I am now on my second Ram 1500. previously I had only owned Chevy trucks and my wife came from a Ford only family. So the first one I bought, I was just hoping for the best.
Well, I must have very good luck with buying used Rams. First was 2011 that I drove until 2021, then bought 2017. Between the 2 trucks I have put just over 200,000 miles on them and outside of routine maintenance, I have had to only to put in 3 front drive axles($90 part and easy to put in) in the 2011, that truck did not like muddy forest roads. And a PCM in the 2011 ($900). 2017 has been issue free for the last 3 years. So, the Ram has cost me $117 each year over trouble free to drive. I will take that as win every time. Love my Rams.

Thank you all (especially Gary) for your time answering my questions. This has been a great thread.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

Does the DNR have notifications when they stock a lake or is that kept secret.

Not sure how timely they update it on Lakefinder. But you can see thier stocking number on lakefinder for each lake you look at.

Gary Barnard wrote:

Exactly. Walleye stocking is a management tool, just like harvest regulations, to be used where and when useful and necessary.

Gary, to be clear, is your stance to leave the limit at 6 statewide?

In your experience, what do you feel would be the Maximum number of walleyes for a daily/possession limit statewide, that would not impact fisheries? loaded question I know. But individual lake regulations would be near impossible to implement do to the fact we just survey lakes every 4 years or longer for most lakes. Monitoring all the lakes more often is not feasible at this time.

I do have concerns for many lakes that are smaller in size, some you may know well that I fish every year. I have seen the increase in boat numbers over the years and I see more and more fish being taken out every year. But I can certainly understand if we are still well within our harvestable surplus. I just hope we wouldn’t wait until we have to make reactionary changes. Your thoughts are very appreciated.

Gary, I certainly will not get into an argument with a guy with 43 years of experience. But please help me understand why our large, most productive lakes in MN have all been converted to 4(ish) or less limit?
Common themes have been population declines, do too overharvest, poor reproduction, lake chemistry changes, or imbalance of size structure. Now if this can happen on our 40-100+ thousand acres lakes, what is happening on our smaller walleye lakes? It takes a lot less harvest on a 800 acre lake to have an impact than on a 40,0000 acres. at 1 walleye per acre a of 4 person, 6 fish limits, is a harvest of 3% (.03) of the population(800 ac) vs 6/1000th of a 1% (.ooo6)(40,000 ac). Of course angler effort is different, I dont want to venture a guess on hrs/per acre angler effort. But simply, the majority of our walleye lakes are smaller in size and may be more prone to overharvest.

Stocked lakes that are essentially put and take lakes due to no natural reproduction, are a different bird. The DNR fisheries probably have most of those lake figured out on what stocking numbers need to be to sustain a long-term fishable population, that is with a 6 fish limit. is there possibly concern that with how effective anglers are today that those stocking levels will need to increase to make up for the increase in harvest? That will cost more money that we all know is in short supply for our DNR programs.

Wildlifeguy wrote:

Sure, I’ll just cancel all other activities they might have going on, increase that lodging cost and call it a day. It appears you missed the point of the rest if what I said. Basing policy on the case use of people who fish only for trophies, or tournamments, means ignoring the preference of what, 75%-85% percent of the fishing public, who does NOT have the ability to fish whenever they would like, aren’t wanting to spend weeks “patterning the bite” or anything but trying to go enjoy the outdoors in the little time they have, and hopefully bringing home a treat to enjoy for their efforts. It smacks of elitism from those who really don’t seem to want anyone but themselves able to enjoy the resource. As to how many fish is enough, get yourself some growing teenage boys and see how long those 8 filets last.

Wildlifeguy, in no way was I trying to attack you or your situation! I am just now graduating my youngest. I totally understand how having kids in activities spring, summer, fall, and winter cut into ones fishing time. However, at no time in the last 21 years, have I felt slighted by only being able to keep 4 walleyes on the bigger lakes that already have the regulation. When we go on vacation we limit ourselves to 2 walleyes a person and only panfish that are deep hooked for our fish fry. Most years we can catch more than 2 a person, but usually not 6 per. why do we limit ourselves? because we dont need to max out limit and then limit our enjoyment on other days.

I would guess, if it goes to 4, you will not even notice it.

Maybe I have misunderstood your stance Karry. I agree we have some of the best biologists in the nation.
Are our biologists against the regulation change?
Is this just a bureaucratic decision? because this is a DNR decision and they seem to have made it.

Wildlifeguy, I can appreciate your stance. You’re not wrong in legally possessing your catch to feed your family. But will that extra 2 fish effect your meal plan? I mean this in, if you go fish by yourself do you bring 6 home each time? if so, maybe bring one of your kids, your wife, or all of them and bring 4 for each of them home. Typically 4 walleyes (8 fillets) is more than enough for 1 person, usually 2 people.

So your argument is, that limits should be set at the highest level, until it has negative repercussions?

Do you think the efficacy of anglers is not increasing?
Our seasons changing has no effect on reproduction going forward?
Livescope, side imaging, and Accurate GPS maps are not putting more stress on walleye populations?

What is the negative impact of 4 VS 6?

Some of you need to realize that the current 6 fish limit was not founded on any “science”. Just like a closed(no fishing allowed) walleye season is not science either.

The change to a 4 fish limit will not affect most anglers. There are some whom feel this a pro-active movement do to the every increasing efficiency for todays anglers. Today electronics, mapping, and improved gear are increasing catch rates. 4 fish for a 1 meal is quiet plenty for 1 person, if you have other house members gift them todays limit and go catch another limit for yourself tomorrow.

at the end of the day you can still catch as many as you want.

Maybe it will have a positive effect. But it will not have a negative effect.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Anyfish2 wrote:</div>
On the lakes I have been on I have seem 9-12 inches in central/north central Mn. Most spots are a solid 10-11. This was pre rain after Christmas.
In my local area, Lincoln lakes area, 9-11 inches is common but the areas around Anchor North restaurant (Castaway) froze very oddly this year and I have not felt it safe enough to go out of yet. use caution if checking. and up until at least Christmas the was “large” area of open water to the west of Big island on Fishtrap lake. The area I was on still had a good 10 inches of ice.

Your talking my old stomping grounds. I grew up in Staples and fished all those lakes a ton. Not many even remember the old Castaway club. I always had a hard time understanding why that place never did better. Great location and nice place. I often stop there for a meal while fishing the lake. I use to do real well on Crappies out in front and a little west of the castaway.

Castway area has been my go to icefishing area for 20+ years. But with the aerators and a kid in hockey my time has been limited.

On the lakes I have been on I have seem 9-12 inches in central/north central Mn. Most spots are a solid 10-11. This was pre rain after Christmas.
In my local area, Lincoln lakes area, 9-11 inches is common but the areas around Anchor North restaurant (Castaway) froze very oddly this year and I have not felt it safe enough to go out of yet. use caution if checking. and up until at least Christmas the was “large” area of open water to the west of Big island on Fishtrap lake. The area I was on still had a good 10 inches of ice.

Joe as a parent of a goaltender, I feel I am well versed in the construction of a goalie helmet. Yes the back plate is not as stout as the rest of the helmet. However, that back plate should never be the direct locsation of a shot. A goaltender would need to be looking straight away from the puck. The current helmets extent well past the back plate.

Now shots that hit any goaltender in the helmet, anywhere, especially at the pro level is going to leave some level of discomfort. It doesn’t matter if it is in the cage, ear hole or the top of the helmet, it hurts.
Shots from behind the goal line, intended to deflect off of the goalie are usually not the hardest shots, either. From what I have seen.

Plus, todays style of play by goalies creates the likely contact to helmets due to always being in the butterfly.

B-Man I use powerBelts in 245 gr.

They seal great in the barrel, shoot very well out of my optima, put deer down quickly, but… i have never been happy with the blood trail. Everyone could have been a difficult track if not for them falling over well within sight and under 60 yds.

so, I like them a lot, but be prepared for harder tracking.

Randy Wieland wrote:

There are ~17,300 parcels of property in Wabasha County of all different shapes and sizes.

Would be interesting to see how many residential properties, commercial properties, recreational, and ag use acres that equates to. Take the equation away of house value and pay flat rate on the land.

Quick google search says that Waubasha County is 523 square miles of land. 27,878,400 x 523 = 14,580,403,200.- thats about $0.001166 per sqft of land for tax

Alright, so by this plan or logic this is the tax responsibility.

A 1 acre property would owe $50.80
A 40 acre property would owe $2,031
a 200 acre property would owe $10,158
so and so forth.

By this logic we want our owners agricultural, and wild spaces to carry the bulk of the tax burden. Even though 1-4 people live on this acreage and use the same infastructure as the person(S) living on 1 Acre property, or in a city lot, of smaller size. I see the fairness here… and I don’t also.

How would we tax a 3 acre apartment complex? Just $150 bucks? Rent should be dirt cheap right?

I fear this would result in the fragmentation of our ag lands and wild lands and further speed up sprawl.

BigWerm wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TheFamousGrouse wrote:</div>
The problem with “government spending” is what are they spending all that money on? Well, it’s…this is awkward…it’s us.

C’mon Grouse, you know that’s not what the problem is. Most people on both sides of the aisle are ok with spending on “us”, the problem is the fraud, corruption and inefficiencies before it reaches “us”. It’s $250M+ Feeding our Future fraud, a blank checkbook ($8B, still TBD years and counting) for Southwest Light rail, $100M+ Child Care Assistance Program Fraud, $18.5M for a Loon Center, $10k for a Dungeons & Dragons podcast, it’s $16M annually for 173 DEI positions in the Walz administration, it’s all the misappropriated COVID funds, it’s a $7.2M Goose Creek rest stop, it’s $1M+ DEI positions in just my local school district alone while 1/3rd of students can’t read/write at grade level and all the teachers say they need more student facing staff, or spending $18B surplus on “us” that has us headed for a $5B deficit. And these are just the one’s recently in MN. You just start adding 0’s to the frequency and severity once you get to the Federal Level.

I believe everything you just put down is at the STATE level. This has NOTHING to do with your property tax.

That would be your income and state sales tax paying for all that.

Not to say there isn’t waste locally as well. But if you or me are not at local meetings making our voice heard, it just complaining to complain.

Bucky, I think we all understand your prespective. The problem is, like so much in government, change happens slowly. A(n) important part to this is there must be solution to the current problem.
Do you have a solution? Or a different/better why applying property tax?

Or rather, how do we fund our local governments and schools?

MN property tax is progressive, meaning higher valued properties pay a larger share of the tax base. $600,000 will pay more than a $100,000 home, due to homestead exclusions and more. Agricultural homestead properties pay at a rate half of that as residential properties.

There lots of things I would like to see happen. Like I would like to see a cap on taxes for our neighbors that are over 60. But that means those of us under the age of 60 would pick up the burden of the taxes that they would no longer pay. That is a burden I would except, but many other would not.

At the end of the day, our property taxes are what the local governments and schools levy. Be it $1 or $1 billion dollars. They question is how to you feel the fairest and most equitable way is to divide that burden amongst the residents of your county?

I am sure there are some great ideas out there, they have to be shared with our representatives and get passed in our STATE legislature for any meaningful change to happen.

supercat wrote:

I understand property values going up and taxes to follow but what happens when property values go down such as 2008. The taxes did not go down the following years but stayed the same. In buisness if sales are down you have to make changes in spending to account for this in goverment you just keep spending. If your going to increase in good times you have to decrease during bad. Many people did not recieve any wage increase during those times but public employees still got cost of living increase.

You got thinking about how values and tax acted so I looked back at my records.
In for the 2008 assessment my home value was $124,100 with a tax of $938. For the 2009 assessment (post housing crash) my home value was $113,300 with a tax of $824. That is 8.7% decrease in value and a 12.1% decrease in tax in response to the housing market. unfortunately i do not information on any levy amounts to see what they did as well.

All from 2008 to 2025 proposed my taxes have increased from $938 to $1484 while my value has increase from $124,100 to $215,000.

Some of you all need to start looking at what places are selling for! Then look at your assessed values and compare. In my county in central Mn we are seeing rec land(hunting) selling for 5 grand an acre and some tillable selling for 8-10 grand. A person doesnt get much for $200,000.
As a personal example, my home is currently valued by the County at 215,000 seems high. Then a bout 2 months ago a get one of those silly letters for a real estate group asking to buy our home. Always funny to look at how little they offer! Right? Well for the first time ever, they offered $290,000. If I this would have been a local realtor offering I would have sold in minute.

Now, I don’t like to pay taxes either. However, have you all noticed how expensive everything has gotten the past 5 years? What percentage everything has gone up? do you think it our counties, city or school haven’t seen the same increases in cost to operate? I am sure it has!

My suggestion is to go to your local government meetings ALL year long, and voice your concerns when they discuss budgeting. Waiting until truth in taxation notices go out is too late. And pay attention to the Valuation notices you receive in March or April. If you disagree with the valuation, call your assessors office, and ask about it. In my experience they have the data to share with you on why it is valued what it is valued.

Reminton Core-lok in 150 grain 270, 130 gr 30-30 and i forget the grain of the 243 (96??). Have liked how Hornady lever revolution have performed in the 30-30. but have not hunted with them yet.

Grim, I didn’t doubt you. I just didn’t look to know it as fact.
I have no problems with tournament organizations banning or restricting FFS. Tournaments shouldn’t be an arms race of electronics.

However, as a person that has a signal FFS transducer on the boat, my son is good with it, but there are many that really have it “figured out”. I respect that they are able to see and use it so much better than many. it is still fishing, just a different style. A style this 46 year old probably never will conform to.

tswoboda wrote:

I love that he didn’t even give them a quote. That guy’s gotten so beat up on social media over the last few years, it’s gross. Just keeps putting record fish in the boat while the haters keep hating from their parents’ basements

Right! Funny he holds the C&R record, new Crappie record as well if I remember right, and if it is true he was part of the reason PMTT banned it, he clearly has SKILL using the technology than most. If FFS was so easy why are others not doing the same thing. A ton of people have FFS now and very few can use it like him.

Now congrates to the angler for catching a rock solid 54″ and jumping through all hoops qualify for the IGFA world record.

214, northern Todd County

Friday Morning rant.
This defense is exposed! The middle of the field is wide open, and our DBs can’t cover when we blitz. Plus the blitz is not getting home. Flores has not adjusted well. The one interception we had was just a badly thrown ball. if it is not over thrown, the receiver was open by 5 yds. Pace looks lost, deviates from his assignment way to much. Oh, did I mention our DBs are not good or average. they do not have closing burst for our “umbrella” defense.

Offense, well it hasn’t been great all year, effective but not great. Darnold is late on a lot of throws, more so as the season has gone on. Pass protection has been pretty good, but our run blocking is below average. O’Connell is a bit too aggressive in my opinion as well. We all like explosive plays, for petes sake, can we use a little ball control passing of say 5-8 yards for parts of the game? Why do we pass 10+ yds on slow developing play so much. And to the boundries so often. Use the middle of the field. It worked the first 2 drives, then it gets abandoned. O’Connell out coaches himself sometimes. Screens seem to work for this team. We use it once last night.
We have good pieces, and we where always going to lose some games, but we look like team the pundits said we were last night.

My personal opinions are that I am ok with the youth season. But I fail to see the positives of the early antlerless.

Early antlerless is clearly used to lower populations in area deemed to have a high surplus of deer. The problem I have is there is limited participation throughout our area. However, there are some groups that really hit it hard. I am not sure it truly adds to the antlerless harvest in end.

The youth season I do think is a good way to introduce hunting to our young kids. However, 16 and 17 year olds are now driving themselves and or buddies out to hunt, with limited to no adult supervision. These kids are just getting more hunting time, they’re more than likely long term hunters already, one that will hunt both seasons anyway, they no longer “need” the extra time to be recruited.
Plus, with the change to early antlerless and youth season being the same dates, some kids are again an afterthought, instead of having the entire focus on their development and success.

I have a 32, I really have never got it to by ultra crisp. However, in some lakes need to turn up gain like near 70, turn off the interference setting, and play with the color palette, some colors just seem better in some types of water. As always try to keep you screens depth setting twice what the water depth is. Example, in 15 ft of water the depth setting should be 30ft.

orve4 wrote:

Zone 214 we are up to 3 deer from 2. From scouting and the looks of our corn there are going to be lots of opportunity for Harvest. Last year it seemed deer numbers were a bit down from previous years but still plenty of deer. We hunt near The wadena/Bertha area.

Anyone else hunt that area?

I own an 80 and do most of my hunting in 214 as well. If I am not mistaken, we have been 3 or 5 deer for as long as I can remember. Not that it mattered last year. We had very few sightings of deer during Bow and rifle seasons, although last summer it seemed there were good numbers of deer. I hope they just hid well and will be in good numbers this Fall.
Trail cams have regular activity, and more pictures as we get closer to season which is good. We have another pretty good red and pin oak crop of acorns again this year, so we will see how that shakes things up.

Had this same thought and conversaiton today…are both the drotto and steps “needed”. I understand one could say neither are needed. The drotto with a roller trailer is a no-brainer for me. The steps would be great when the boat is trailered, when else?

I have the Drotto on my trailer, and love it, I would put on any boat I would by in the future. I do not yet have steps, however, many of my fishing companions do. I do feel I would love to have them. it is much easier and safer than climbing over the gunwale of the boat. it will be a purchase for me in the coming year/years.

I suggest as others have alluded to NOT keep yourself to the south 3rd of the lake. There are bass all around the lake. Fish the calm side if the winds pick up. There is currently a good shallow bite with chatterbaits going right now, less than 8ft water. There is also a boulder bite in 14-22ft. The smallmouth bite will pick up in the coming weeks. Cool to cold fronts actually make the bite better for smallmouth this time of year. In a couple of weeks if the water temps fall to the mid 60’s to upper sixties look for bass move a bite shallower 8-12 ft and dont overlook the main lake weed edges, thinking northwest and west bays here. Swimbaits and live suckers and redtails will fire up large fish starting about when you arrive there. Dropshots should always be rigged up and jerkbaits should play as well.

Trailer steps, Drotto latch, and maybe overkill on a crossover?, but now that i have a hotfoot in the boat it would be hard to not have it.

buckybadger wrote:

Property tax refunds and how the homestead break are applied is such a scam.

If you pay in more for taxes on a higher valued property, you are ineligible for the homestead exclusion also after a certain random value.

Some stupid politicians draw a line in the sand in Minnesota with arbitrary numbers to decide who should get property tax breaks, and who shouldn’t.

What if instead of a break for some and not others, we just lowered everyone’s property taxes on single family homes a small amount with the same net impact? Heaven forbid Minnefornia would consider something logical or fair.

Just some additional info for you all. For Taxes payable in 2024 the Homestead exclusion was caculated as 40% reduction in market value up to $76,000, or $30,400 of exclusion, the exclusion less declines as the market value increased to $413,800. At this point NO exclusion is given on the estimated market value.
For taxes payable in 2025, the state legislature adjusted the baseline values, max exclusion is $38000 at $95,000 of estimated market value, and the upper value limit was increased to $517,200, at which point no exclusion is given.

The problem with property taxes, is they are used to fund our local governments, and schools. Outside of Commercial or seasonal property, the state does not have a hand in those taxes.
So to lower our property taxes, residents need to be involved in their lake improvment districts, township, city, county and local school districts planning and budgeting. This is done by attending meetings and letting your voice heard. The local levies are what you are paying for with your property taxes.
The tough thing is, if levies are not lowered, but more homesteads are granted, more exemptions or special programs are enrolled in, that tax that those individuals/property owners save, is then just picked up by the rest of the taxpayers.