Walleye Stamp?

[Shack]

Quote:

I went golfing for the first time in 5 years this weekend. For 18 holes, half a cart, 2 bottles of Bud, and a half on a pizza it cost me $60!

Not to far in the future, that $18 is going to be $60.00 plus for a residential anglers lic... More so if there is a free showing of open pockets from the MN anglers as some are showing in this thread. It's kind of like a stay cat with our government, you feed it once it will come back and want more

Just you wait and mark my words. Give an inch, they will be asking for a mile

It is the American way

[TNFL]

No kidding, I just figure $5 for a whole year isn't hardly anything, and if it may mean catching 1 extra fish every time out, or whatever, it would be worth it.

As stated earlier, if your paying $50 a trip in gas, $ for bait per trip, new lures/tackle, etc, I wouldn't let $5 a year get your undies in a bunch.

If you go fishing 25 times in 1 year it is only a 20 cent increase per trip.

People hear the word TAX and blood starts to boil. But you should just chalk it up as a HOBBY based cost increase just like your gas, bait, lures, etc.

And try to enjoy your time on the water.

[TNFL]

Quote:

Not to far in the future, that $18 is going to be $60.00 plus for a residential anglers lic...

Don't be so paranoid..... the world is gonna end in 2012 anyways (MAYANS), so I doubt it will come to that.

Just relax and enjoy the time you have left.

[Grant Pearson]

No kidding, I just figure $5 for a whole year isn't hardly anything, and if it may mean catching 1 extra fish every time out, or whatever, it would be worth it.

As stated earlier, if your paying $50 a trip in gas, $ for bait per trip, new lures/tackle, etc, I wouldn't let $5 a year get your undies in a bunch.

If you go fishing 25 times in 1 year it is only a 20 cent increase per trip.

People hear the word TAX and blood starts to boil. But you should just chalk it up as a HOBBY based cost increase just like your gas, bait, lures, etc.

And try to enjoy your time on the water.

excellent points. With the amount of time spent walleye fishing and the number of trips walleye fishing, that $5 VOLUNTARY stamp really isn't that much. Plus, there's cranks for walleye fishing that top $5. Plus, right now, it's proposed, not actually here, and it's a Voluntary stamp.

[BRULEDRIFTER]

Quote:

I went golfing for the first time in 5 years this weekend. For 18 holes, half a cart, 2 bottles of Bud, and a half on a pizza it cost me $60!

Not to far in the future, that $18 is going to be $60.00 plus for a residential anglers lic...

The only way it'll come to that is because of lack of participation in the sport/no more revenue.

The one big thing reading all of these debates on this site that blows my mind is the INSANE PARANOIA I see from A LOT of people. WOW! Go fishing or something! ;D

On one end you give your undying love for your country, and praise it to no end; then on the other end it's complete slander and distrust towards the gov'ment.

Nothing will ever be perfect, and run as smooth as we would all like. Taxes and Fees will ALWAYS go UP! That's the way she rolls!

[Jameson]

Originally Posted By: Jameson

If that doesn't work, some sort of mandatory fee increase will be necessary to maintain our current fisheries.

...show me where the money is going first....

Here is a committee report showing that fishing has been taking money from hunting to support itself. The committee has recommended that to change. So..... if we wish to maintain our fisheries at the current level we need to contribute more to it than we have in the past.

[Grant Pearson]

thanks for posting that Jameson

[Jameson]

Your welcome. As I do more hunting than fishing it ticks me off a little. Just a little, though, because I still think I get a lot of enjoyment from my licenses, stamps, etc..for the dollar. In the end I am happy to pay what I do to hunt, and would be willing to pay a few more bucks to fish.

[Grant Pearson]

I still think I get a lot of enjoyment from my licenses, stamps, etc..for the dollar. In the end I am happy to pay what I do to hunt, and would be willing to pay a few more bucks to fish.

I'm not the only one!

[DTro]

I'll just go on the record and say that I would rather pay a one time fee to fish. Forget all the stamps and permits mumbo jumbo.

It seems as if the deer licensing has gone through a bunch of similar bumps and bruises and is coming back to a simpler format.

$50 annual fee wouldn't be unreasonable to me. Just forget all that other junk.....stamps, permits, etc.

Think of it a user fee.

[Black_Bay]

I'll repeat an earlier post of mine because it seems that some of it has been forgotten. The DNR DID NOT ask for a walleye stamp. One Senator came up with the idea as a way to recoup the money lost from the cheaper conservation license. I've been following the legislature for years, especially the natural resources issues, and one thing I've noticed is that the DNR does not ask for fee increases in their proposed legislation. Proposals always come from outside the department by individual legislators.

[croixflats]

I do have to admit when it comes to the government asking or even hinting on ways to get money I get paranoid. I am sorry for that. Its that right now it is hard to trust the government right now. And I'm talking all political parties involved. If you look back and see all the money that been shuffled around and all the service fees(taxes) that had been added to balance the budget. It gets me paranoid.

I would pay that 5 bucks in a heartbeat if I knew for sure they were taking money away from someplace else to pay for something else.

Sorry for the paranoia and the repededness, the pain killers for my shoulder just kiked in

[Sandmannd]

I'll repeat an earlier post of mine because it seems that some of it has been forgotten. The DNR DID NOT ask for a walleye stamp. One Senator came up with the idea as a way to recoup the money lost from the cheaper conservation license. I've been following the legislature for years, especially the natural resources issues, and one thing I've noticed is that the DNR does not ask for fee increases in their proposed legislation. Proposals always come from outside the department by individual legislators.

Still a fee or what not. Beside, where do you think the Senator's come up with some of these ideas? You don't think anyone from the DNR might be talking to them?

[LMITOUT]

I didn't hear the DNR refusing it either.

[Black_Bay]

[quote name='Sandmannd

Still a fee or what not. Beside' date=' where do you think the Senator's come up with some of these ideas? You don't think anyone from the DNR might be talking to them? [/quote']

He got his idea just like everyone here. He bought a fishing license. Doesn't that make everyone an expert. LOL

From what understand the DNR doesn't actively ask for fee increases but I'm sure there are hints given and they probably wouldn't turn one down. If my boss asked me if I wanted more money I know I wouldn't turn it down. Good think I never have to worry about him offering that.

[Jameson]

This is the conclusion from the committee report I linked to earlier.

Conclusion

For the eight year period beginning with FY 2000 and continuing thru FY 2007 (using

budget amounts for FY 2005 and later):

-The fund balance of the Game and Fish Fund increased.

-The fund balance increase resulted from a fishing deficit of $11,829,000 being

exceeded by hunting surplus of $17,681,000.

In short, fishing overspending for the eight years was covered by hunting underspending.

Fisheries has been supporting itself from taking funds from hunting license revenues. Fisheries just got a pay demotion and is now trying to recoup some funds. Fisheries is not asking for a raise, just trying to maintain current funding.

[croixflats]

did this report just confirm I was justified in my paranoia. Take away from one program to pay for another

By this report it also suggest they need more money. But do they?

Maybe they do that I dont know I just see money being shuffled around.

[Sandmannd]

Pretty much it Croixflats. Same old gov't game. We need more here so we'll move it cause it's easier to ask for more money from fisherman.

Same with property taxes. We need more money for the toilet seats so we'll move it from schools cause everyone loves to give money for schools.

[Grant Pearson]

I agree with you croixflats. But in fairness, if you have a "drinking budget" and a "diaper budget," and the diaper budget goes dry and you need more diapers, and your drinking budget has a surplus, what's wrong with taking out of the drinking budget to cover the diaper budget. I'm just using these as an example to try to illistrate my point.

[skee0025]

"what's wrong with taking out of the drinking budget to cover the diaper budget. I'm just using these as an example to try to illistrate my point." I think the point others are trying to make it that there is still 5,852,000 unused cash still in the budget and they have thier hand out for a "voluntary" contribution that will more than likely become mandatory after a short amount of time.

[croixflats]

Oh, Admitt to being a sceptic. You put it that way it sounds so inocent. Good anolgy kingfisher1, makes me think the subject it through, I wish I could get over this sceptic thing.