Minnesota Walleye Stamps

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

In my opinion user fees are the way to go.

A $5.00 fee a year is nothing.

I can see the point of fees and it wouldn’t break my bank but it bothers me that so much fish and game is being itemized into stamps. That being said if walleye stocking is that prevalent then maybe it’s time for a stamp just like trout? If the DNR has to grow it then maybe it should be billed seperately? I do however protest a grouse stamp that was recently suggested.

How about start out by dedicating 100% of the revenue from fishing licenses to the fisheries division of the DNR? Right now all of the money raised from fishing license fees (In Minnesota) goes to the general fund and is allocated back to the DNR via legislative budgeting. The fact is our fishing licenses raise a ton of money to buy walking paths for bird watchers and other non-fishing related projects. (Nothing against bird watchers, you just don’t pay for a license to do so.) Not to mention the tax revenue raised on the sale of fishing equipment and boats.

I’m against any new taxes, user fees or stamps. It’s a slippery slope. Before you know it you will need a stamp to fish out of a boat. A stamp to fish tourneys. A stamp this or that lake. A stamp to…… Well you get it!

Everyone who is genuinely interested in this topic/issue needs to go to this website and become a member immediately.

http://www.gameandfishcoalition.com/

Support a legislative proposal called “3/16”. It would dedicate 3/16 of 1% of tax revenue to fishing/hunting. It is one of the most important bills in Minnesota and keeps getting shot down.

-J.

Yes, we could have a bass stamp, muskie stamp, northern stamp, and etc. Then the state will get a hold of the money and use it for other reason, which they have done with the pheasant stamp in wi. I’m totally against any stamp. If you what to spend a extra 5 dollars give it to an organization that helps with walleye stocking. Im sure there are groups out there.

It does cost the state quite a bit to stock lakes, especially with the rising costs of fuel today.

In the 10 years before 1993 the state averaged about 144,000lbs/yr in walleye fingerlings stocked. In 1993 they cut that back to 80,000lbs/yr. What they found out was that many of the lakes they stocked could not naturally produce enough walleyes for the fishing public, and have started to re-stock those lakes.(Lake Minnetonka is a prime example) As a result, the state raised 124,000 lbs. of fingerlings, and bought another 40,000 lbs. from aquaculture farmers this last year. To maintain this level of stocking for any extended period of time will be costly. It is because of these cost factors we need this stamp.

Another reason everyone who fishes should be concerned is a new “plan” Mr.Payer wants to implement, the “Core of Lakes” plan. Under this plan, the state will redifine what lakes should be stocked for walleyes, and which ones shouldn’t, based on the physical and biological make up of these lakes.
Under this proposal, a number of the lakes that are not natural walleye lakes, will not be stocked anymore, thus saving the fisheries department alot of time and money with their stocking programs. Many of those lakes, but not nessesarily all, that would no longer be stocked would be in the southern half of the state. The higher the natural reproduction, the lower the stocking levels. If there is no natural spawning, the less likely it is that the state will stock that lake for walleye fishing. An example of a lake that might be dropped from the stocking program would be Lake Waconia. No natural reproduction, and a lake that requires stocking almost every year.

Instead of accepting, or creating funding for the fisheries department, Mr.Payer would rather just reduce your fishing opportunities to fit his department’s enadequate budget.

I wouldn’t mind the fee if the money went where it was supposed to. However, with ever special stamp, only about 20% actually reaches it’s designated target.

The State of MN would find a way to allow the Hmongs and Indians to net, spear, and harvest more than the average citizen!

Quote:

---

If you what to spend a extra 5 dollars give it to an organization that helps with walleye stocking. Im sure there are groups out there.

---

There was a group called “Minnesota Walleye Alliance”. Terry Hagstrom did a great job as president trying to do just this thing, and NOBODY SUPPORTED IT!!!

Quote:

---

Support a legislative proposal called “3/16”. It would dedicate 3/16 of 1% of tax revenue to fishing/hunting. It is one of the most important bills in Minnesota and keeps getting shot down.

-J.

---

Jon,

I’ve been a member since its first inception. It is a great group, and a good bill, but as you said, it keeps getting shelved. I doubt that that will change anytime soon either with the casino bills flying around. The Dems are totally against dedicated funding because it takes their fingers out of the cookie jar. Why is it you think all the revenues from our licenses goes into the general fund and then gets sent every where except where it was supposed to go. Same with the lottery funds. What actually goes to enviromental causes, 2-3%?

By the way, the same Ron Payer who is against this walleye stamp idea, is the same person who stood before the legislature and said we didn’t need the 3/16ths bill for funding. He more than anybody else helped kill that bill!!

One other point I forgot to mention.

As it is already, fisheries is funded 2.1 million dollars by the DNR each year for stocking. With that stamp, that 2.1 could be returned to the DNR to use in aother areas, such as more CO’s, enforcment, wildlife habitate, etc., as well as higher stocking quotas, and staffing!

Quote:

---

Why is it you think all the revenues from our licenses goes into the general fund and then gets sent every where except where it was supposed to go.

---

That’s the law!

Think how nice our roads and bridges would be if the gas tax actually went to where you thought it went!

-J.

It sounds like a good idea on the surface but what usually happens is a lot of the money gets spent managing it and very little actually goes for the intended use then down the road it gets redirected to something else.It reminds me of trailer licences they went to lifetime licences because it wasnt profitable the way it was.Not sure how that could be but thats how goverment works.I think this would be opening up a can of worms so I would have to say no.

Its my believe that for the mile of your dollar you would be better off supporting local fishing clubs or starting a club and working with the dnr on betterment projects including stocking alot more of your money will end up in the lake or river and not on somebody elses project

I submitted the Walleye Stamp idea to PERM back in 2001. My idea was to sell a stamp for Mille lacs that would allow stocking of lake Mille lacs so we could loosen the slot. We submitted a letter to the DNR and they shot it down. There was lots of angler support.

Talking about stamps why doesn’t the DNR come up with a 2nd rod stamp to allow anglers to fish with two rods instead of one in Mn i know my self I would pay double the liscense fee or what ever it took just to use a second rod in MN lakes.
what does everyone else think of that??

You guys can’t fish with two rods? are you kidding. Here you can and i think all the money that comes from liscenses goes too the dnr, if im wrong someone correct me but ive heard it all goes to the dnr to distribute where they want it to go. Its sounds like theres too many people that want to get thier hands on the money that fishermen produce. I’d be mad as hell too.

nate,
That is one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long time. I’m in.

I always thought us Minnesotans were such good fishermen we didn’t need two lines to catch a limit!!

Anyone and I mean anyone! Who wants to fish and use two rods to have a great outing is questonable in my mind as to what their motives are. If you can’t outsmart a fish with a pea sized brain and not have fun I definitely think you are in trouble unless I mis-read your post.

StaleMakeral,
I don’t know if you are talking about me or not, but I think you may be mis-reading my intentions. The reasons that I would like the ability two fish two line are to be able to try some presentaions that alot of our neighboring states allow but Minnesota doesn’t. I would like to use a three way set up with a heavy jig for the weight. This is not leagal in Minnesota. I would also like to be able to troll open water basins with planer boards and a couple of lines. I would also like to do a double crankbait presentaion just for something different.

I don’t think I would want to be fishing in a group setting where more than one line per person is being used.

As you know in Minnesota you are allowed 2 lines for ice fishing, and two lines from the shore of Lake superior. When I am not guiding I do most of my fishing alone and I guess that I would like to have a few more presentaion options available.I have no dark agenda or unsportsman like intentions.

I don’t believe anyone was talking about doubling limits or anything like that.

Stale Makeral
I have no dark agenda either My reasons for wanting two use two lines is because I get so spoiled here on pool 4 where I can use two lines. I would also like to be able to double up my presentations while fishing MN lakes I do most of my tournament pre fishing alone and would like to be able to have down a lindy rig and leech and a bottom Bouncer with a crawler harness. or be able to troll different depths in the water column at the same time.
no intention to be double limiting

ttt

I don’t see how a stamp would work. There is no logic……

I guess this would work, if you make it a stamp requirement to keep walleyes, but not a stamp requirement to fish walleyes……………Prove I’m fishing walleyes!!!

A trout stamp, if I understand correctly is required to fish for trout. On designated trout streams, you can’t fish for any other type of species, unless you have that stamp.

So, with that said, on all walleye waters, if you want to fish that water, you need a stamp.

So, in a nut shell, all crappie, sunnie, bass, pike, musky, perch guys have to buy a stamp to fish any water that holds walleyes…….

I don’t think that the majority of the fishing crowd is going to buy a stamp to fish their waters, because there are walleyes in there, when they are not chasing walleyes……

To me, this is like saying let’s put a trout stamp requirement P4 and make people who fish that water buy a trout stamp, just in case they catch one of those trout, because you have to have a stamp in order to fish designated trout waters……..

OR

Let’s have Minnetonka establish a BASS stamp, because it is listed as the top bass lake in the state. So, since it is a designated bass lake, with stamp required to fish for bass, you can’t fish anything else, because you might catch a bass, then you have to pay a hefty fine to the dnr because you were fishing pike on a designated bass lake that requires a stamp……

This is B as in B and S as in S………

It won’t work…….

If I’m hunting pheasants, ducks, geese, whatever…………..I have a choice on what I pull the trigger on. If I’m fishing, I don’t have that choice to what eats my hook. SO, just to enter the water, you are making me pay a fee……

All I know is this……..Trout stamps work. I don’t know where the money goes……But it works……….Why, because the little creek I used to fish and trap minnows (nice rainbow chubs) close to my house is now a designated trout stream. I can’t fish there anymore without a stamp and I can’t trap the minnows there anymore…..

I would recommend an optional purchase from your good heart donation for a stamp, but don’t enforce it. I hear too much of this with Muskies and don’t agree with it.

You would need the stamp to keep walleyes. If your not keeping the fish, you have no impact on the fish population.

How about we just sell walleye tags for a dollar a piece ? ? ?
(just like deer tags, any walleye you keep has to have a $1 MNDNR tag attached)

Gary,

The stamp would be needed if you want to keep any walleyes. I’m sure you have caught a walleye or two when you’ve been fishing muskies. You release it, fine, in that case you wouldn’t need a stamp. But…if you wanted to keep that walleye, you would need one.

As it is today, the state funds the fisheries section 2.1 million dollars a year for stocking. The current fisheries director uses 30% of that money, $600,000, for analysis, and the rest for its intended purpose. John Gunther hired Dick Sternberg to do an analysis of fisheries and he did for less than $10,000 what Payer is doing for $600,00 EACH YEAR! If the stamp were to come into use, with total dedication to fisheries as opposed to funneling thru the general fund for the legislature to use any other way they wish, we would not only be able to return the stocking levels back to where they were prior to 1993 when it was reduced from 144,000lbs/yr to only 80,000lbs/yr, but there would be ample moneies left for other stocking and fisheries managment needs. Plus, as proposed, this program would have a citizens advisory committee that would over see how the monies are used. No more of these dam politicians putting their fingers into fisheries managment, and no more fisheries managers catering to the desires of the politicians.

I know that all you muskie guys are against anything that will improve walleye stocking because you still have hard feelings about the state cutting off the expansion of muskies to new lakes, and much of the blame is placed on walleye stocking as the reason, a.k.a. Dick Sternberg. But consider this, if this proposal were to come into fruition, there would be a citizens committee made up of members from all over the state and with different interests that can be addressed. Why would you think muskies can’t or won’t be an item for them to consider also?

Everyone is disappointed with the issues of more fees with little or nothing in return. That is because every penney we have paid so far goes into the general fund and then dowled out as sparingly as possible to the DNR and fisheries by the legislature so they can fund their own pet projects, such as 90 million for remodeling the Walker Art center, XXmillion for a study to decide where to build an outdoor concert hall for the Mn. Orchestra, light rail system, etc,etc,etc. We need to have dedicated funding so these thives can’t misapropriate those funds that are supposed to be intended for fishing! 3/16ths is another issue we need to support also, but this stamp idea isn’t going to require a constitutional amendment, or a majority vote of the population in a general election in order to come into exsistance. We can do it in a much shorter period of time if we try!

Please keep an open mind until a full proposal is offered for everyone to look at. If at that time you don’t like the way it is structured, then don’t support it, but please lets not try to kill it before we even know how it is designed.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

You would need the stamp to keep walleyes. If your not keeping the fish, you have no impact on the fish population.

---

Then why do they do all of those mortality studies??

I hunt and fish, I think we have enough stamps as it is.

Because the mortality study has proven catch and release does work.

The gut hooked walleye that I had to return to the lake because of a slot regulation didn’t make it. I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one that this has happened to. C&R is not 100% effective in this case , especially on slot waters. C’mon Derek you don’t think all of the fish returned make it do you?

I’m sure we can assume not all gut hooked fish will make it, but the mortality study was very impressive.