Veto puts brakes on fish, game changes

[onpoint]

Veto puts brakes on fish, game changes

The governor contends the Legislature overreached with its sweeping outdoors directive.

By DOUG SMITH, Star Tribune
Last update: May 25, 2010 - 9:52 PM

There will be no two-line fishing in the summer. No free fishing for 16- and 17-year-olds. No early duck season or special hunter access program, for now.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a wide-ranging game and fish bill on Tuesday that contained numerous controversial items, including special regulations on Fish Lake Reservoir near Duluth, where a state senator who pushed for the measure has a cabin.

The bill would have allowed open-water anglers to use two fishing lines and would have created a hunter access program that would have paid landowners to allow public hunting.

For more: http://www.startribune.com/politics...yaiUgOahccyiUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUs

 

[moellermd]

Good. Now MN will not take more of my money. I am sure that I would have had to pay the extra for two lines. It's a SD thing.

 

[birdshooter]

Typical Minnesota DNR. Shoot down ideas of others when an attempt is made to better the opportunities for sportsman, yet offer nothing return.

Yes, this bill was probably not perfect and maybe it should not have contained so many items, but at least some were trying to get the ball rolling.

My interest was with the Walk-in pilot and I can't believe the DNR is against this. And if they aren't totally against a program, why can't they come up with a plan they think will work. All you have to do is take a look to our neighbors to the west and see how successful it is. With the number of hunters per capita in Mn, you can't have enough public hunting access.

 

[tmrichardson]

deleted deleted

 

[tmrichardson]

deleted deleted

 

[birdshooter]

Typical "blame the DNR" retort is what I see here.

Don't you guys read the papers or check out news on the internet at all?

The Governor, not the DNR--veto's bills, first of all.

Second, large #'s of news articles and opinions have been written about how bad a bill this was. Dennis Anderson himself wrote a piece on this and personally urged the governor to veto it. Outdoor News--the biggest hunting/fishing newspaper in the state--was all over it bashing how bad the bill was.

Third, Senator Chaudhary's unethical actions in regards to the bill have him the source of multiple news stories all over the state--none of them good!

Fourth, the governor directed the DNR to continue working on walk-in program progress, so neither of them can be said (with any truth) to be against that idea. Both have been proponents of trying it. There are some questions (themselves with multiple news stories) about whether it will work in MN as well as it has further west--but there is support for trying it out. Where the money will come from since the two line license hike (itself a VERY bad idea) was axed with the veto is still a good question though. It would seem to be dead in the water until the next legislative session.

New money has to be found for this to work with the federal matching funds. In this economy, where would you propose those funds (1.4 million were budgeted for it in the bill that was vetoed) come from?

I agree that some or part of that bill should not have been in there. My interest is soley with the walk-in pilot.

As far as the Tpaw's veto, DNR Chief Holsten personally made a recommendation to TPaw to veto the bill. Now TPaw is free do do as he see's fit, but as I see it, he's certainly going to weigh heavily on his DNR Chief's recommendation on these type of matters.

Look.... As far as the Walk-in pilot is concerned, there needs to be some creative measures put forth to figure out how to fund it. Would a survey to Hunters on increasing license fee's be worth a shot? i thought I heard some response as to the walk-in pilot and whether or not it would undermine the current WMA system. I think for the walk-in pilot to work it has to be quality land (CRP etc..) that has the capability of maintaining wildlife (Pheasants in particular). There are many WMA's in the Minnesota's Pheasant belt that are poor at best for maintaining a pheasant population. So if your not going to except a Walk-in program, use the extra money from say a license surcharge to fund the habitat improvements on what we already have.

 

[onpoint]

Quote
" Typical "blame the DNR" retort is what I see here.

Don't you guys read the papers or check out news on the internet at all?"

____________________________--

I don't need someone tell me how I should think. I can think and reason for myself. Why even have us vote? If our ideas, wants and needs have to be dictated to us. The DNR and this governor has all been about sacrifice instead of reward. We always are to pay more and take less. Our states stocking program has been cut to near nothing. It is said stocking doesn't work. That's funny, seems to have worked very well where they wanted it to. Places like Red Lake and Leech just to name a couple. Why stock when you can just train everybody to throw them back. Maybe check along the down wind shore of Mille Lac's after a big holiday weekend. You will find all the fowl hooked dead illegal Walleye's floating. You would be amazed. Great regulation.

Maybe look at our snowmobile rules. I once had 7 sleds a few years ago. We would ride a couple hundred miles a weekend. Then all of a son, the snowmobile clubs had to push for a trail stick at near the cost of the actual license it's self, because the DNR had raided the snowmobile license money to the point there was no money to groom the trails. Now it's $90.00 for 3 years license plus trail sticker per machine. You know what I did, along with many others? Stopped snowmobiling. We have one machine left. I will not buy a trail sticker and I ONLY use it to pull my ice house.

Maybe, just maybe our DNR should go back to managing game and fish and get out of places they don't belong.

Deer hunting is the next thing to be cut from my list of things to do in Minnesota and I have hunted deer since I was 12..that's 33 years I have hunted them. I would buy up to 5 tags some years. I demand a certain amount of return from my investment. They are not delivering that.

They even demand my ATV be licensed to ride it on my own land or haul it in my truck. FAT CHANCE, I'll see them in court if they try and enforce those rules on me. When they pay my property taxes, then they can decide those kind of things.

Onpoint.

 

[tmrichardson]

deleted deleted

 

[onpoint]

Quote
"Monstrous chip on that shoulder, onpoint!"

________________________-

I'm just getting warmed up.

A few things that were a pleasant surprise

No lic. needed on portable fish houses.

Conservation officers have to be let in your fish house(locked door)

Making the 22 center fire legal for big game.

All, which the DNR was against.. THANK YOU TO OUR ELECTED. I"M FINALLY GETTING SOMETHING FOR MY VOTE !!!!!!!!!!!:10sign::10sign::10sign::10sign:

 

[birdshooter]

We could raise the price of a small game license but then grouse hunters, squirrel and bunnyhunters etc. who don't hunt in the SW/W part of the state would squawk.

Let'em squawk. or maybe increase the Pheasant stamp from $5 to $10 to partially pay for it. I don't think that will be anywhere near enough, but just another idea to help fund it.

And the leadership in charge at the moment tends to treat every license fee increase like a new tax that they want nothing to do with as they have to please the "no new taxes" minority who controls their party.

We'll the money has to come from somewhere so it might as well come from the people who are going to use it. AT least with a license fee and or Pheasant stamp increase, it will be coming FROM us hunters who most likely will use the walk-in areas. So Joe Blow down the street who doesn't hunt, won't have to worry about his taxes being increased.

Not that it can't be done but it takes a lot of support from sportsmen to get past those realities and politics. Can we do it? I hope so. It may not blossom like it has in the states with cheaper land and more hunters to pay for it but it sure could help!

Our land may not be cheaper, but Minnesota has more hunters per capita then almost any other state in the union, except Texas (although that number is shrinking as not enough new hunters getting into the sport). So the idea of NOT having enough hunters to pay for it is not the issue.

The more opportunities you provide for public hunting the more new hunters you will create and you will also keep the ones you already have. So if your not going to fund a walk-in program you still need to fix and improve what we already have and that is going to take money from whatever source. Better habitat (more birds) + more opportunities (land) = the more hunters you create. It all comes full circle.