LMITOUT Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Ha! Yep, just a name. No more, no less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FishinChad Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 I probably will get this licence, I dont ever keep a limit of fish, in fact I havnt kept any fish in many years. There are many fisherman who dont eat fish, thats the great thing about fishing...its kinda like hunting but once you got your big buck you get to take a pic and then watch him walk away. This licence works out great, but I almost wish it was a 1 fish limit licence that would just allow you to keep a trophy when caught and nothing else, a half limit doesnt seem like it would make much difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black_Bay Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 The license fees are to pay for fisheries management and enforcement, not to operate hatcheries and stocking programs. Those are funded from other areas. So whether an angler keeps no fish or a limit every time, the cost of the license should not change. Not really. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/fisheries/report2001/fisheries_report2001.pdf It's a big document but the second page shows a budget break down. So license fees do go to hatcheries and toward stocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LOTWSvirgin Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 So if you get the half license you get to keep 1.5 northerns or two?? How would that work for fish that dont have a even number limit??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMITOUT Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Page 19 of the 2009 Fishing Regulations will answer all your questions. http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/rlp/regulations/fishing/fishing2009.pdfOtherwise, divide by two and round down to the next whole number. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandmannd Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 Originally Posted By: shizzy Im fine with giving the state the full $18. I would probbly pay twice that without complaint. Me, too. Hey now, don't give the legislatures any ideas!! I think it's dumb, just buy a license. To many buy these and the regular licenses will go up to make up for it. Is it really that pricey to buy a license? What do you save? The cost of a Rapula? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quackersmacker Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I like the idea. I catch and keep only the fish I eat, so to me it doesn't matter. If I have fish in the freezer, all the fish I catch go back in the water. When I go to Canada, I buy the conservation license, it is all you need for a good time, and to eat a couple fish. As for money for the state, fisheries, and stocking programs, is it a flat fee per license, or a percentage they get? Just my two pennies! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngie22 Posted March 7, 2009 Share Posted March 7, 2009 I like the idea, for some people it will work great. $7 is $7... not for most but for some people that fish, they may need it so they can buy a rapala or bait. I have friends that are struggling, really struggling. I don't think they will buy the conservation license, cause that means half the fish for dinner. In canada I usually always get a conservation license, I can't eat four walleye in a meal and I usually don't bring fish home. Works great for me up there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now ↓↓↓ or ask your question and then register. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.