Home Work Help

Quote:

---

I’m not coordinated enough to fish with two lines at once unless one of those lines is a tip up or rattle reel. That doesn’t mean I don’t think other guys shouldn’t be allowed to tangle their lines, though.

I don’t quite get the “hook mortality” argument. If the fish is gut hooked, it is the responsiblity of the angler to reduce it to possession. Once your limit is in the livewell, it’s time for you to hit the dock. Whether it takes you one hour with two lines or 8 hours with one line makes no difference.

I could be wrong, but the only fish I’ve heard of that has a significant post-release mortality rate are muskies and even that is somewhat debatable.

---

One could argue that if the fish is gut hooked and outside of a slot, you have to release it (dead or alive). Seems like more and more lakes have slots.

BZZSAW, the fish and game part of the Outdoor Heritage money is working exactly as intended, it is paying for the improvement and funding of more fish and game habitat and it has nothing to do with the DNR other then they like anyone else can apply for the funds if they go towards approved fish and game habitat improvement or acquisition. Like I mentioned in a previous post MN while far from perfect has taken a higher road in protecting it’s fish and game so I question if it is not hypocritical when people want to come over here and take from our resources without paying more because WI has already screwed up their waters with bad laws. As they say we have to pay to play or else we are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Fish and game licenses are a great value, don’t cut off the hand that feeds ya, there are far fewer of us anglers and hunters then there are non anglers and hunters, we need every dollar we can get to protect what we love, our natural resources, from all the pressures put on it by those who don’t understand or appreciate the value of healthy fish and game resources and populations. We all have to buck up and work together for the loooong haul.

Quote:

---

One could argue that if the fish is gut hooked and outside of a slot, you have to release it (dead or alive). Seems like more and more lakes have slots.

---

One could also argue that a fish outside of the slot that has been gill netted during the spawn should be released as well.

But that’s an argument that won’t rear it’s ugly head for another 4 months, so I won’t mention it right now.

Quote:

---

OK OK, you guys with ref to the Vikes for everything I post.. you are SOOOOOO clever… I asked a legitimate question… don’t make me go to HSO and bad mouth you Pug….

big G

---

You said you were stirring. I see I brilliantly said 3rd quarter when I meant 4th quarter. Most have had hockey on my brain.

I say fishing is a right and a privledge. You have a right to fish, but you must pay for the priviledge in the form of a license.

Bad mouth me all you want on HSO, but if you want me to see it, put it in the Cambridge-Elk River-Foley-Milaca-Mora-Ogilvie thread

Ummmm pug….. I assume you know that what I know about HSO is what I have read here…. The question I ask will be/is being challenged in our court systems as we speak. Not so much about license fees, but rather about netting/spearing and seasons I for one cannot wait to see how it comes out I thought you would have figured me out by now

big G

I’ll help you out Pug….

Quote:

---

Loc: St. Cloud / Isle

---

It’s the “Isle” part.

HEY KINGFISHER55! Thanks for your input.

Quote:

---

Ummmm pug….. I assume you know that what I know about HSO is what I have read here…. The question I ask will be/is being challenged in our court systems as we speak. Not so much about license fees, but rather about netting/spearing and seasons I for one cannot wait to see how it comes out I thought you would have figured me out by now

big G

---

You really aren’t the only one talking me seriously on this board , are you?

Brian, there is very little info or updates anywhere about my lake, so I go to 3 sources.

Quote:

---

BZZSAW, the fish and game part of the Outdoor Heritage money is working exactly as intended, it is paying for the improvement and funding of more fish and game habitat and it has nothing to do with the DNR other then they like anyone else can apply for the funds if they go towards approved fish and game habitat improvement or acquisition. Like I mentioned in a previous post MN while far from perfect has taken a higher road in protecting it’s fish and game so I question if it is not hypocritical when people want to come over here and take from our resources without paying more because WI has already screwed up their waters with bad laws. As they say we have to pay to play or else we are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Fish and game licenses are a great value, don’t cut off the hand that feeds ya, there are far fewer of us anglers and hunters then there are non anglers and hunters, we need every dollar we can get to protect what we love, our natural resources, from all the pressures put on it by those who don’t understand or appreciate the value of healthy fish and game resources and populations. We all have to buck up and work together for the loooong haul.

---

King,
There was a post a few months back that was complaining about how the new Natural Resources taxes were being used and many on this site felt they were mislead. I don’t remember all the details involved, but there were many who regretted their vote.

I have no problem paying for my MN non resident fishing licenses. I don’t really care if they raise the fee either, I’ll still buy them. I consider the licensing fees just another form of tax. In case you don’t know, MN (and WI) are already on the high end for state taxes. I guess I don’t have enough trust in our politicians that the additional licensing fees will be used soley to improve our resources.

BZZSAW, you are correct. I DID NOT vote for the amendment, for fear they wouldn’t do what they said…. sure enough. When the new tax was added, since it HAD to go to the arts/parks/habitat/water… the governor/legislature, just cut/lowered the DNR monies from the general fund about that exact same amount and squandered it elsewhere…. they play a mean shell game in St Paul…

big G

Quote:

---

the governor/legislature, just cut/lowered the DNR monies from the general fund about that exact same amount and squandered it elsewhere….

---

I have to jump in here G…

That is what he said he was going to do, but because of the way the amendment was written, it didn’t happen. Legally it couldn’t.

When that didn’t work, there were some in St Paul that wanted to (and tried) change the wording slightly so the money could be use in other ways not intended.

Garry Leaf-Sportsmen for Change
Minnesota Outdoor Heritage Alliance
Anglers for Habitat

just to name a few groups jumped up and said NO WAY…

I don’t have time right now to dig up the sources. But it’s there for the digging.

Now where was I?

I did not hear that…. so then, does the DNR have more money than they know what to do with ??? Why would they raise license fees ??? I do know they got a beautiful park bought up by Vermillion… I want to get up there some day

big G

2 lines is fine but you need to purchase 2 license, one for each line.

They need to find funding for more officers on the ground checking for over harvest in my opinion.

See if you can find out how much of the lottery money makes it to the DNR like they promised when they begged for gambling in the state. But, I guess that’s another can of worms for another day.

Keep your eyes open for the political pigs wanting to steal the Lessard funds. They will be there as sure as the sun comes up.

Brian,
Are you saying there is language in the Natural Resources/Arts ammendment that prohibits reducing the amount of money that goes to natural resources from the General Fund? Is the language only applicable for the current budget cycle? I would find it hard to believe that they couldn’t reduce this funding when trying to close the projected deficit for the next budget.

Quote:

---

Brian,
Are you saying there is language in the Natural Resources/Arts ammendment that prohibits reducing the amount of money that goes to natural resources from the General Fund? Is the language only applicable for the current budget cycle? I would find it hard to believe that they couldn’t reduce this funding when trying to close the projected deficit for the next budget.

---

If you are talking to me I’m talking about about the money from the Lessard amendment. That money is dedicated to fish and wildlife, clean water. Ever since the day it passed the leaches in St. Paul have been trying to find a way to siphon money from the fund. They believe they can cut back on allocated money to the DNR because the DNR can tap Lessard money. Which it can’t do. At all costs that Lessard money must be protected from St. Paul getting their hands on it. Otherwise it just becomes another funding tool for wasting more money just like the lottery became.

Buzzsaw it’s exactly as mister Hoffies just stated.

I’m on my cell phone right now but I don’t think I could of said it any better than that.

BrianK and Brian Hoffies,
I’ve been referring to the Lessard ammendment also.

Quote:

---

Ever since the day it passed the leaches in St. Paul have been trying to find a way to siphon money from the fund.

---

I agree that the ammendment should protect this from directly happening.

I’m just trying to say the slime balls will find a way to indirectly take money away from being spent on natural resources.

Example
Can the Lessard funds be used to stock fish in Mn lakes? I’m assuming it can. Does the DNR use dollars from the general fund to stock fish? I’m assuming they do. What prevents the slick politicians from looking at all the dollars available from the Lessard ammendment and saying screw the DNR, we can cut back on money they would have used for stocking (from the general fund) because they can still stock with money from the Lessard ammendment?

In this example, I’m using fish stocking. I’m not an expert on what the DNR does with the money they have, but I would guess there is overlap between what they had used their budget dollars for and what the funds from the Lessard ammendment are to be used for.

Quote:

---

BrianK and Brian Hoffies,
I’ve been referring to the Lessard ammendment also.

Quote:

---

Ever since the day it passed the leaches in St. Paul have been trying to find a way to siphon money from the fund.

---

I agree that the ammendment should protect this from directly happening.

I’m just trying to say the slime balls will find a way to indirectly take money away from being spent on natural resources.

Example
Can the Lessard funds be used to stock fish in Mn lakes? I’m assuming it can. Does the DNR use dollars from the general fund to stock fish? I’m assuming they do. What prevents the slick politicians from looking at all the dollars available from the Lessard ammendment and saying screw the DNR, we can cut back on money they would have used for stocking (from the general fund) because they can still stock with money from the Lessard ammendment?

In this example, I’m using fish stocking. I’m not an expert on what the DNR does with the money they have, but I would guess there is overlap between what they had used their budget dollars for and what the funds from the Lessard ammendment are to be used for.

---

Sorry for the delay, I needed to drive back from Des Moines.

That is the trouble with these people in St. Paul and to an extent with the DNR. My understanding is groups such as Muskie Inc. Walleye Inc. Water Inc. or whoever need to make application for a portion of the available funds.(THE NEED MUST FALL UNDER THE GUIELINES OF THE INTENDED USES OF THE AMENDMENT) They apply to a committee of people who then dole out the money as they see fit. Your group may ask for 500 thousand to repair a wet land or clean a river up. They may approve all of that or any portion. So if you get 200 thousand you can come back next year and apply for more. You need plans and documentation to apply for these funds.
Some of the conflict now comes in where
Leach A in St. Paul says “hey, the DNR doesn’t need all that money. They can tap the Lessard fund for money for the clean up.” If we let that happen they have in effect “stolen” all the Lessard funds. They are willing to steal from Peter to pay Paul. Thus they would have another 200 thousand to waste elsewhere.

Multiply this times hundreds of projects and you see where things will head.

It’s imoptrtant to understand this Lessard money is not attached to the DNR in anyway. The DNR’S only involvement is to guide it’s use in the proper ways. The DNR has people who understand wetlands. Hence their opinions are needed when considering alotting money for wetland restoration. If the Lesard commitee wants to purchase 1,000 acres and flood it there is nothing the DNR can do about it. But their input would certainly be valued!

The DNR needs to step up with long term plans stating their intentions on stocking, restoration, land acquisition ect. They need to fund these activities from their general fund monies from the state. Let the Lessard money be bonus money for projects the DNR would never tackle either because of manpower or financial restraints. An example would be. The DNR would have a real hard time putting a clean up plan together for the Minnesota River. It will take real planning and real dollars for this project. Lessard funds can be put to work under the water preservation / clean up portion of the amendment. Thus leaving money and manpower to be used by the DRN elsewhere. It could be a 10-20 year project funded by X amount of Lessard dollars yearly.

Now, as to our new state park on Vermilion. I don’t think Lessard funds should be used towards building this. That’s not how the money was intended. State Parks & Recs or whatever their name is can develop this from the states general fund. This park is for the people of Minnesota. Not the outdoors men and women and waters who the Lessard funds are meant to benefit. Now, if the DNR was asked to build a large public access to serve the fisherman using the park, then yes I might support that.

Now before anybody jumps down my throat about this post let me say I wasn’t ever involved with the Lessard thing. These opinions are just based on what I read and how I interpreted them. I may very well be wrong. I would need to pull up the amendment and read it again.

What I am not wrong about it there are lots of people elected who want to dip into that Lessard money. It must be protected at all costs. I would go so far as to post names and photo’s on bill boards throughout the state making it known these are the people after those funds. Embarrass them, make them feel like criminals. Maybe then they will crawl back in their holes and stay there.

I’m all for two lines. I can catch twice as many fish in half the time and only go fishing half as much. The gas savings for the truck and boat will help wean us off foreign oil. So see the two line issue is a good thing.

Good posts guys, L-SOHC oversees the fish and game habitat part of the Legacy funds, Bill Becker and committee have been doing an excellent job of making sure the funds are spent for the intended purpose, fish and game habitat improvement and acquisition and that every dollar is accounted for.

Now when it comes to the other parts of the fund I do not know as much about them but I can tell you without oversight committees and very strict rules for awarding the funds those dollars are in jeopardy of being misspent.

Regarding the DNR being stripped of their general funds look no further than Governor Tim, he stripped DNR general funds and frankly given the way the Legacy Amendment was set up specifically stating DNR funds could not be reduced or replaced with or because of Legacy funds I would say Gov. Tim did not follow the intent of the amendment.

As far as the big city politicians Brian H you hit it right on the money, a few of the money grubbing politicians from the Cities since day one have been trying to get their hands on the funds so they can run off and spent it the way they want and not the way the citizens of our fine state said it must be spent. These funds were intended for one thing FISH and GAME HABITAT not planting trees along urban streets, not for urban parks or greenways, not for urban flood control or the million other things some urban politicians are now trying to call fish and game habitat, fish and game habitat is habitat that can fished and hunted.

As many others have already stated all sportsmen and women of this state have an obligation to keep a close eye on how our Legacy funds get used and make sure the intent of the amendment is the first thing considered before a proposal is even considered for funding.