Home Forums Fishing Trout Fishing I vote C&R Only in all IA trout streams from last stocking to first stocking

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • Avatarmbchilton
    Participant
    Post count: 511

    Quote by: llewellinsetter
    The good fishing, the return of native species, the great habitat, and everything in between is because we give people the opportunity to catch 12 inch rainbows at easily accessible streams and ponds throughout the state. How many people do you think would visit NE Iowa if they didn’t have the opportunity to catch those fish? Like it or not, this aint, Montana, Colorado, or even Arkansas.

    Believe me I’m not against hoping for a better fishery with some awesome 4″ brookies that I can catch on a 3 weight BUT we will never have any of that if we take away the bread and butter.

    There are only a few streams with reproducing native trout. The South Pine strain isn’t working, so we’re searching for a replacement. We’ve made improvements in habitat and it will get better, but it’s a work in progress.

    This isn’t the West, and that’s what makes it great. It’s in my backyard. I love it so much I moved my family here from central Iowa. There ARE 20”-28” wild fish here. Wild trout fisheries are working well in the Driftless portions of Wisconsin and Minnesota. There’s no reason it can’t here. Not tomorrow, but somewhere in the future.

    Avatarmbchilton
    Participant
    Post count: 511

    Quote by: mhock

    Anyone know the difference in the number of fishing licenses sold as opposed to trout stamps?

    242,000 annual resident licenses in 2016

    Avatarmbchilton
    Participant
    Post count: 511

    Quote by: speng5

    Just playing devils advocate here as I don�t know enough about this to make an educated guess. But what does a 11� wild fish cost in terms of the watershed and water quality improvements made in order to make previously non fertile trout waters fertile? Like watershed improvement labor and material cost to trout biomass? I do realize in time the cost washes out as improvements aren�t made constantly after a certain point but after that point it will still produce wild trout. A good investment Imo as that cost to biomass ratio gets better every year ideally.

    Good question. I believe it costs sonewhere around $75,000 to repair a mile of stream. I know that’s not exactly what you were asking. Of course, that money comes from a lot of different places. State, federal, non-profit partners, local community groups, foundations, grants, etc.

    Avatarmhock
    Participant
    Post count: 3353

    Quote by: mbchilton

    Quote by: mhock

    Anyone know the difference in the number of fishing licenses sold as opposed to trout stamps?

    242,000 annual resident licenses in 2016

    So, why put obstacles in the way and tap the general populous? Instead of the $12.50 stamp, why not open trout up to all Iowa anglers and increase the cost of the resident license $6? Personally, I don’t buy a trout stamp, because I don’t get up to NE Iowa very much, let alone for a dedicated trout fishing trip. I have bought one AFTER catching and releasing 2 trout in Backbone about 5 years ago on a spinning rod with a crappie jig. I’m not opposed to fishing for trout, but, when I buy my combo hunt/fish license and they ask “would you like a trout stamp? “, I say no because at that moment I think I’m probably not going to make that trip.

    Now, if I knew that my resident fishing license already affords me the right to go try and catch a few trout should I head north, AND it was cheaper than buying a special “stamp”, well, I’m being frugal, yes???? And heck, since I can try trout fishing without having to get that special stamp, maybe I will plan that trip.

    Do I WANT my fee to go up? No
    Is that extra $6 (x 242,000 =$3,025,000) gonna keep me from buying a fishing licence? Nope
    Will it keep some from buying theirs? Possibly

    As stated earlier $12.50 stamp fee (x 43,000 =$537,500)

    Only using numbers already posted above, so not sure if any of the math works.

    I’m simply putting forward the thought that if more people feel included but not ripped off, you may have more dollars to put toward this niche.

    You may have to share the streams with more people, but my guess is, not many, and many of the newbies may lose interest or not be proficient enough to make an impact.

    Avatarmbchilton
    Participant
    Post count: 511

    @mhock- Our fishing license is a bargain, and I’d happily pay more like you. However, we’re in the minority. You want to see people get riled up, tell them the state is raising license fees. It’s stupid because the money goes directly to the DNR. By law, it’s not allowed to go into the general fund. We should all encourage every non-fisher or hunter we know to buy a license. The money supports programs like REAP that fund conservation projects across the state. Everyone benefits from that.

    Avatarmhock
    Participant
    Post count: 3353

    Quote by: mbchilton

    @mhock- Our fishing license is a bargain, and I�d happily pay more like you. However, we�re in the minority. You want to see people get riled up, tell them the state is raising license fees. It�s stupid because the money goes directly to the DNR. By law, it�s not allowed to go into the general fund. We should all encourage every non-fisher or hunter we know to buy a license. The money supports programs like REAP that fund conservation projects across the state. Everyone benefits from that.

    I understand not wanting to pay more for the same product, but that extra money spent would afford me more opprotunities so I don’t see it as just a hike in the fee.

    AvatarLenH
    Participant
    Post count: 1624

    from what I have been hearing Iowa’s trout fishing has gotten better over the last five years. You guys are doing something right.

    over here in cheeseland the last round of simplification of our rules has been deemed a failure. The new regs have caused folks to

    complain and now the WDNR is recruiting the average angler to assist on the next management team.

    http://dnr.wi.gov/news/Weekly/article/?id=4113

    stick500stick500
    Participant
    Post count: 457

    Quote by: SR+Dave

    So you are saying when I buy a trout stamp it should only be good for catch and release?

    If your desire is to have plentiful trout in the steams all year long, why not lobby to adjust the stocking schedule to all year long?

    Why deprive winter anglers their opportunity to take a trout or two for the pan?

    first question; No, only in the winter.

    second: That costs a lot of money! My idea is basically free and much more likely to happen.

    third: To make it even worthwhile to go out and fishing. What’s the point of fishing if you know there’s a very good chance your’e going to get skunked?

    Avatarspeng5
    Participant
    Post count: 2928

    Quote by: LenH

    the WDNR is recruiting the average angler to assist on the next management team.

    http://dnr.wi.gov/news/Weekly/article/?id=4113

    I clicked the link and that is a SUPER cool idea. I sure wish they would do that here.

    Come to think of it, they could use a sort of “citizen liaison team” for lots of things besides trout – waterfowl season dates, deer hunting laws (additional calibers etc), the list goes on and on. I see no downside to this approach. Except maybe that .gov typically gets irritated when forced to be transparent/accountable to us peasants…

    AvatarSR Dave
    Participant
    Post count: 170

    Quote by: stick500

    third: To make it even worthwhile to go out and fishing. What’s the point of fishing if you know there’s a very good chance your’e going to get skunked?

    Why not just fish the streams that are already catch and release only. The fact that they are catch and release should fit your criteria.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: mbchilton

    @mhock- Our fishing license is a bargain, and I�d happily pay more like you. However, we�re in the minority. You want to see people get riled up, tell them the state is raising license fees. It�s stupid because the money goes directly to the DNR. By law, it�s not allowed to go into the general fund. We should all encourage every non-fisher or hunter we know to buy a license. The money supports programs like REAP that fund conservation projects across the state. Everyone benefits from that.

    Every year I buy:
    Fishing License, Trout Stamp, Hunting License, Habitat Stamp, State Waterfowl, Federal Waterfowl, Spring and fall Turkey Tags, 2 Archery Deer tags and 2 Gun Deer tags. I have a boat and trailer that I pay registration for, access stickers for, the ammo I buy is specially taxed, I purchase locally guns, fishing rods and reels, lures, flies, bait, clothing, camping spaces etc. I spend thousands on food, drink, and gas while supporting small towns all over the state. I give so much stinking money to the outdoors that outside of my mortgage it makes up the majority of my budget. I’m lucky too, I can afford to do all this and still be comfortable. A LOT of people CAN NOT.

    I’m all for working towards better habitat be it fishing or hunting but the idea that I or anyone else should pay extra so a select group of people can get money for their special trout pet project which actually wants me to have less access is asinine. Either the State needs to better manage the funds they have, use funds from the general fund, mandate some farm spending to the habitat, or make sacrifices. Iowa has a severe money management problem and I’m not willing to keep giving them more just because they haven’t learned to manage what they have.

    Here’s an idea for you guys that want us to give more, buy some land, spend the money on stream preservation and improvements and fish it. No doubt you can get TU to put in a bunch of $$ to protect your special private piece of enjoyment after all just like DU, they have a long history of doing so.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    Avatarmbchilton
    Participant
    Post count: 511

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: mbchilton

    @mhock- Our fishing license is a bargain, and I�d happily pay more like you. However, we�re in the minority. You want to see people get riled up, tell them the state is raising license fees. It�s stupid because the money goes directly to the DNR. By law, it�s not allowed to go into the general fund. We should all encourage every non-fisher or hunter we know to buy a license. The money supports programs like REAP that fund conservation projects across the state. Everyone benefits from that.

    Every year I buy:
    Fishing License, Trout Stamp, Hunting License, Habitat Stamp, State Waterfowl, Federal Waterfowl, Spring and fall Turkey Tags, 2 Archery Deer tags and 2 Gun Deer tags. I have a boat and trailer that I pay registration for, access stickers for, the ammo I buy is specially taxed, I purchase locally guns, fishing rods and reels, lures, flies, bait, clothing, camping spaces etc. I spend thousands on food, drink, and gas while supporting small towns all over the state. I give so much stinking money to the outdoors that outside of my mortgage it makes up the majority of my budget. I’m lucky too, I can afford to do all this and still be comfortable. A LOT of people CAN NOT.

    I’m all for working towards better habitat be it fishing or hunting but the idea that I or anyone else should pay extra so a select group of people can get money for their special trout pet project which actually wants me to have less access is asinine. Either the State needs to better manage the funds they have, use funds from the general fund, mandate some farm spending to the habitat, or make sacrifices. Iowa has a severe money management problem and I’m not willing to keep giving them more just because they haven’t learned to manage what they have.

    Here’s an idea for you guys that want us to give more, buy some land, spend the money on stream preservation and improvements and fish it. No doubt you can get TU to put in a bunch of $$ to protect your special private piece of enjoyment after all just like DU, they have a long history of doing so.

    You’re obviously clueless about how TU operates. They’re not the savior of our streams, but they’re a good organization.

    llewellinsetterllewellinsetter
    Blocked
    Post count: 2514

    Quote by: mbchilton

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: mbchilton

    @mhock- Our fishing license is a bargain, and I�¢ï¿½ï¿½d happily pay more like you. However, we�¢ï¿½ï¿½re in the minority. You want to see people get riled up, tell them the state is raising license fees. It�¢ï¿½ï¿½s stupid because the money goes directly to the DNR. By law, it�¢ï¿½ï¿½s not allowed to go into the general fund. We should all encourage every non-fisher or hunter we know to buy a license. The money supports programs like REAP that fund conservation projects across the state. Everyone benefits from that.

    Every year I buy:
    Fishing License, Trout Stamp, Hunting License, Habitat Stamp, State Waterfowl, Federal Waterfowl, Spring and fall Turkey Tags, 2 Archery Deer tags and 2 Gun Deer tags. I have a boat and trailer that I pay registration for, access stickers for, the ammo I buy is specially taxed, I purchase locally guns, fishing rods and reels, lures, flies, bait, clothing, camping spaces etc. I spend thousands on food, drink, and gas while supporting small towns all over the state. I give so much stinking money to the outdoors that outside of my mortgage it makes up the majority of my budget. I’m lucky too, I can afford to do all this and still be comfortable. A LOT of people CAN NOT.

    I’m all for working towards better habitat be it fishing or hunting but the idea that I or anyone else should pay extra so a select group of people can get money for their special trout pet project which actually wants me to have less access is asinine. Either the State needs to better manage the funds they have, use funds from the general fund, mandate some farm spending to the habitat, or make sacrifices. Iowa has a severe money management problem and I’m not willing to keep giving them more just because they haven’t learned to manage what they have.

    Here’s an idea for you guys that want us to give more, buy some land, spend the money on stream preservation and improvements and fish it. No doubt you can get TU to put in a bunch of $$ to protect your special private piece of enjoyment after all just like DU, they have a long history of doing so.

    You�re obviously clueless about how TU operates. They�re not the savior of our streams, but they�re a good organization.

    Clueless, no. I’ve been fly fishing for trout since 1988 in CO, MT, WY, CA, AR etc. and was a member of TU for over ten years. One thing is consistent, TU does what benefits the interest of TU, not the interest of anglers. If you want the fishing and hunting to keep going by way of a rich mans sport then by all means keep supporting TU.

    It is possible however that you are choosing to be blind to the problems that TU has created out west with their pay for play stream management and ever changing access policies that cater to their top brass and donors. As it is, too many of TU members think that only their interests should be served as proven in this tread. It reminds me of a time I went to the NBTU meeting with a couple of my non-fly fishing friends and they were treated like lepers because they like to use powerbait and spinners. Not to mention TU’s parallel stance with Patagonia and North Face against Trumps National Monument orders and of course their views on “global warming”.

    Sarcasm entails a few things: one of them is intellect, another one is a sense of humor, and a third - not taking things too personally.

    Avatarmbchilton
    Participant
    Post count: 511

    You’re so off base I can’t argue anymore, except to say I’m skeptical of your story about North Bear TU, and I can guarantee it didn’t happen in the last 5 years.

    Avatarmhock
    Participant
    Post count: 3353

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: mbchilton

    Quote by: llewellinsetter

    Quote by: mbchilton

    @mhock- Our fishing license is a bargain, and I���¢�¯�¿�½�¯�¿�½d happily pay more like you. However, we���¢�¯�¿�½�¯�¿�½re in the minority. You want to see people get riled up, tell them the state is raising license fees. It���¢�¯�¿�½�¯�¿�½s stupid because the money goes directly to the DNR. By law, it���¢�¯�¿�½�¯�¿�½s not allowed to go into the general fund. We should all encourage every non-fisher or hunter we know to buy a license. The money supports programs like REAP that fund conservation projects across the state. Everyone benefits from that.

    Every year I buy:
    Fishing License, Trout Stamp, Hunting License, Habitat Stamp, State Waterfowl, Federal Waterfowl, Spring and fall Turkey Tags, 2 Archery Deer tags and 2 Gun Deer tags. I have a boat and trailer that I pay registration for, access stickers for, the ammo I buy is specially taxed, I purchase locally guns, fishing rods and reels, lures, flies, bait, clothing, camping spaces etc. I spend thousands on food, drink, and gas while supporting small towns all over the state. I give so much stinking money to the outdoors that outside of my mortgage it makes up the majority of my budget. I’m lucky too, I can afford to do all this and still be comfortable. A LOT of people CAN NOT.

    I’m all for working towards better habitat be it fishing or hunting but the idea that I or anyone else should pay extra so a select group of people can get money for their special trout pet project which actually wants me to have less access is asinine. Either the State needs to better manage the funds they have, use funds from the general fund, mandate some farm spending to the habitat, or make sacrifices. Iowa has a severe money management problem and I’m not willing to keep giving them more just because they haven’t learned to manage what they have.

    Here’s an idea for you guys that want us to give more, buy some land, spend the money on stream preservation and improvements and fish it. No doubt you can get TU to put in a bunch of $$ to protect your special private piece of enjoyment after all just like DU, they have a long history of doing so.

    You�re obviously clueless about how TU operates. They�re not the savior of our streams, but they�re a good organization.

    Clueless, no. I’ve been fly fishing for trout since 1988 in CO, MT, WY, CA, AR etc. and was a member of TU for over ten years. One thing is consistent, TU does what benefits the interest of TU, not the interest of anglers. If you want the fishing and hunting to keep going by way of a rich mans sport then by all means keep supporting TU.

    It is possible however that you are choosing to be blind to the problems that TU has created out west with their pay for play stream management and ever changing access policies that cater to their top brass and donors. As it is, too many of TU members think that only their interests should be served as proven in this tread. It reminds me of a time I went to the NBTU meeting with a couple of my non-fly fishing friends and they were treated like lepers because they like to use powerbait and spinners. Not to mention TU’s parallel stance with Patagonia and North Face against Trumps National Monument orders and of course their views on “global warming”.

    You seem to have alot of knowledge so what changed after being a loyal member of TU that made you leave and take your support from them?

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 51 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.