|
|
Member
Posts: 714
| We all accept the idea of having to buy a state duck stamp to hunt ducks. We accept the idea of having a trout stamp to fish trout. Why don’t we have a walleye stamp for fishing walleyes? A $5 stamp, with all revenues dedicated to walleye fisheries management. Last year there were 1.4 million licenses sold in the state of Minnesota. Using that figure, that would mean another $7 million in funding for the DNR.
Would you believe that just the other day, at the Walleye Advisory Committee meetings, Dick Sternberg offered this idea to the committee, and everyone except one person on that committee was in favor of the idea? That person was none other than the states own fisheries chief, Ron Payer!! His explanation, we don’t need it. We don’t want it. We are right on target with our entire stocking. All our lakes are stocked just fine.
Now how can this actually be happening? How can the DNR be so under budgeted, and the head of fisheries say, we can’t use another 7 million dollars dedicated to fisheries management? Why would he not accept that funding and free up part of the DNR’s funding of fisheries to be re-directed to other areas of need within the DNR?
If this bothers any of you as much as it does me and a number of other dedicated fishermen and citizens in this state, please take the time and call John Gunther in St.Paul and voice your concerns.
It’s not just our fishing we’re talking about, it your kids fishing in the future too!
JOHN GUNTHER `s # 651-296-6157
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 540
Location: Milw, WI | Here in Wi.
We have a Muskie stamp being proposed, in this years hearings.
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 340
Location: McFarland, WI | I question the value of the stamp. It requires generating more paper and allocating funding to a specific venture so we require more accounting paper trails. I would suggest you raise the license fee and if walleye stocking is a priority realign the budget to direct more funds to that area. This adds money to the income side of the balance sheet without adding to the expense side. If you think the stamp would bring revenue from non-fishing collectors then that would change the issue. I apologize for the accounting perspective but this time of year I get it rammed down my throat.
Larry Strelow | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 714
| It would be a stamp contest, just like we have for duck stamps.
Also, FYI, for some insane reason in the state of Minnesota, the revenues generated from the sale of fishing licenses does not go to the DNR. It goes into the states general fund, which the legislature then uses whatever way they choose. This stamp would be dedicated funding for fisheries managment, and would allow the DNR to reallocate the 2.1 million they give fisheries to other areas of the DNR. | |
| | |
| here in Montana we have a warm water stamp to help fund our new warm water hatchery being built up at Ft. peck. It helps offset operating costs and management expenses for all warm water species but is mainly for walleyes as you have to possess a stamp to fish for them here in Montana. Seems to work quite well. | |
| | |
| here in Montana we have a warm water stamp to help fund our new warm water hatchery being built up at Ft. peck. It helps offset operating costs and management expenses for all warm water species but is mainly for walleyes as you have to possess a stamp to fish for them here in Montana. Seems to work quite well. | |
| | |
| here in Montana we have warm water stamp required to fish for walleyes. The money is eartagged for our new warm water fish hatchery being built at Ft. Peck. It will be used for operating and management costs at the hatchery. The program seems to be working for the most part although we do get some complaints over the $5.00 stamp. | |
| | |
| Sorry about the repeated messages. Having a little technical difficulites this morning. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Actually, MN fishing and hunting license fees are deposited directly into the dedicated Fish and Game Fund by statute not the general fund. Despite the tremendous economic benefit and indirect tax revenue collected from anglers, the Fisheries and Wildlife Division of the MNDNR recieves practically nothing from the General Fund and is virtually self-supported by user fees.
http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/97A/055.html
There are some practical enforcement issues that would be raised by a Walleye stamp. i.e would the stamp be necessary to target walleyes? fish on walleye waters? keep walleyes?
On edit;
Here's the Game and Fish Fund Report Fiscal Year 2004 -
http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/gamefishoversight/2004gamefis...
Edited by Viking 3/21/2005 11:40 AM
| |
| | |
Member
Posts: 714
| The stamp would be requires in order to keep any walleyes you would catch. If you only fish muskies, or bass, then you would not need a stamp. If you happened to catch a walleye, you would have to immediately release it if you did not possess a stamp.
Every 2 years our DNR has to make its budget requests to the legislature. Just about every year they get less than what they ask for. As it is today, the state funds the DNR 2.1 miilion dollars a year for walleye stocking. Currently, our Fisheries Director uses 30% of that money for analysis. Thats 600,000 a year that could/should be used for stocking.
Under this proposal, all stamp funds would be dedicated to fisheries managment, which would release that 2.1 million for the fisheries/DNR to reallocate to other areas of need. A citizens oversight committee would work hand in hand with the fisheries director to decide how and what they want the funds used for. Much like the dedicated funding system the people of Missouri have handling their entire DNR, but on a smaller scale.
As it is today, our stocking needs far outweigh the budget the state has given to use for statewide stocking. So instead of generating more funds for these purposes, fisheries is now starting to reduce the number of waters they will stock to fit their budget. Instead of stocking 1lb./littoral(sp) acre every other year,or twice every three years, they now pick 30 out of every 100 lakes, and stock them with 1.5lbs./acre, next year, another 30 get the same 1.5lbs./acre, and they they're done because they've used up all their fish.
As one of many concerned anglers in this state, I think it is much better to build the funding to accomplish our goals, than to trim away lake after lake from the stocking program until we have only those lakes our limited budget will support.
FYI, during the 10 years prior to 1993, we stocked an average of 144,000 lbs of walleye fingerlings a year in state waters. In 1993, that number was reduced to 80,000lbs./year. Last year, because of the need of some emergancy restocking needs, we stocked 124,000lbs., but 40,000lbs. had to be purchased from commercial aqua culturalists because the state did not have the fish to stock themselves. Commercialy raised fingerlings cost the state more in October, than if they had raised the fry themselves. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | Jack,
I want to make clear at the outset that I agree with your long term goals. I have a cabin on a lake near Crosslake, MN that has little to no natural walleye reproduction and stocking is essential to maintain any resemblance of a walleye fishery. When I lived in St. Paul, I was dependent on stocked lakes for my enjoyment. I want to see an active stocking program revived in MN.
However...
I think the walleye stamp is not the way to go about achieving that goal. It would be politically easier and more economically efficient to simply raise the basic license fee. The MN fishing license fee already goes to the dedicated Game and Fish Fund. The dedicated Game and Fish Fund already has a Citizen's Oversight Committee. I believe the efforts to get a stamp are an unnecessary diversion and a bureaucratic redundancy. Here's what I would suggest: 1) Put more direct pressure on the DNR by letter writing and advocating through various angling organizations. 2) Put indirect pressure on the DNR by connecting with members of the Citizen's Oversight Committee. 3) Educate the public. Too many average anglers will have a knee-jerk reaction to either a proposed stamp or a simple fee hike. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 340
Location: McFarland, WI | Do you folks have a Walleyes for Tomorrow chapter in Minnesota that could assist in hatching eggs and stocking programs?
Larry Strelow
McFarland, WI | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 1314
Location: Menasha, WI | About the closest organization to WFT in MN is the Minnesota Walleye Alliance. Unfortunately, it does not have anywhere near the angler support that WFT has here in WI. That would be another excellent addition to my list of suggestions. I know the organizers of MWA have worked very hard but for some reason or another the organization hasn't been able to reach anglers. I suspect MN anglers are a bit spoiled -- things have always been pretty good with a minimal expenditure of effort. | |
| | |
Member
Posts: 714
| Viking,
The 2.1 million I spoke of here for the stocking of walleyes is the "Accelerated Walleye Stocking Program". That funding is dedicated to walleye stocking ONLY, and comes from the state, not the Game and Fish Fund as the rest of the DNR's budget does. Thats one of the biggest reasons we want to put this program under the control of a citizens group with its own dedicated funding program. As it is today, the budget for our stocking program is set by a bunch of stuffed suits in St.Paul, and our fisheries chief is trying to keep our stocking program within the budget these politicians want to set for us.
Think about all the changes in fishing that have taken place in the last 12 years. GPS units, LCG's, underwater cameras,etc. There are more people on the water today using these tecnologies than at any time in history, and they are catching more fish on average than at any other time. Doesn't make much sense that our state cut our stocking nearly in half 12 years ago, and still has not raised it back to the same levels they were at before the cut!
I personally would like the chance for us to be able to raise money for our fisheries thru means other than just a stamp too. Those ideas will have to be held for now though. Fully fund our stocking program, expand it to include other species besides walleyes if the people of the state want it, and all surplus funding can be directed to other fisheries/DNR needs, such as lake habitat improvement, public access improvments, filling long empty C.O. enforcment positions, improved boater safety training, etc..
I just hope all of you guys understand what I'm trying to say here. This means a lot to me.
| |
| |
|
Minnesota Walleye Stamps