to our sport without requiring them to buy the tag, but last I heard even if you only fish for trout or hunt waterfowl (or several other examples) for even just one day a year, you still need the stamp. Regarding Hawg's post above, if only voluntary, you know who's buying the stamp (avid musky fisherman), and they're not the ones killin' the fish.

[TheHawgTrough]

Would the stamp be enforcable if mandatory? It's easy to enforce a trout stamp on a designated trout stream. Can it be distinguished between fishing for "northerns" on musky lake and fishing for muskies? I've never heard of this being enforced for those fishing muskies out of season...

I think it would be hard to enforce any mandatory stamp on a lake.

[b1gf1sh1]

Quote:

Would the stamp be enforcable if mandatory? It's easy to enforce a trout stamp on a designated trout stream. Can it be distinguished between fishing for "northerns" on musky

on designated muskie lakes, lure size restrictions? or do like trout and you can't even fish a designated lake with muskies in it without one? combo muskie/northern stamp?

[10,000 Casts]

It would be very easy to enforce. It is the DNR officer's descretion on whether or not someone is fishing for Muskies or not.

[propster]

Hawg, you may be correct, it might be difficult to enforce if you choose to fish for them without the stamp. But I can't see too many guys trying to sneak-fish them all that often without a stamp - if you do it more than a few times you probably are already an avid musky angler and not likely to be unwilling to buy the stamp. But that wouldn't be a big concern - it certainly would be enforceable to need a stamp to keep a fish. Not too many folks going to drag one off the lake without one, what with the chance of being checked.