2009 voluntary $5 walleye stamp

[Rippinlip]

If a bill would stand alone to be voted on then fine.

But the problem here with most bills that are pushed is there is so many add-ons to them we really do not know where the money will be going.

Just a little soap box speech for ya here.

Look at the prices of tobacco, there was a bill saying they were going to raise the taxes to help lower or lessen the price of health care in the state of minnesota, but I will tell you one thing, my premiums or co-pays did not go down, by the time every one got there little cut for this and that there was no money left for the initial plan of the money.

Further more what did the state start to B*%^$ about right away, "so many people have quit that the gain they were expecting in taxes all went by the way side".

Sorry to vent but all these fees are getting sickening.

There is another reason why we are losing our younger generation interest in the outdoors, it plains cost too much.

[norwall]

Lets start a FM revolt to the capital n voice our opinion ? I think I can round up a RV for us . Who's in ?

[7outof10]

revolt for ? .......

[7outof10]

the money has to be spent on restocking walleyes

[Team Otter]

but is the DNR really managing it's funds properly???? I think that part of every sportsman wants to help with fish, wildlife, and habitat, but maybe since the DNR improperly used $300,000 in state money to put on a conference, they don't deserve the support of us.

BINGO. Their shoe strings should be much tigther knowing full well that they only have 1.3% of the state's budget to work with. Like I said earlier this week within this thread, if you would have watched the most recent episode of MN Bound much of this would be clearer than it is.

[norwall]

On a sidenote a fellow approached me wit the ? of what I thought about the vote yes clean water amendment coming up Nov 4. I could tell he wasn't for it n told me they wanted to take 5 bucks a wk out in every1's taxes. I set him straight n broke it down 4 him. that it sales n use tax that would start July 1 2009 til 2034 n its 3/8 of 1%. That said, I think it got thru 2 him. VOTE Yes Nov 4th

[Team Otter]

The 3/8 of 1% is not entirely true either. For some communities, yes, but not for all. I believe some communities may be taxed as high as 8% if this amendent passes. Much more detail/information can be obtained from the MN Taxpayer's League...

I voted YES but am second-guessing it as we speak.

[norwall]

I dont think ron schara n bud grant would approve of your 2nd guessing......lol

[harvey lee]

Just another $300,000,000 tax. We have enough taxes to pay for at this time. Yes, thats the correct amount of zero's. I would like to keep some of my pay.

[kobear]

Yes 3/8th's of 1% is all it can be. Not 8% as Taxpayers League would claim.

If a few (3?) metro counties enacted every tax authorized (cigarette,gas,lodging,stadium surcharge) they would be at 8% sales tax instead of the 6.something% they are at now, don't let them muddy the waters so easily.

I'm amazed how the Fishing Minnesota ADMIN supports a unsustainable activity like ever increasing stocking into ever degrading waters. As more lakes become degraded and can't support walleye spawning activities what do we do? You do know that the research shows $10 spent on fingerling stocking for each fish harvested?

Small privately raised fingerlings are $1 a piece or more and survival to harvest is 10% in good years and less than 1% in bad years.

Google: Transcations of the American Fisheries Society Contribution of Native and Stocked Walleye Fingerlings to the Anglers' Catch, Escanaba Lake, Wisconsin

Any of you have any research? Real facts anyone?

Let's see $5 and I get 1/2 a walleye to harvest is that a good deal? Or we improve water quality and the walleyes reproduce THEMSELVES! Instead of $5 this year and more every year forever as advocated by some on this site I propose $50 a year for 25 years to acheive self sustaining walleyes wherever possible. $5 for walleyes now you know where it would go (private pockets) AND what it gets 1/2 a fish!

[thompsonz28]

Harvey Lee, keep some of your pay, it's a sales tax. If you want to keep some of your pay put it into a savings account. 3/8 of 1% which equals 37.5 cents more than you already pay per $100 dollars spent. If you buy a fishing rod priced at $100 after tax currently it would be $106.50, with the proposed amendment it would cost 106.875 rounded up to 106.88. I'd rather pay a tax that is going to at least in part benefit the outdoors we all love, than pay a tax that our elected officials put on us without any choice.

[MN Shutterbug]

And, if you don't buy anything, it won't cost you anything.

[hamrej23]

I am buying it to do my part as a minnesotan to try to maintain our waters for younger generations of whom fish walleyes.

[harvey lee]

It may not be an income tax but it is another tax. One is always purchasing something and will end up with another tax. I am saying this as one person and I surely do not represent the Admin of Fishing Minnesota.

My opinion only.

I am fine with anyone going along with this, I just choose not to.

[JBMasterAngler]

Isn't the DNR beginning to experiment with fryling (bigger than fry, smaller than fingerling) stocking? I thought it had been done on a few lakes with pretty good success. Seems like a good idea...cheaper than stocking fingerlings and a better survival rate than fry.

[smnduck]

This is not directed at any one person so do not take it personaly. It is really hard to understand the greed of taking from a damaged and in need of repair natural resources we have and not feel compelled to give an enourmous amount more.

Some people will claim that money was mispent by the DNR at the "conference" by a bad apple or 2. How many private companies have done far worse deeds. I am not saying what they did was right but to use that as a reason not to support something of the magnitude of the 3/8th sales tax increase for the enviroment is shallow thinking at best.

The sales tax is a platform to fund improvements to all of our natural resources, which like it or not are all connected. The arts part is hard to swallow but to get it to be on the ballot it was needed. Here is a chance for the state of Minnesota to finally to fund what should have been done decades ago. Our politicians no matter what party will always cut the DNR fund first.

If you believe anything the taxpayers league says than maybe you should have been watching a bridge in the twin cities a year ago last fall when they said our transportation is over funded.

When you look at the scope of costs the lottery funds are minescule compared to the amount that is needed.

A 5$ stamp would be great if it can be put on to walleye stocking only.

[KTapper]

Im all for cleaning up lakes and rivers but this bill is unecessary. Check out the link

http://www.taxpayersleague.org/component/content/article/245-vote-no-on-the-const-amend.html

[harvey lee]

There is no reason that the state cannot pass a bill without the add ons. If they need to add a arts package to the bill to have it pass then I do believe that the bill could not stand on its own. I don't believe that this is simple thinking on my part at all as I'm tired of the normal garbage they try to pull all the time. They must believe we are total dummy's.

I realize that is how our goverment works but at some time, we all need to stand up and no say to these bills with added items.

[CrappiesNCats]

It's kind of a tough one, all of us replying here are all avid sportsmen, and we would all love to see more fish in our lakes, but when the DNR has to beg for $5 I think it's a shame. It's not like any of us out here couldn't afford it, but is the DNR really managing it's funds properly???? I think that part of every sportsman wants to help with fish, wildlife, and habitat, but maybe since the DNR improperly used $300,000 in state money to put on a conference, they don't deserve the support of us.

time out. misinformation abounds. that money wasn't wasted by the "DNR". That money was improperly used by ENFORCEMENT, not the "DNR". True, its a portion of the DNR, but the term is used so terribly, that people need to realize the several different divisions of the DNR. Did Eco Services misuse it?Parks?Fisheries?Wildlife?Non-game, etc....? DIvision of Enforcement needs to admit mistake on that, NOT the "DNR"

[Team Otter]

Self-sustaining walleyes will not survive in a lake that can not support natural reproduction.

How do we know the stocking efforts are concentrated where they should be and how have they (i.e. DNR) made it work to this point without an additional $5 from each person interested in donating?

[norwall]

define "wasted " crapeyes n cat. you def may vary from some1 elses as it seems you are trying to defend the dnr?... hmmmmmm

[CrappiesNCats]

define "wasted " crapeyes n cat. you def may vary from some1 elses as it seems you are trying to defend the dnr?... hmmmmmm

huh? i'm not defending anyone. what i'm saying is that its ridiculous that the DNR is lumped into one category. Its not. Thats fact, not opinion. Parks/Eco Services/Wildlife/Fisheries/Lands and Minerals/Non-Game/HR have NOTHING to do with the poor decisions made by the ENFORCEMENT DIVISION. The DNR shouldn't take the hit for a single divisions error. But so many Minnesotan's like to ridiculously lump them all together.

for instance the "DNR" shouldn't hardly be mentioned in these forums unless being hyphenated with either "Fisheries" or perhaps "Wildlife".

[CrappiesNCats]

Self-sustaining walleyes will not survive in a lake that can not support natural reproduction.

How do we know the stocking efforts are concentrated where they should be and how have they (i.e. DNR) made it work to this point without an additional $5 from each person interested in donating?

you mean DNR-Fisheries?

agree, what is the extra 5 bucks really for? i wonder since they've been doing a really good job without it so far.

[7outof10]

The 3/8 of 1% is not entirely true either. For some communities, yes, but not for all. I believe some communities may be taxed as high as 8% if this amendent passes. Much more detail/information can be obtained from the MN Taxpayer's League...

I voted YES but am second-guessing it as we speak.

but what you have to watch with them is they leading the way to stop the amendent ...... they are the puting up a lot of the money to stop it .... so i might not trust what they are saying ......

[morefishplease]

crappiesNCats, I'm not sure misinformation was abound as this is the info I have. The legislative audit, which was released in August, critized the DNR for implicit authorization for fund-raising activities that led to violation of state conflict-of-interest laws. There have been a number of legislative hearings related to the conference, and some lawmakers say others in the DNR should be held accountable. "All of these decisions were approved in the commissioner's office," said Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul. Rep. Rick Hansen, DFL-South St. Paul, said "I think we have a pretty good understanding that there were problems with this conference and that the overall management of the DNR in regard to this was very sloppy."

[CrappiesNCats]

morefish, i apologize for misusing a word. your post was full of good information, but i meant "misgeneralization" instead of "misinformation". i am just as upset that such a huge amount of money was misused as everyone else, i just wanted to clear up the language

anyway thats just another sad example of my point. lawmakers are just as clueless as everyone else. it goes back to my point. every one of those quotes misrepresents the organization. it has nothing to do with the DNR as a whole.

think of it as this: The Twins/Vikes/Gopher Footbal all play in the metrodome. It would be like Pat and Kevin Williams get busted for illegal substances and the news comes out and minnesotan citizens boycott Twins games and talk bad about the Gopher Football team as a result, when only the Vikings should have to answer.

anyway i digress and have helped lead the topic off-topic. for that i apologize.

[Hookey]

Crappies,

I understand where you are coming from when you try to seperate fisheries from the rest of the DNR but the concern or maybe question I have is that the donation still needs to filter through the DNR's bank account before a single fry is purchased by the fisheries correct ?

I do not have much faith in the present process of the distribution of Taxes or Donations and I think that is what many here are trying to say. It is not the person who dumps the fry into the lake we do not trust.

I do believe in purchasing power, let the Sportsmen write the check directly to private supplier to purchase the Fry and you will see donations increase. For those who do not think Fry survive they can donate towards Fingerlings.

The intent is good but those handling the money do not produce the results.

[7outof10]

hookey i think you are right on

[Hookey]

Think of it this way.

I send my son Tommy to the store with a Hundred dollar bill to buy exactly One Gallon of Milk. Tommy returns with one quart.

He spent the rest of the money but does not know where.

I still need 3 Quarts to make the Soup.

Do I punish him , Go get the milk myself, hire someone else to go get the milk or Assume a quart of milk costs One Hundred dollars and hand him three hundred dollars and send him back to the store.

This is very simplistic but if you understand we are getting a 25% return on the dollar from Tommy maybe we should send him to buy the Fry ?

[Team Otter]

I'm just going to break away for a second and let you all know how much I, personally, appreciate your respect for one another within this discussion. Sure, at times, it has become a touch heated but I don't think we can avoid that with this topic. Thank you for keeping this civil. There is a lot of good information here.