MN fishing guide license

  • carver
    West Metro
    Posts: 609
    #2274533

    http://www.outdoornews.com/2024/05/23/should-fishing-guides-be-licensed-in-minnesota-some-say-yes-noting-its-potential-benefit-to-fisheries/

    Fishing guide Tom Neustrom said he believes a guide license in Minnesota would be beneficial because guides could help the Minnesota DNR with logging of fish on various lakes and make customers more comfortable that their guide is licensed for the trip. (Photo courtesy of Tom Neustrom)

    Grand Rapids, Minn. — Minnesota, boasting more than 10,000 lakes, hosts myriad fishing guides who provide memorable excursions, often yielding noteworthy catches.

    Tom Neustrom, a fishing guide with more than 40 years of experience, is advocating for a fishing guide license in the state, a measure already adopted by several Midwestern states. Neustrom’s conversations with fellow guides reveal widespread support for this initiative, suggesting a need for action from the Minnesota DNR.

    “It brings out a lot of accountability to the guiding profession,” Neustrom said. “Most of the guys I know want it. They think it’s a great idea that ensures their clients that you’re licensed.”

    While most favor the guide license, some do not, including Steve Carney, a veteran fishing guide of more than 40 years and Outdoor News columnist who argues that existing regulations suffice, deeming a guide license excessive.

    Fishing Steve Carney says he’s opposed to creating a fishing guide license in Minnesota because he believes the industry is already regulated enough and that more is unnecessary. (Photo courtesy of Steve Carney)
    “Personally, I don’t like the idea,” Carney said. “Mainly because we’re so regulated already, I just hate to see more regulation on top of that.”

    Neustrom underscores the importance of training, suggesting that a guide license could reassure customers of a guide’s competence, including essential skills such as boat safety and medical preparedness.

    Additionally, Neustrom advocates for requiring guides to carry liability insurance to mitigate risks inherent in fishing expeditions.

    Carney acknowledges the necessity of liability insurance but contends that his extensive experience renders further training redundant.

    “You got to have (liability insurance) or you’re going to lose your house if you do something stupid,” Carney said. “So, liability insurance is really important and I would go along with you have to have liability insurance in order to guide.”

    Neustrom proposes that a guide license could mandate the submission of daily or weekly activity logs to the DNR, aiding the agency’s understanding of Minnesota’s water bodies.

    As for cost, some states in the Midwest vary in price for licenses. For example, Wisconsin residents pay $40, while nonresidents pay $100. Michigan has residents pay $150 and nonresidents $300.

    Neustrom said he thinks $100 per year for a guide license in Minnesota seems fair or within the $75 to $150 range. He added that if there’s more than 2,000 guides in the state at $100 per person, that’d be over $200,000 that could be stored in a separate fund and used for fisheries-related work.

    Those fisheries-related work opportunities include stocking, surveying, studies, or even hiring new staff that focus on fisheries work. Regardless, Neustrom believes it’s time for the DNR to make the move and implement a guide license to benefit fisheries in the future.

    “What we take from the resource every year, it’s well worth $100,” Neustrom said. “I mean, we take from the resource and we contribute our expertise on some situations, but I think $100 is not asking too much.”

    DNR perspective
    Brad Parsons, DNR Fisheries Section chief, said he’s intrigued in the guide license concept; however, the agency has yet to adopt an official stance.

    Parsons said he spoke with Michigan about the transition that state made to guide licenses, and there was conversation surrounding the complexity of regulations for the industry.

    Parsons highlights the potential benefits of guide licenses, particularly in enhancing the DNR’s knowledge of lakes and fish populations.

    “You know these (guides) are good at what they do,” Parsons said. “Their perspective is really useful. They’re on the water a lot and they talk to people, both in state and nonresidents, and getting that sort of feedback that can really help us.”

    He anticipates further discussions with stakeholders and plans to consult with counterparts in neighboring states. While the guide license debate has persisted for years, Neustrom urges decisive action to propel the initiative forward.

    carver
    West Metro
    Posts: 609
    #2274534

    Read this and don’t know what I feel about it yet. Note that I am a part time fishing guide, hold the proper liability insurance and also have it as an llc and even have my CPR training.

    I am for less government. Now the DNR doesn’t know what to do half the time but I can see this as another money grab by them to be used to put some bird feeders up or yet another study on wolves.

    Not sure who the guide is that is pushing this but there has to be a motive behind the push. We do not need any other regulations as we follow the same as other boater laws as well as game laws.

    Deuces
    Posts: 5232
    #2274535

    It would be interesting to see the total fish harvests by guides and their clients.

    License fees for stocking programs sounds about right. $100 seems on the low end….

    3Rivers
    Posts: 1088
    #2274543

    I feel like it should be one way or the other. In a lot of waters within MN State boundaries you ALREADY DO need a license (USCG), while you don’t on others. Over regulation is not the answer, but if a barber needs a license then a charter boat operator should probably too.
    Here’s the other thing though, a law is only as good as it’s enforced. No enforcement = meaningless law.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 11574
    #2274570

    Over regulation is not the answer, but if a barber needs a license then a charter boat operator should probably too.
    Here’s the other thing though, a law is only as good as it’s enforced. No enforcement = meaningless law.

    What good does requiring a barber to have a license do? I don’t think either needs to be licensed, insured should be sufficient.

    Not sure who the guide is that is pushing this but there has to be a motive behind the push.

    Tom Neustrom, who is one of the main guys with MN Fish, seem to be behind it. They likely want to increase revenue streams for the DNR, who seems intent on destroying their current revenue streams via overregulation and poor management, and then say they need new revenue streams because the current ones are declining.

    Riverrat
    Posts: 1516
    #2274572

    I’m for less government. Fishing can be dangerous though. Is a CPR certified and insured guide a guarantee? Around here there’s dozens of trucks with fading guide service stickers slapped on. They don’t advertise, and sometimes they are in business and sometimes not. Can the DNR regulate it properly. Probably not. They have a terrible information access system that never gets updated. I’ve never had a problem with any local guides stepping on my toes they know where the locals hang out. I’ve had more trouble with the fly fishing classes. So I guess I’m against this until something happens that makes me for it?

    Rodwork
    Farmington, MN
    Posts: 3975
    #2274580

    The one good thing about making a license to guide for fish is it will force guides to fill out surveys that can help with management. Continuing education is always beneficial.

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 11574
    #2274581

    The one good thing about making a license to guide for fish is it will force guides to fill out surveys that can help with management. Continuing education is always beneficial.

    Personally I think they should have an app for all anglers to report the bite, or lack thereof. It won’t be scientifically viable since there will be a lot of self selection (people who get skunked, don’t like to report), but it would provide a real world data point beyond their studies that have their own limitations.

    buckybadger
    Upper Midwest
    Posts: 8137
    #2274582

    Every dime should go towards something that most directly impacts the fisheries. Stocking and enforcement of regulations on the books (hire more COs). If a license fee goes towards anything else, I’m 100% against it.

    Rodwork
    Farmington, MN
    Posts: 3975
    #2274588

    Every dime should go towards something that most directly impacts the fisheries. Stocking and enforcement of regulations on the books (hire more COs). If a license fee goes towards anything else, I’m 100% against it.

    100% agree.
    It would be nice to see what lakes guides are using and how that may impact the resource.

    carver
    West Metro
    Posts: 609
    #2274589

    “ Our mission is to be a grassroots sportfishing, marine and angler advocacy network to give state anglers a voice in the state legislature and DNR on all fishing related issues.” – RON SCHARA

    I think they’re missing the mark with this topic. If they really wanted to be a voice, they should ask the group of people that impacting with the change they’re pushing.

    For the reporting of fishing, why is that important to some? (Serious question) I live on a lake that has done creel surveys every year on the water.

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6013
    #2274590

    Personally I think they should have an app for all anglers to report the bite, or lack thereof. It won’t be scientifically viable since there will be a lot of self selection (people who get skunked, don’t like to report), but it would provide a real world data point beyond their studies that have their own limitations.

    Big no-go on this one. Personally believe this is one of the major factors in bad harvest data on Mille Lacs. Anglers “over-estimating” their catch during creel surveys. This throws off the “hooking mortality” numbers. Basically bad data.

    -J.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 22564
    #2274592

    I think guides should be required to pay something since they are using a public resource to profit from. Sure, there are many guides who give back by stocking fish on their own dime, but many dont. Heck when Mille Lacs dried up most of those guides left for Red and they about killed some small panfish lakes around there due to overfishing.

    Karry Kyllo
    Posts: 1267
    #2274593

    Do guides think it’s fair that they make money charging clients fees to take fish from lakes and rivers in Minnesota that have been stocked and managed by taxpayer dollars without paying a license to do it? I know that I don’t and alot of weekend anglers like myself don’t.
    In my opinion $100/year for a guide license is a heck of a great deal. A $100 annual license fee will certainly not create much a revenue stream for the DNR and maybe it will cover costs.
    If guides don’t want to be regulated by the DNR another idea that I’ve heard tossed around is the requirement that licensed guides belong to a statewide association of guides of some sort that still requires an annual fee but it will allow guides to regulate themselves rather than have DNR involvement.
    If guides don’t want to be regulated by the DNR, the time is now to present the DNR with an alternative because it’s coming.

    carver
    West Metro
    Posts: 609
    #2274596

    Do guides think it’s fair that they make money charging clients fees to take fish from lakes and rivers in Minnesota that have been stocked and managed by taxpayer dollars without paying a license to do it? I know that I don’t and alot of weekend anglers like myself don’t.
    In my opinion $100/year for a guide license is a heck of a great deal. A $100 annual license fee will certainly not create much a revenue stream for the DNR and maybe it will cover costs.
    If guides don’t want to be regulated by the DNR another idea that I’ve heard tossed around is the requirement that licensed guides belong to a statewide association of guides of some sort that still requires an annual fee but it will allow guides to regulate themselves rather than have DNR involvement.
    If guides don’t want to be regulated by the DNR, the time is now to present the DNR with an alternative because it’s coming.

    Yes I think it’s fair. Do you think it’s fair that restaurants charge you for the food they’re serving you? I mean they have to pay for the building and employees, insurance, taxes…

    Just like me, I have to pay for the boat, maintenance, taxes, fuel, bait, tackle, rods, insurance… so what your saying here is if had my private lake I could charge whatever? But on a public lake I have to do it for free?

    Are you implying that just buy purchasing a fishing license does not cover the costs of the MN fisheries program?

    Greenhorn
    Bismarck, ND
    Posts: 598
    #2274598

    They going to require unionization too? jester

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 22564
    #2274599

    Do you think it’s fair that restaurants charge you for the food they’re serving you? I mean they have to pay for the building and employees, insurance, taxes…

    They are also required to be licensed by the state and have regular health inspections.

    3Rivers
    Posts: 1088
    #2274603

    Again, I’m not opposed to it, but the Devil will be in the details. Will this apply to shore fishing guides? Will this apply to bowfishing guides? Will this apply to only inland MN waters, or border waters, or USCG Fed jurisdiction waters? Will the guides need to pass a class? Will the guides be drug tested? Will the boats be inspected?

    Lots of things to consider

    munchy
    NULL
    Posts: 4929
    #2274604

    They going to require unionization too? jester

    Well they’re pretty much doing it for painting, may as well do it for everything else in this moron ran state.

    DaveB
    Inver Grove Heights MN
    Posts: 4465
    #2274606

    How do you define a guide? The devil is in the details.

    munchy
    NULL
    Posts: 4929
    #2274609

    How do you define a guide? The devil is in the details.

    Change a few words in the definition of prostitution.

    Fishing guide, the practice of engaging in relatively indiscriminate fishing activity, in general with someone who is not a spouse or a friend, in exchange for immediate payment in money or other valuables.

    Jon Jordan
    Keymaster
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 6013
    #2274612

    How do you define a guide? The devil is in the details.

    Thinking the same. Require a guide license and there would be a bunch of guys giving on the water fishing classes (lessons) for a fee.

    I’m not guiding, I’m giving a class. whistling

    -J.

    munchy
    NULL
    Posts: 4929
    #2274613

    Thinking the same. Require a guide license and there would be a bunch of guys giving on the water fishing classes (lessons) for a fee.

    I’m not guiding, I’m giving a class.

    Then they’ll say you need a teaching license…. smash

    Karry Kyllo
    Posts: 1267
    #2274623

    Yes I think it’s fair. Do you think it’s fair that restaurants charge you for the food they’re serving you? I mean they have to pay for the building and employees, insurance, taxes…

    Just like me, I have to pay for the boat, maintenance, taxes, fuel, bait, tackle, rods, insurance… so what your saying here is if had my private lake I could charge whatever? But on a public lake I have to do it for free?

    Are you implying that just buy purchasing a fishing license does not cover the costs of the MN fisheries program?

    The comparison of restaurants to guides isn’t a good one since they don’t use public resources to make a living.

    Some of my figures are certainly out of date and things change constantly but fishing license fees alone do NOT cover the cost of the DNR Fisheries Programs nor have they ever to my knowledge.

    The info below is directly from DNR sources.

    Fishing license revenues fund only 75 percent of fisheries’ $35 million annual budget. These dollars are used to manage 5,400 fishing lakes and 15,000 miles of rivers and streams.
    About 82 percent of that comes from the Game and Fish Fund, which is made up of license and stamp revenues and federal funds supplied to the state from excise taxes on hunting and fishing gear. The State Legislature appropriates money from the Game and Fish Fund to various DNR units, primarily the Division of Fish and Wildlife. The other major funding source for Fisheries (about 12%) is revenue generated by Minnesota State Lottery sales. The biggest slice of the Fisheries Section budget pays for lake and stream surveys and assessments. This work is the foundation of all fisheries activities. It includes fish population surveys and other inventories of chemical and biological information. Without this data, fish managers would lack the critical information on which to base prudent decisions. Other big expenditures include raising and stocking fish, improving habitat, and program support.

    In 2022-2023 for example, the DNR managed its budget across 50 funds. Of course this isn’t all delegated to fisheries but about 65% of the budget comes from the General Fund, the Game and Fish Fund, and the Natural Resources Fund. About 19% of the budget came from one-time appropriations from Legacy Funds and the Environment and Natural Resources Trust Fund.

    CaptainMusky
    Posts: 22564
    #2274627

    The one thing I think we can all agree on is if the government is involved they will screw it up and none of the money will go toward what it was originally intended.

    B-man
    Posts: 5787
    #2274787

    The one and only way to make any money off of this idea would be keeping it as simple as possible.

    Make it an add-on license through current system, just like buying a regular license.

    Anything more complicated or involving special committees, more paperwork, new state employees, etc will be a money pit and cost the state more money than the guide license revenue could ever produce.

    AK Guy
    Posts: 1380
    #2274841

    And this is how the DNR and the general public will know if you’re a legal or illegal guide. In Alaska, guides and captains are issued numbers and stickers to identify as commercial operators. New, different colored stickers are issued every year.

    Attachments:
    1. IMG_8888-scaled.jpeg

    B-man
    Posts: 5787
    #2274845

    With how efficient our government is those stickers would cost more than $100 to design, manufacture, assign/track and mail out….

    BigWerm
    SW Metro
    Posts: 11574
    #2274852

    With how efficient our government is those stickers would cost more than $100 to design, manufacture, assign/track and mail out….

    And then still wouldn’t be enforced.

    AK Guy
    Posts: 1380
    #2274858

    Very true with the cost and government. The Alaska guide license is $800. To help catch illegal guides, there’s a $5,000 reward for turning one in. That’s a pretty big carrot.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 37 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.