2 lines open water and 4 lines for ice fishing in MN? It could be coming…

Id be happy with 2 lines in open water or ice fishing. I can’t see myself using 4 very often, if ever.
One thing to think about is the neighboring states, they all allow more lines than MN. Is the fishing worse there because of extra harvest? Definitely not. Go west and you can use 4 lines all year long with no season closure. Personally I think the fishing is better in the dakotas than here. How is that possible? Yes, there are more people here, but there is also far more lakes in mn to spread the pressure around.
The change is long overdue and will not affect the fishing any more than FFS, increasing population, or any other factor.

Ripjiggen wrote:

It’s two lines in the summer why would there be four out.
If you talking 2 people and 4 lines I don’t see an issue.

You are correct. I was thinking 4 in summer and winter. Like I said, I
m not a fan but would be OK with 2 in summer. Still think its more mortality and more pressure on the resources. My vote would be NO to any change to the current restriction.

Yawn.

Every year we hear about “This is the year”

…for those placing wagers, I’m in on the “this will get lumped with something else and will never happen” side.

I ice fish ND a lot and have never used all 4 lines in the winter that I legally can. Just because it’s there, doesn’t mean you have to use it lol. I can definitely see how running tip ups would be nice with 4 lines available

Nodakk wrote:

I ice fish ND a lot and have never used all 4 lines in the winter that I legally can. Just because it’s there, doesn’t mean you have to use it lol. I can definitely see how running tip ups would be nice with 4 lines available

That’s the big point I think critics are missing.

Just because you can doesn’t mean you have to do it.

I know guys that have 3 people in the boat and only have one guy that really fishes at a time (scoping walleyes and it works)

I can also guarantee you I’ll never take the boys ice fishing and run 12 lines, but 3-4 by myself would be nice at times.

More lines does not always mean more success-More lines tax mobility and focus. In open water they tangle.

fishthumper wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Ripjiggen wrote:</div>
It’s two lines in the summer why would there be four out.
If you talking 2 people and 4 lines I don’t see an issue.

You are correct. I was thinking 4 in summer and winter. Like I said, I
m not a fan but would be OK with 2 in summer. Still think its more mortality and more pressure on the resources. My vote would be NO to any change to the current restriction.

Would there actually be any more pressure on the resources using 4 lines vs 2 lines or even just 1 line? It depends. There wouldn’t be more pressure on a fishery if anglers get limits using more lines and quit fishing because the same number of fish would needed to be caught to get to a limit.
If every angler stopped fishing when they had a limit 4 lines would be fine but that’s not the case and there seem to be alot of anglers fishing these days that don’t care about the resource. Look at the clickers on Lake of the Woods fishing websites. While the number of lines can be regulated, ethics can’t be so I’m for keeping it as is.

I have always been of the opinion that it is pretty much a useless regulation. Why not make it as many lines as you want in open water? You want to run 20 rods, good – tangle up as much crap as you can. Seriously – how much hassle would most people ever be willing to deal with? I believe it would self regulate at 2-3 lines max for 99% of the people, because very few people could manage more than a couple on their best day.

We are 3 lines for open water and ice here in WI. Ice fishing, I typically have my 3 lines in unless Im strictly bluegill fishing. I would have 1 jigging rod, 1 deadstick and 1 tipup in for pretty much everything else (sometimes it would be 1 jigging rod and 2 tipups)

Open water, I will use 3 lines for trolling or if Im spot locked and jigging (2 jigging and 1 deadstick)

It can get a bit hectic at times but that makes for more fun (or frustration lol)

MN DNR should seriously consider following Colorado’s “extra rod stamp” approach.

“A second-rod stamp in Colorado allows anglers to use a second fishing rod, hand line, or tip-up. It costs $12.68 for both residents and non-residents.”

In Minnesota, such an approach (should the angler opt to purchase the stamp annually) would allow them to fish with two lines on open water or three lines through the ice.

Seems sensible, respectful of resources and financially viable.

I live in SD so the proposal is the same as our laws. I do like the laws, but there is substantially less people fishing here. I’ve been running 3 foolers and a jig rod when going for walleyes for years, it really does increase my success rate. Nice to have 2 trolling rods for the open water.

Obsession wrote:

MN DNR should seriously consider following Colorado’s “extra rod stamp” approach.

“A second-rod stamp in Colorado allows anglers to use a second fishing rod, hand line, or tip-up. It costs $12.68 for both residents and non-residents.”

In Minnesota, such an approach (should the angler opt to purchase the stamp annually) would allow them to fish with two lines on open water or three lines through the ice.

Seems sensible, respectful of resources and financially viable.

This makes perfect sense. To anglers anyway. Probably not to the dnr and lawmakers.

Obsession wrote:

MN DNR should seriously consider following Colorado’s “extra rod stamp” approach.

But isn’t that exactly what’s being proposed here? Buy a walleye stamp, and you can fish with extra lines. No walleye stamp, you cannot.

I think 2 open water and 3 ice would be the right combo. We can now run 2 lines on P2 which is nice, but I rarely do it unless running a Dubuque rig. Lake trolling with 2 lines would be nice sometimes.

3 lines ice fishing would be great imho. Having a tip up out plus a jig and deadstick rod seems pretty reasonable.

But isn’t that exactly what’s being proposed here? Buy a walleye stamp, and you can fish with extra lines. No walleye stamp, you cannot.

Yes but they should have called it a fish stamp instead I guess. So the non walleye guys wouldn’t be bent up.

As previously stated, how could a CO enforce the “walleye stamp” method?
Just raise the license cost $10 bucks then everyone/anyone could fish multiple lines.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

As previously stated, how could a CO enforce the “walleye stamp” method?
Just raise the license cost $10 bucks then everyone/anyone could fish multiple lines.

Sounds logical to me. That would probably to easy though.

Eelpoutguy wrote:

As previously stated, how could a CO enforce the “walleye stamp” method?
Just raise the license cost $10 bucks then everyone/anyone could fish multiple lines.

“Hi, I’m CO John Doe, I’m doing some checks today, I see you have extra lines out today, did you purchase a walleye stamp?”

Some will say it will cause extra enforcement. I call BS on that. How does having an extra line out any different than having a single line out? You can’t just assume that everyone has a valid license for that single line, the same that you can’t assume everyone has a stamp for an extra line.

And for reference, SEVERAL states offer an extra line stamp. It must not be too big of an issue in those places as they have continued on with those programs. Iowa for example.

“Hi, I’m CO John Doe, I’m doing some checks today, I see you have extra lines out today, did you purchase a walleye stamp?”

Some will say it will cause extra enforcement. I call BS on that. How does having an extra line out any different than having a single line out? You can’t just assume that everyone has a valid license for that single line, the same that you can’t assume everyone has a stamp for an extra line.
[/quote]

Raise the cost of a license and save the CO a headache.
Or
Mr. CO would be awful busy on Mille Lacs opening weekend. Just sayin.

I’m not saying a simple increase in fee with change in regulation is not a good idea but I’m also saying that it will NOT create any extra work.

Again…how is it any different? It’s the same check. Stamp or no stamp.

Totally against 4 lines for ice. Make them equal. I’d be for 2 lines no matter the season, but that’s wayyy too simple I guess.

Tying to the walleye stamp, meh. It’s lame that all the extra money will go to walleye stocking if anglers who don’t target walleye are funding it, but that’s less problematic than the 4 lines ice BS.

Ideal scenario for me would be a standard license gives you 1 line regardless of season, with the ability to purchase 1 additional line endorsement as an add on. Put the additional funds toward free tampons in the outhouses at all public accesses. And I’m out.

I’m guessing that there would be special restrictions on certain lakes even if it was implemented. I could see a lake like Mille Lacs special regs over riding it and prohibiting more than the traditional 1 line in open water and 2 in the winter, amongst other lakes too.

3Rivers wrote:

I’m not saying a simple increase in fee with change in regulation is not a good idea but I’m also saying that it will NOT create any extra work.

Again…how is it any different? It’s the same check. Stamp or no stamp.

My assumption – I see the CO out glassing on our lake all the time and rarely see them check license, but with 2 lines it may give them more of a reason for a check. What if there are 4 people fishing out of a boat and the CO notices that there are 7 lines in the water and then how will they determine who was fishing which line? To me it seems like there could be issues.

and IMHO a walleye stamp should be mandatory. It’s fricken 5 bucks.

I agree that a walleye stamp should be mandatory if youare fihsing for walleyes.

Karry Kyllo wrote:

I agree that a walleye stamp should be mandatory if youare fihsing for walleyes.

I fish walleyes exclusively on rivers and 1-2 lakes where the populations are and self sustaining. Why should I pay for stocking in lakes where walleyes can’t naturally sustain populations?

I don’t see this going anywhere with debates about how forward facing sonar is affecting our fisheries.

I fish <em class=”ido-tag-em”>walleyes exclusively on rivers and 1-2 lakes where the populations are and self sustaining. Why should I pay for stocking in lakes where walleyes can’t naturally sustain populations?
[/quote]

Because you’re a sports man and want to see healthy fisheries?
and as previously stated IT”S 5 BUCKS

If anglers want to use extra lines, allow them to buy a stamp to do so. Forcing everyone to pay for it when a sizable demographic has no interest in using an extra line isn’t how it should be done. If Colorado’s trout stamp example is working, follow that model.

I think some here seem to forget that not everyone wants to do it. Nor does everyone walleye fish either.

OK I get it, that $5 is a budget breaker.