Minnesota Legislature declares war on muskies

Article by Tony Kennedy in today’s Strib.

I am a walleye guy…yes, but have been an avid muskie angler and still wish for ample opportunity to fish for them on occasion. But beyond that, this proposal looks like another government overreach and is sponsored by a legislator Sen. Bill Ingebrigtsen, motivated by his own bias and personal agenda. (Just my opinion)…

Here are some bullet points from the article and a link to the entire article. I am just angrily SMH…

• Stop DNR from introducing muskies to waters not previously stocked with the fish. Any savings realized from the ban must be used for walleye stocking.

• Force DNR to drop its statewide, 54-inch minimum size limit for keeping a muskie. On “nonmuskellunge’’ waters, anglers could keep any muskie 20 inches or longer. The term “nonmuskellunge” applies to waters where “muskellunge are not indigenous’’ or where they are stocked by the DNR.

 • Allow spearing of muskies on “nonmuskellunge’’ waters.

• Empower counties to dictate what species of fish the DNR can stock within county boundaries.

• Impose a five-year moratorium on the DNR against stocking muskies anywhere in Otter Tail County.

• The DNR must convene a stakeholder group “to examine the effect of muskellunge’’ and spend $50,000 on a related study.

http://www.startribune.com/minnesota-legislature-declares-war-on-muskies/477180523/

Walleyestudent Andy Cox wrote:

• Stop DNR from introducing muskies to waters not previously stocked with the fish. Any savings realized from the ban must be used for <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>walleye stocking.

• Impose a five-year moratorium on the DNR against stocking <em class=”ido-tag-em”>muskies anywhere in Otter Tail County.

The whole proposal really irritates me because it’s a blatant uneducated and fear mongering hatred towards muskies, but these two points really urine me off. The first is so incredibly hypocritical in the fact that there are hundreds of lakes in the state that are stocked with walleyes which aren’t native. The second point is blatant abuse of power to achieve a result that is specifically for the bill’s author’s own person happiness since he lives on a lake in Ottertail County. Disgusting

Sorry, double post

Not a lot of logic or science involved here, just a knee-jerk reaction from lakeshore owner groups. Hopefully sanity will prevail, but I’m not holding my breath.

We have enough water for both walleye and Muskie , I don’t know if I am a fan of introducing Muskie or walleye were there were not native.

It doesn’t matter what he proposes. The fact that he is undermining the DNR is what the problem is. At no point do we need politicians setting policy over the waters in this state. As much as I don’t agree with the DNR on all matters they are the ones tasked with taking care of our waterways.

huskerdu wrote:

We have enough water for both <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleye and <em class=”ido-tag-em”>Muskie , I don’t know if I am a fan of introducing Muskie or walleye were there were not native.

There are many waters that have been introduced with walleye where they were not native. In fact more are probably introduced than have natural populations. And in most cases has proven to be highly successful and popular. In all likelihood, a favorite walleye water(s) near you.

Dutchboy wrote:

It doesn’t matter what he proposes. The fact that he is undermining the DNR is what the problem is. At no point do we need politicians setting policy over the waters in this state. As much as I don’t agree with the DNR on all matters they are the ones tasked with taking care of our waterways.

I completely agree.

What’s everyone’s favorite way to eat Muskies? What sizes grill the best?

…asking for a friend

I believe the stocking issue should be examined. The past few years the DNR has been jamming muskies down Otter Tails lakes and many groups are not liking it. I remember a town hall meeting the DNR was holding near Pellican Rapids discussing stocking efforts and they denied oppostion their concerns. MnDNR doess not/will not recognise preditation even when presented by studies done buy Wisconsin and Michigan.
I believe the Senator is doing what many of his constituents want. If we cant call on our senators or representatives to reel in on what we may believe/feel the DNR may be in the wrong from stocking to AIS regs what is our recourse to change things? I just don’t agree with Commissioner Landmehr policy on a few misguided things. He is the one that sets policy along with a nudge from the guy who appointed him.

Less we forget the DNR using its authority to force very bad AIS policy on us but a few senators backed by groups and citzens spoke up and the committees listened and repealed/revised the laws from the previous year.

Its that time of year again and were going to see more bills pertaining to our waters and as for looking to be overboard on the issue this bill is just a ripple in the water for whats coming next.

I happened to sit next to senator Ingebrigtsen at a Mille lacs advisery meeting last fall. Only meet the man once but was impressed with him. He drove from Alexandria to attend, said he was trying to get a better feel of the Mille lacs issues first hand. Maybe he’s been listening to allot of people across the state who don’t buy into the dnr’s muskie program and the muskie lovers agenda, and decided to actually represent the people who elected him.

Smoker wrote:

I happened to sit next to senator Ingebrigtsen at a Mille lacs advisery meeting last fall. Only meet the man once but was impressed with him. He drove from Alexandria to attend, said he was trying to get a better feel of the Mille lacs issues first hand. Maybe he’s been listening to allot of people across the state who don’t buy into the dnr’s muskie program and the muskie lovers agenda, and decided to actually represent the people who elected him.

Ok fine. But he is making scientific claims where the science does not back up his claims.

Jonesy wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Smoker wrote:</div>
I happened to sit next to senator Ingebrigtsen at a Mille lacs advisery meeting last fall. Only meet the man once but was impressed with him. He drove from Alexandria to attend, said he was trying to get a better feel of the Mille lacs issues first hand. Maybe he’s been listening to allot of people across the state who don’t buy into the dnr’s muskie program and the muskie lovers agenda, and decided to actually represent the people who elected him.

Ok fine. But he is making NON-scientific claims where the science does not back up his claims.

There, I fixed it for ya.

There are studies all over the place showing Muskies do not harm a fishery.

Dutchboy wrote:

There are studies all over the place showing Muskies do not harm a fishery.

And someone could probably commission seven studies that show they are harmful.

They should look at musky stocking, as well as walleye stocking, and trout stocking, etc.

There certainly are fish stocked in places they have no business being in. Not every lake has to have walleyes and muskies.

If this legislation pushes forward that notion I’m for it. Unfortunately seems the way business and politics is done now, start off extreme.

I am sure Ingebrigtsen has been attending meetings like the one I went to about stocking muskies in Tetonka. During the meeting I was told we are not here to debate about stocking muskies or talk about any benefits it may have to the fishery. We are only here to inform everyone why it’s a bad idea to stock muskies (using lies and fear.) What seemed to get the biggest reaction was stocking muskies would attract more people to “their” lake. None of the lake shore owners liked that idea.
There are many studies that have been done about how muskies help a fishery.

It’s not his job to set policy for the DNR. I don’t care if every single voter in OtterTail county is opposed to Muskie stocking. That change can only happen with changing the Governor who then can appoint a new commissioner to run the DNR.

We see every year how these guys trade votes to get a pet project done in their district. Do you really want some guy in Jackson Minnesota setting Deer harvest policy in the Grand Rapids area?

1hl&sinker wrote:

I believe the stocking issue should be examined. The past few years the DNR has been jamming muskies down Otter Tails lakes and many groups are not liking it. I remember a town hall meeting the DNR was holding near Pellican Rapids discussing stocking efforts and they denied oppostion their concerns. MnDNR doess not/will not recognise preditation even when presented by studies done buy Wisconsin and Michigan.
I believe the Senator is doing what many of his constituents want. If we cant call on our senators or representatives to reel in on what we may believe/feel the DNR may be in the wrong from stocking to AIS regs what is our recourse to change things? I just don’t agree with Commissioner Landmehr policy on a few misguided things. He is the one that sets policy along with a nudge from the guy who appointed him.

Less we forget the DNR using its authority to force very bad AIS policy on us but a few senators backed by groups and citzens spoke up and the committees listened and repealed/revised the laws from the previous year.

Its that time of year again and were going to see more bills pertaining to our waters and as for looking to be overboard on the issue this bill is just a ripple in the water for whats coming next.

This! Regardless of scientific proof, if the overwhelming people in that area don’t want them, they he is doing his job.

I will remark about the comment that adding musky’s don’t effect the fishery…that’s total BS. ANY fish added to a lake is going to effect a fishery. Muskys eat and need habitat just like any other fish.

All that said, I’m pro musky but if people in the area don’t want them, them I’m okay with that!

Maybe he’s been listening to allot of people across the state who don’t buy into the dnr’s muskie program and the muskie lovers agenda, and decided to actually represent the people who elected him.

And that’s exactly what’s happening (at least in Ottertail County). He asked me my opinion on this last fall. I bowed out because I’m not informed enough to have an opinion. He made a comment about the folks up that way aren’t allowed to have a say when a new specie was introduced into a lake.

I’ve had Bill out in my boat on a couple guide trips. He has a lot of common sense.

PS there are times when the legislature DOES need to get involved in policy making…not often, but they are there.

Well Brian lets just abolish the DNR altogether. We can have a group of legislators run the show. Remember, these are the same people that have funded new stadiums of every corner of the metro. The corruption in St. Paul is well established, do you really want to turn our natural resources over to them also?

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Maybe he’s been listening to allot of people across the state who don’t buy into the dnr’s muskie program and the muskie lovers agenda, and decided to actually represent the people who elected him.

And that’s exactly what’s happening (at least in Ottertail County). He asked me my opinion on this last fall. I bowed out because I’m not informed enough to have an opinion. He made a comment about the folks up that way aren’t allowed to have a say when a new specie was introduced into a lake.

After thinking about this some more and reading other people’s thoughts on the subject, I can understand this notion that he introduced this bill as a voice for his constituents, and I can respect that if that’s the case. However, the lakes are public waters. They are public to everyone, not just the people of the county. The DNR is responsible for managing our public land and waters, and does so in strong part using scientific reasoning, and with regards to the fact that such lands and water are public to everyone near and far, not just the locals. The last thing I want is a county board to make ill-advised decisions for public waters based on personal emotions and personal gain.

Don’t shoot me, I could careless either way… I don’t target musky and they don’t bother me… but Reading INTO this.. it seems it might be more about the $$$ that is spent stocking a fish, you can only catch and release basically. That maybe 10 % at most of the states anglers actually target… this is a guess by me. I do know for a fact that the musky incs of the world are very powerful, they invest lots of time and effort into promoting the sport fish… and if they see one fish mistreated, to take a line from Jules… they will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my musky. To think there is a difference in the DNR and politicians…. ummmm no… one in the same at the top.

ClownColor wrote:

Regardless of scientific proof, if the overwhelming people in that area don’t want them, then he is doing his job.

I’d like to remind everyone that “the people in that area” (including lakefront property owning Senators) don’t actually own the lakes and rivers…those are held on behalf of all state citizens, and thus should be managed for the good of all state citizens. This was affirmed by amending the MN state Constitution to preserve hunting and fishing rights forever “for the people” and to be managed “for the public good.” Laws can do this, but it’s mostly through policy set by experts – the primary job of the DNR.

My family’s waterfront property is a short drive north of the Senator’s, and it ends at the waterline…right where YOUR lake begins. Seeing this issue as just about “muskies vs walleyes” is reductive and a huge error, as this is absolutely a proxy fight about property rights.

This legislation is one of the small steps towards turning MN into New Mexico, and 25 years from now you’ll be looking for somewhere to fish because all the lakes and rivers have become the private property of the “the people in that area” who are fortunate enough to own the land around the lake.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/15/privatized-rivers-us-public-lands-waterways

The science is already very clear: muskies help other gamefish species such as panfish and walleyes, likely by predating on non-gamefish such as suckers and ciscoes that are taking up biomass space in the system. A natural, healthy lake includes apex predators.

Write your personal Senators and Representatives, as well as the specific committee members and voice your opinion, in either direction. I will be doing so as a non-citizen who spends a lot of my vacation money in those small northern MN towns.
I encourage you to oppose this legislation by pointing out it is non-scientific, harmful to tourism, and not in the best interest of all state citizens who use the waterways.

Senate Natural Resources Policy committee:
http://www.senate.mn/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=3094&ls=90

Senate Natural Resources Finance committee:
http://www.senate.mn/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=3093&ls=

House Natural Resources Policy and Finance committee:
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/cmte/Home/?comm=90008

Attachments:

1. 

   riversign.jpg
   

I’m a diehard walleye guy and I know for a fact that Muskie do eat some of our “precious walleye”. That said, I think the Muskie do more good than harm. They also eat a large amount of small pike and other rough fish, which the DNR is trying to get rid of. Every great walleye lake I can think of has Muskie in it, so clearly it doesn’t hurt the population.

The majority of the guys that are complaining are upset because they can’t catch walleye. I hear people complain all of the time they can’t catch walleye because of the stupid Muskie. I kindly tell them to fish in the weeds and they scoff… “why!?” “It’s too much work” “It’s not worth it”

In my opinion the Alexandria/Ottertail area lakes have been getting clearer for the past 25yrs. There are septic systems ran around many of the lakes and of course the zebra mussels are cleaning the water too. These things have changed walleye fishing as we know it. There are simply more weeds and the walleye are using these weeds for cover. These anglers want to blame the Muskie but they should blame themselves for not adapting.

Absolutely not Dutch.

I’m a strong supporter of our DNR 98% of the time.

I’ll have to start another thread to cover all of these thoughts!

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Maybe he’s been listening to allot of people across the state who don’t buy into the dnr’s muskie program and the muskie lovers agenda, and decided to actually represent the people who elected him.

And that’s exactly what’s happening (at least in Ottertail County). He asked me my opinion on this last fall. I bowed out because I’m not informed enough to have an opinion. He made a comment about the folks up that way aren’t allowed to have a say when a new specie was introduced into a lake.

I’ve had Bill out in my boat on a couple guide trips. He has a lot of common sense.

PS there are times when the legislature DOES need to get involved in policy making…not often, but they are there.

Even though I do not agree with counties and cities/towns setting policy for public state waters regarding fish management, I do at least recognize his motivation for that part.

It’s these parts of his bill that do not involve his backyard and go beyond representing the wishes of his constituents.

Force DNR to drop its statewide, 54-inch minimum size limit for keeping a muskie. On “nonmuskellunge’’ waters, anglers could keep any muskie 20 inches or longer.

Allow spearing of muskies on “nonmuskellunge’’ waters

Empower counties to dictate what species of fish the DNR can stock within county boundaries.

Force DNR to drop its statewide, 54-inch minimum size limit for keeping a muskie. On “nonmuskellunge’’ waters, anglers could keep any muskie 20 inches or longer.

Allow spearing of muskies on “nonmuskellunge’’ waters

Empower counties to dictate what species of fish the DNR can stock within county boundaries.

There you have it. If you are a elected official who runs around making statements like this it proves you are hunting votes only. Those people who also signed onto this bill need to be voted out also.

This bill whether you are pro or anti Muskies is the first step towards special interest taking the public waters and lands away. Next will be a politician who says “my voters think Deer are pretty and don’t want a hunting season.”

I’m a walleye fisherman who occasionally musky fishes, and a friend of mine put it well imo.

“Musky fishing is the fasting growing type of angling in the state. It is a sport that teaches catch and release, respecting the resource and managing our waters to their fullest potential. Musky’s are not the problem. In fact they are a solution. A solution to fixing the problem created by us humans who take limit after limit of smaller and smaller fish. Leaving our waters void of the genetics to grow healthy populations of those game fish we love so much. This is not about biology. This is about money. Many of these constituents first want muskies gone. They then want lake access to be open to cabin owners on that lake only. This is about $. And $$ talks. Please educate yourselves before you pick sides. Don’t be blind sheep.

Lastly. Name the top 5 Walleye lakes in the state. Then ask yourself if they have Muskie in them.”

I would also add that the argument for Ingebrigtsen representing his constituents doesn’t hold much weight if his proposals contradict the many studies done on the subject. Leadership is doing what’s right, not what’s most popular.

Michael C. Winther wrote:

I’d like to remind everyone that “the people in that area” (including lakefront property owning Senators) don’t actually own the lakes and rivers…those are held on behalf of all state citizens, and thus should be managed for the good of all state citizens. This was affirmed by amending the MN state Constitution to preserve hunting and fishing rights forever “for the people” and to be managed “for the public good.” Laws can do this, but it’s mostly through policy set by experts – the primary job of the DNR.

My family’s waterfront property is a short drive north of the Senator’s, and it ends at the waterline…right where YOUR lake begins. Seeing this issue as just about “muskies vs walleyes” is reductive and a huge error, as this is absolutely a proxy fight about property rights.

Winner!^^^^^^

This is EXACTLY what I was thinking when reading this thread. This is just the latest example of Local Yokos trying to privatize a resource that belongs to the people of the State of Minnesota.

This is no different from the Christmas Lake debacle where rich lakeshore landowners are trying to control a whole lake, or the public access issues where local yokos are “tired of so many people using ‘their’ lake” so they restrict parking for miles around the public access to limit use.

Every sportsman in Minnesota should be against this bill. This is NOT about a fish species, this is about a bunch of locals trying to steal a resource that belongs to everyone in MN. Think about the precedent this sets. This time it’s stocking policy, next time what? Maybe the local yokos suddenly feel like “outsiders” are “damaging their lake” and public accesses need to be removed….

Every outdoorsman and woman in the state of MN needs to make sure this bill gets crushed. We have an agency that is responsible for managing these lakes for the common good, it’s called the DNR. Local yokos need to butt out. It’s NOT your lake.

Grouse