Authored by: bigjake on 08/23/2004 @ 03:24 PM

Dave,

You can take the position that anyone fishing without a license is significant, but I think you are misinterpreting what the writer is saying. A significant number is in the eye of the beholder. The comment you are referring to suggests that we don't have a lot of people fishing illegally. The number of citations has gone up some, but not a significant amount according to the writer's opinion. I think if there were 350,000 licenses sold a few years ago and now there are only about 319,000 sold, a significant number would be 31,000 people fishing illegally. If the number of citations is around 2500 a year, then you could double or triple that for those that don't get caught. So, if there are 7500 people fishing illegally in Iowa each year compared to 319,000 legal fisherman, is that significant? Probably not, but that is an opinion and yours may differ. Yes, it is not right and should be considered a problem, but on the average it is probably lower than most other states. That is my take on what the writer is saying in this story. I believe it is good they are keeping records so they can identify and recognize any significant problems that do occur and react accordingly. I also think it is good they are trying to figure out how to get more people fishing again.

Bob

---

First love is fishing, no it's hunting, no it's guns, no it's fishing, no, aw heck.

Authored by: Greg Holz on 08/23/2004 @ 11:01 PM

You know the problem that I have with this article is completely different. The DNR whether it be in my home state of WI or here in Iowa isn't a "for profit business organization". More and more each year they are portrayed this way. Anyone who hunts or fishes knows that things work in cycles. How are license sales any different? Every time the DNR comes up short in funds, they cry like it is hurting their bottom line. I'm sick of this approach of, "who's to blame" or "what's wrong" everytime this happens. Then they use this as an excuse to jack up license fees to pay for enforcement and existing programs. You know what? Cut your spending when you come up short on funds! If you don't have the money don't spend it for christs sake.

In WI if 100% of the land surrounding a body of water is privately owned you don't need to purchase a fishing license.

---
"Look, it's the most glorious rainbow ever"----R. Burgundy

Authored by: kenhump on 08/24/2004 @ 11:44 PM

Math doesn't work. $10.00 federal + $17.50 = $27.50 X 31,000 = $852,500. A considerable sum, but not 1.8 million dollars. They don't understand the hambuger theory. McDonalds doesn't make lots of money selling a few high priced bugers, the make it selling lots of cheap burgers. They also need to drastically increase the fine for fishing without a license. Call it what it is, POACHING. It is the illegal harvesting of 'game'. I'll bet if I put on my blaze orange and go pheasant hunting tomorrow it'll cost me more than $56. ken

---
Youv'e got to be honest; if you can fake that, youv'e got it made. George Burns

Authored by: walleyetracker on 08/31/2004 @ 01:31 PM

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY...Look at the deer license,buy 5-6 who cares,it has nothing to do with the LARGE deer popalation,and how to solve it,if it did you would beable to use a tag that you didn't fill from a earlier season..

---
tightlines and good fishin' WALLEYETRACKER

Authored by: bwcafan on 09/08/2004 @ 06:08 PM

I'm a bit downtrodden after reading the article. I have several suggestions.
1. Land is expensive to purchase here. Why can't the DNR make use of the land the state already owns? For example, instead of spending mucho bucks to aquire land outside of the quad cities to build a new lake, how about making a bunch of 5 or 10 acre ponds on lands the state currently owns? wouldn't that be cheaper?

2. The bureau really needs to revamp it's fines for fish poaching. I know if I went to neighboring states and got caught fishing w/o a license, it would cost me more than $56. I think in MN they not only would fine me, but they would also confiscate my tackle and my vehicle because it would be used in the comission of a crime, if I'm not mistaken.
When it comes time for the law officers to buy new squad cars, doesn't it seem like you come across speed checks a bit more often? Maybe a little restructuring of the DNR where they could have some guys out there doing NOTHING but enforcment for 40 hours a week, including the weekends.

3. I think it would help if the DNR people were more visible to, and IN the public. When was the last time you were checked by a DNR official for your fishing license? I've lived here since 1990 and have only been checked once about 9 years ago at Pleasant Creek. I've fished below the dam at Coralville probably several hundred times over the years and I've never been down there alone, no matter when I've gone and I have yet to see anyone down there checking licenses. My fishing buddy works for the WI DNR and he said their fisheries techs are out on the waters at ALL hours during the weekends checking licenses. In order to catch the poachers, you have to be out there when they are, and it's not from 8-4 during the weekdays.

4. How about some size limits on interior river walleyes? Better yet, how about establishing no kill trophy waters for walleyes, just like has been done on a few river sections for smallies? I'm not the only one who can think of a couple of sections on the Wapsi that would be perfect for this type of fishery. MN has a couple of river sections that are catch-release only for all walleyes, in fact I even remember that a section of the ole' Miss in downtown MNPLS is catch and release on w'lleyes during the first half of the year to promote the trophies.

Don' get me wrong, I admire the IDNR staff with what they have done with the little they have, but we simply can't compete against some of our neighbors because most of the land here is privately owned. It's not like it's a MN or a WI where you have several million acres of federally owned land to play around with.
Thanks for reading, Dave

Authored by: JRwIA on 09/14/2004 @ 10:34 PM

I'm not real surprised about the downward trend. Many states have experienced it in recent years. Interestingly, angler days are actually rising in many off those states, along with the states with increasing license sales. so fishing pressure continues to increase.

One solution would be for the state to revamp it's walleye fishing management strategy to increase catch rates here. This, of course, would require a significant reduction in walleye harvest.

The loss of Iowa license sales has been significant in western iowa as residents started fishing walleyes in S. Dakota in greatly incresing numbers over the past 10 years. After reading this article I did a count of the Iowans who I personally know who have fished in S. dakota the past year.... around 40. Well over half, that I am aware of, haven't purchased an Iowa license in several years. Most used to.

When world class walleye fishing is within 3-5 hours, it is difficult to compete. But a start would be for the DNR to realize that these Iowans are going to S. Dakota for the high catch rates and not harvest numbers. Most of these Dakota destination waters have 2 or 3 fish daily poss. limits. A few of their designated trophy waters have one fish limits with min. length limits in the 25 - 27" range. on the better lakes, 30 -40 upto 100 fish catch and release days are the norm much of the year.

Iowa really needs to invest in some marketing research so they know what the customer wants.

---
Number of significant Iowa walleye lakes = 18. Total acres = 38,000. Average annual harvest = est. 80,000. Iowa anglers = 320,000. Anglers per acre of water = 8. So, why don't we have a 2 fish poss. / 20" min. length limit, with a few exceptions?????