Wisconsin Strikes Back With Proposed Fishing Fee

  • jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #1297071

    (AP) Wausau, Wis. If you live outside Wisconsin and want to fish on its frozen waters from inside an ice shack, you may have to pay a new fee to do it.

    It’s a change targeted to get even with Minnesota, which has had ice shanty placement fees for decades, says a western Wisconsin lawmaker.

    The state budget weaving its way through the Legislature includes the new fee for out-of-state anglers only — a change estimated to raise about $270,000 in new money for fish and wildlife programs run by the Department of Natural Resources.

    But there’s a catch — the DNR didn’t propose the idea and is unsure whether it’s a good one.

    It came from a lawmaker looking for new ways to raise money and to duplicate a similar fee that Minnesota charges Wisconsin ice fishermen.

    “It is only fair and equitable that we do the same to them,” said Rep. Mark Pettis, R-Hurtel. “Why should we be forced to pay a nonresident fish shanty permit to Minnesota when we go over there and we allow them to come over here for nothing?”

    DNR budget director Joe Polasek said the agency is reviewing Pettis’ proposal to see how easy it would be to implement and enforce.

    The budget passed this week by the Assembly would require nonresident anglers to buy a seven-day or annual permit to place an ice shack on state waters, costing $20 and $34, respectively. The bill now goes to the Senate. The new ice shanty fee was added by the legislative Joint Finance Committee.

    DNR fisheries director Mike Staggs said people have talked for a long time of different ways to fund fish and wildlife programs, but in recent years the political support for new fees and higher taxes hasn’t existed, so the DNR has been reluctant to propose them.

    The DNR sells about 130,000 annual and another 166,000 short-term fishing licenses to out-of-state residents, Polasek said. The agency has no way of knowing how many use the licenses to fish from ice shacks in the winter.

    The projected revenue from the change is based on Minnesota’s experience with its fee, Polasek said.

    Linda Erickson-Eastwood, a DNR fisheries program manager in Minnesota, said her state has required an ice shanty permit for all anglers since 1903 and began charging a fee in 1922. The nonresident fees today are $1 less than Pettis’ proposal for Wisconsin, and residents pay one annual $11.50 fee, she said.

    Minnesota last raised the fees about five years ago, Erickson-Eastwood said.

    Minnesota DNR spokesman Mark LaBarbera said if Wisconsin tacks on the new fee, more Minnesota anglers might stay home and fish. “I would think that Wisconsin tourism would prefer to leave things the way they are.”

    Pettis’ proposal comes as Republican lawmakers who hold majorities in the both the Assembly and Senate have boasted about cutting taxes on gasoline and Social Security benefits.

    “This was at the request of my constituency living on the Wisconsin-Minnesota border,” Pettis said. “These folks like to enjoy the Minnesota fishing and they are charged this fee for putting this fish shanty on the lake and they have asked me to do the same to them.”

    Pettis said he has no plan to extend such a fee to in-state anglers, unless it was a token amount, such as $1, just to get a count on the number of people who ice fish.

    It is not unprecedented for one state to set its outdoor policy based on what another state does, said Pettis, who ice fishes in Minnesota and has paid the shanty fee.

    “There are states that won’t allow Wisconsinites to trap in their state because we don’t allow nonresidents to trap here,” he said.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #369958

    Another reason why Minnesota should dump shelter fees…

    blue-fleck
    Dresbach, MN
    Posts: 7872
    #369961

    I wonder if that applies to portables?

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #369963

    I would assume so. We pay shelter fees on portables here….

    Steve Root
    South St. Paul, MN
    Posts: 5623
    #369972

    Yea…if I leave my Otter sled shaped like a sled I don’t have to license it as a fish house. If I flip up the aluminum poles with the canvas bag stretched over them, now I need a license. Cripes. I even saw a guy get nailed for fishing out of his car that wasn’t licensed as a fish shack.
    Did I mention anything about the license being a stupid sticky-backed piece of paper that won’t stick to a canvas tent?

    Only in Minnesota, land of 10,000 taxes.

    Rootski

    bigjigger2002
    Pearlcity , Illinois
    Posts: 471
    #369976

    If I made the money Mr, Pettis makes I would probably build a Condo over my ice holes and then when the ice goes out I would just let it sink and build another one next year,(you know add a little structure to the Lake).Then I would probably just donate the $270,000.00 this is supposed to generate.I think people are paying enough already with heavy non resident liscense fees and launch fees.I hate to think about not being able to fish [BECAUS I CAN’T AFFORD IT WHEN I RE-TIRE}. THANKS FOR LETTING ME VENT!!! Rick,

    ggoody
    Mpls MN
    Posts: 2603
    #370031

    Quote:


    Way to go WI


    The same politician is also pushing a bill that would make Wisconsin resident Anglers pay for a shelter Tag.

    Way to go WI…….. …LOL

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #370039

    Quote:


    “This was at the request of my constituency living on the Wisconsin-Minnesota border,” Pettis said. “These folks like to enjoy the Minnesota fishing and they are charged this fee for putting this fish shanty on the lake and they have asked me to do the same to them.”


    For some reason I have a hard time believing more than one person talked to him about this…

    If that’s the way law makers work…we should charge WInites more for gas when they come into MN…

    Lawmakers…there a silly group!

    Brian Klawitter
    Keymaster
    Minnesota/Wisconsin Mississippi River
    Posts: 59992
    #370040

    Speaking of silly…

    What do you think a persons chances would be to fight a ticket from the DNR for fishing 3 line on the boarder waters as a MN resident?

    The MN law states that I would have to follow the rules from the state that I live in…but, if I had a valid WI outstate license, I should be able to follow the WI laws no matter where I’m from…..period.

    So, if you are from IA and buy a WI non resident Lic you can fish with 3 rods…If your from MN..it doesn’t matter which way you slice it and dice it…you can’t use 3 rods.

    How do you think this would hold up if contested in court?

    sgt._rock
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 2517
    #370046

    Brian: I’ve wondered the same thing. You spend the money on the license you should be able to follow the rules of that state. Border water is both right? I’ve heard of people talk about an imaginary line and it is actually different dependent on which side you are on. Never saw that line in the regulations.

    bill_cadwell
    Rochester, Minnesota
    Posts: 12607
    #370403

    The MN law states that I would have to follow the rules from the state that I live in…but, if I had a valid WI outstate license.

    The above words of yours gives you the answer my friend. Key words being: RULES from the STATE I LIVE IN, and OUTSTATE license. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. [all I did is repeat YOUR words Bud ]
    Thanks, Bill

    ps. since this is in the ice fishing forum-”got any ice?’ Sure hope not!!!

    juggs
    The biggest nightcrawler bed in all of Minneapolis
    Posts: 189
    #372012

    Brian–Did you read that rule about following the laws of the state you’re from in the MN rule book? At the sport show this year the DNR had a booth and since I fish pool 4 a lot and there seems to be so much confusion about border rules, I asked both people who were representing the DNR about them. One thing I remember for sure–they absolutely, positively told me that I could keep 25 crappies, which is the WI limit, and I’m a MN resident. So the “following the rules of the state you live in” clause doesn’t apply–at least not in this case and I would think the rules would be across the board. I believe I also asked them how many lines I could use and their answer was three, again since this is border water and the more liberal laws are allowed. So…..based on what I just said, it sounds like you may have a case but good luck winning. As far as the shanty license goes, I’m opposed as anybody to paying for putting up a portable shack, but in the case of the permanent ones, what if someone has an old junker that they don’t want to deal with anymore so they decide to “make a contribution” to the lake? Likewise, what about the guys who don’t get them off the lake by the deadline?

    Dave Koonce
    Moderator
    Prairie du Chien Wi.
    Posts: 6946
    #372075

    Juggs,

    They must have been confused no doubt…

    You MUST follow the rule book from the state you live in or the license for the state you have registered in…

    I am sure they were confused…

    Reason is that we had the same concern down here on P10 when Iowa and Wisconsin had a different daily limit on panfish…I had both wardens together representing both states and they both agreed that you must follow the rule/law of the state you are licensed in.

    sgt._rock
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 2517
    #372085

    So with a resident MN and a NR WI you can do either???

    ggoody
    Mpls MN
    Posts: 2603
    #375194

    No you follow Mn rules. You MUST follow the rule book from the state you live in or the license for the state you have registered in…

    jeffsedlmayr
    Wisconsin
    Posts: 272
    #389362

    The same politician is also pushing a bill that would make Wisconsin resident Anglers pay for a shelter Tag.

    30 bucks for a shelter tag is nothing if you use the resources like you can 30 bucks for enjoying a whole season of countless hours of ice fishing is cheap, no better entertainment than that.

    kooty
    Keymaster
    1 hour 15 mins to the Pond
    Posts: 18101
    #389382

    You better be aware where that $30.00 is going. I bet it doesn’t go to the DNR funding directly. I bet it ends up in the general fund where other state divisions get to use it.

    sgt._rock
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 2517
    #389457

    Gee thats only 3 times as expensive as a boat license. Something seems out of place with this idea. I agree with Kooty. Where is the money going??

    Brian Lyons
    Posts: 894
    #394564

    Will I need a shelter tag on IA./Wis. border water? If I do, can I just borrow yours Dave?

    VikeFan
    Posts: 525
    #396314

    I lived in Winona for seven years–the actual interpretation of the MN/WI border rules is left up to the COs to decide. In Winona, the old Minnesota CO (retired now) allowed Wisconsin residents with Wisconsin licenses to fish three lines anywhere between the railroad tracks, including water on the Minnesota side. Minnesota residents were restricted to two lines, which really burned my !@#, being a Minnesota resident. I was told that to obey Wisconsin limits you had to be a Wisconsin resident–Minnesota residents bearing Wisconsin non-resident licenses had to obey Minnesota regulations. Winona County has a new CO–he checked me out last spring, but I forgot to ask him how he enforces the border regs.

    Oh, and when fishing between the railroad tracks on the Mississippi, no one is required to have a shelter tag.

    mikest1r
    eau claire county, eleva wis.
    Posts: 5
    #413326

    I live in Eau Claire and can’t even use the PUBLIC boat landing with out paying a user fee. Chippewa county, Lake Wissota, the same thing. Seems whenever they get their foot in the door with fees it just keeps on comming.License cost is on the rise every year, why open up another can of worms with shack fees? I can see where this will go, out of state first then right out of our billfolds. just my opinion, mikest1r

    nick
    Lakeville, MN
    Posts: 4977
    #413344

    HOLY OLD THREAD BUMPAGE BATMAN

    steve-demars
    Stillwater, Minnesota
    Posts: 1906
    #413463

    Hey Juggs – I’m not sure I followed your reply to BrianK correctly but the answer you got from the DNR concerning the crappie limit on MN – WI border waters was correct. The Minnesota possession limit on crappies on the MN-WI border waters is 25. See page 64 of the 2005 MN Fishing Regulations.

    Craig Matter
    Hager City,Wi
    Posts: 556
    #414225

    I disagree with it but I hope WI does do it. I’m not sure why any state would discourage tourism, because that is what Wi will be doing, but what is fair is fair. Look at the money it pulls in to your state. Mn put a stud tax on snowmobiles a few years back. I and a group of 25 guys from Wi had an annual snow trip up to I-falls each year. Low and behold Mn put a stud fee on any sled that has studs. Our group of 25 guys went to northern Wi because half of the group ran stud the other have didn’t. Some couldn’t afford to pay an extra $50 for a 4 day trip to MN. Lost revenue MN, we have annual trips to Northern WI now. But I do agree with what fair is fair. I don’t Ice fish in Mn for the same reason I’m not paying and extra $34 to put a portable shack on the Mn lakes when I can fish in WI with out, and I hope they put a fee on your shack if you come to Wi just because I have a fee to put a shack on your waters. I just don’t see why you would want to sock it to somebody out of state coming in to your state and spending a bunch of money on lodging, food, drink and other activities for probably on average 5 times a year. I plan my trips on my budget, and what I can afford.

    I know that Mn has changed the rules on the studs. Out of state’rs are exempt and that ( I feel ) is the way MN should do it. ( I sent letters to MN voicing my concerns) We still have not gone back lost revenue for 4-5 years now. I will go back someday we just haven’t yet.
    All states charge more for out of state’rs, and they usually hunt or fish a lot less than a resident why would you want to charge them additional fee’s???

    On the three line deal, go to your DNR meetings and suggest a change. Ask the question why we can’t change the regulations for MN/WI boundary waters. Wi has been able to use three line for years why can’t we?? If you request a change maybe they would change it. The reason you can keep 25 crappies on the river is because the reg’s say you can keep 25 crappie. The power of the people can change things. Ask the questions and pose the vote. We get things changed in Wi by going to the DNR meetings.
    Hope I didn’t offend too many!!!
    Good luck
    Whatsa

    col._klink
    St Paul
    Posts: 2542
    #414254

    This is starting to sound like what North Dakota did to die hard Duck hunters Have not been back sense

    WalleyeGFA
    Posts: 82
    #415208

    Hmmm discourage tourism ??? I got an idea, lets impose a statewide 20″ walleye length for no biological reason !!!! Good news is there will be less crowding over the next couple of years when visitors figure out its even harder to keep a limit.

    koldfront kraig
    Coon Rapids mn
    Posts: 1816
    #415243

    You wouldn’t feel that way if you live in Minnesota and get taxed for everything you do and for everything you own.

    If Minnesota could, I’m sure they would tax breathing.

    koldfront kraig
    Coon Rapids mn
    Posts: 1816
    #415251

    Whats wrong with the 20″ walleye rule?

    Those are prime breeders. It makes perfect sense to me.

    In my boat we don’t keep anything over 19″ no matter what the slot is.

    Why do you think the walleye fishing on lakes like Mille acs, Rainy and Winnie is so good now?

    Besides the 15-18 inchers taste better.

Viewing 29 posts - 1 through 29 (of 29 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.