Minnesota needs a fishing coalition. Not another Carpsuckers, Inc. or Bullhead Foundation, but an honest-to-goodness umbrella organization that represents all anglers. Today’s fishing organizations are for anglers who are enamored of a certain species or a particular fishing method. There are roles for these single purpose groups—primarily in lobbying for stocking programs, species-specific fishing regulations, and local habitat projects, or coordinating like-minded souls, such as tournament anglers—but they cannot speak for anglers as a whole and are bit players in “big picture issues.”

The big picture used to be addressed by the Minnesota Sportfishing Congress, personified by the late Frank Schneider. Unfortunately, the MSC was pulled up on the beach about over a year ago when stalwart volunteer Dave Overland retired. Currently, when it comes to issues affecting fishing in Minnesota, no one is minding the store.

This ought to be an untenable situation in this Land of 10,000 Lakes, where fishing is an exceeding popular year-round pastime. Angling fuels a significant and varied economy that includes tourism, boat and tackle manufacturers, bait producers, major retailers, real estate, and more. For many of us, fishing defines Minnesota’s quality of life. So why isn’t there a Great Minnesota Fishing Club?

Maybe we’re spoiled. Minnesota fishing is pretty good, thanks in no small part to the management efforts of DNR Fisheries. But the good fishing we have today is not a matter of happenstance or good fortune. Past generations of anglers fought some tough battles to protect habitat and access, rid waters of gill nets, enact protective regulations, and expand fishing opportunities with stocking programs. We cannot take past conservation success or present good fishing for granted.

Challenges to the fishing’s future may be nearer than you think. Not long ago, this publication reported the Minnesota Deer Hunter’s Association (MDHA) had sent a letter to DNR commissioner Mark Holsten complaining that hunting license revenues—of which deer hunting fees make up the lion’s share—were being used to pay for fisheries management. The MDHA believes that fishing ought to pull its own weight.

Apparently, some legislators agree. There is talk of raising the price for fishing licenses, or at least some licenses, possibly in the 2008 Legislative Session. Since no one represents Minnesota anglers in St. Paul, MDHA and perhaps other hunting organizations may have significant input into the fishing license fee structure. With due respect to the deer hunters, I’m not so sure that’s a good thing.

Fisheries management and funding priorities balance the health and diversity of the state’s many fisheries against maintaining the state’s most popular fishing holes.

As a result, expenditures for some programs, such as the coldwater fisheries of the Southeast and Northeast, exceed the revenues derived from trout anglers. Most anglers agree the expenditures for trout are necessary and equitable, though other interests seeking to squeeze more money from anglers may not agree. At any rate, decisions about how to fund fisheries programs are best left to anglers and the DNR.

Another money issue where anglers stand to get shellacked is dedicated funding. To my knowledge, none of the “players” in this never-ending political game have specified how Minnesota’s fisheries will benefit from dedicated funding other in broad terms such as “habitat acquisition” and “clean water.” Somehow, that is quite the same as saying you’ll have more walleyes on the end of your line.

Call me a cynic, but I wonder if fishing is even a blip on dedicated funding radar screen. It appears that dedicated funding won’t go to any one source—such as the DNR’s Game and Fish Fund—but will be doled out on an annual or regular basis to special interests or special projects deemed deserving by an appointed commission that controls the purse strings. In the present dedicated funding scenario, fishing may well lose out to finger painting.

Somehow, anglers have to rally beneath a single flag. Since it is unlikely that a wholly new statewide fishing organization can form without a looming issue to solidify support, the initial steps will have to be based upon a coalition of existing single-species organizations. The challenge is two-fold—getting the groups to come together and then to find common ground.

The annual DNR Roundtable may be a suitable forum for laying the groundwork for a coalition. To a large extent, the Roundtable has functioned as a “big tent” that all anglers are welcome to enter. The event brings together anglers from across the state. Roundtable discussions of fishing topics have directed management decisions and legislative initiatives for about two decades.

It is reasonable to assume money for fisheries programs will be on the 2008 Roundtable agenda. But by then, anglers may be reacting to hunting groups’ demands for higher fishing fees and (optimistically) the recent passage of a constitutional amendment that dedicates at least some money to fish and finger-painting. Unfortunately, the Federated Finger-Painters may be further ahead of the curve than Minnesota anglers. When it comes to receiving an equitable share of conservation funding, let’s hope Minnesota fishing doesn’t come home with an empty stringer.