MN/WI Border Water Rules Revisited.

… and when you are speeding in WI, you’ll be pulled over by a WI sheriff. Not MN.

We paid Wisconsin a visit last night. Legal? I’m still not certain. We were trolling for channel cats most of the night anyways.

OFFICIAL RULING!

The WI Wardens just got done checking my boat. It is legal to fish 3 lines on the WI side with a MN license only on the WI side. Yes you may fish sturgeon on the WI side today with a MN license.

Case closed!!! More info to come when I get home.

Wow, what a beauty. I bet you thought you had a BIG channel cat on.

Quote:

---

Wow, what a beauty. I bet you thought you had a BIG channel cat on.

---

Thanks, not really though, 10 seconds into the fight it jumped completely out of the water and removed any doubt.

48

Wow, I’ve got to try that one of these days.

So I was paid a little visit by the WI Wardens yesterday. Their main goal was to check licenses. These guys were very friendly and seemed very knowledgable.

We were anchored almost right on the border and headed our way right after they got done checking a boat that was fishing very close to the King Plant, clearly on the MN side.

Here are the questions I asked:

1. Can I, with a MN resident license, fish the WI side with 3 lines? Answer: Yes. On the WI side. He also said that if he saw someone fishing on the MN side with 3 lines he would not say anything. A MN CO has the right to ticket you on the MN side for using 3 lines, but only on the MN side.

2. When does sturgeon open? Answer: Sept 3rd on the WI side. Sept 1st was a misprint in the WI reg book. And Sept 4th on the MN side. Sturgeon operner is ALWAYS the first Saturday in September for WI.

3. Why the difference between MN and WI sturgeon opener? Answer: I dunno. Both MN and WI departments are supposed to get together to hammer these things out soon.

We also went back and forth talking about what the actual statute says as far as following the more liberal rules in the territorial waters of that state and he said that the WI statute sates that “You may excercise the more liberal rules within the waters of the more liberal state with any MN or WI res or non-res licnese”. PERIOD

I was explaining to him that the MN statute says that you must also posess a license from the more liberal state and he said that is incorrect. The MN reg book is in fact correct in that you do not need a license from the more liberal state.

End of story. They expected that these questions should be more clearly stated in next years regulations book.

Clearly, this is a change from the past…and a welcomed one!

Thanks Matt!

I now retract my statement that the Federal Government needs to step in and spank these two kids (MN & WI) until they straighten this out.

Now, if they could only have the same rules on both sides. That might be too much to ask…at this time.

Quote:

---

Now, if they could only have the same rules on both sides. That might be too much to ask…at this time.

---

But then what would we have to worry about???

Quote:

---

Now, if they could only have the same rules on both sides. That might be too much to ask…at this time.

---

Way too much to ask if it means I can’t use 3 rods or bluegills any more!!

Quote:

---

Way too much to ask if it means I can’t use 3 rods or bluegills any more!!

---

Correction…Way too much to ask if it means WE can’t use 3 rods or bluegills any more!!

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Way too much to ask if it means I can’t use 3 rods or bluegills any more!!

---

Correction…Way too much to ask if it means WE can’t use 3 rods or bluegills any more!!

---

Shoot I just realized this means y’all are going to be crowding the good side of the river now…

Hey Biggill,

The hangup there is that it states “other boundary waters” which would indicate it is refering to waters without body specific rules, which the St. Croix does have pages dedicated to explaining the conceded rules and so would not be covered under “other” section.

I want to safely utilize panfish as much as y’all, I’m just wary of optimistic thinking, and want us all to be clear cut protected from a disgruntled DNR agent. I have contacted multiple DNR agents from WI and MN, and have received mixed responses from both.

I have also sent emails to multiple house representatives asking for clarification on the rules under the premise that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, just as ambiguity of the law should not be a valid way to prosecute.

In regards to me having it backwards according to the regulation book, not at all. The word for word quoting made by the DNR agent comes from Minnesota statute (6266.0100)https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=6266.0100

Which the title clearly states it is encompassing the rules on taking fish, not angling methods. This is where the holdup for me is.

While I think the law is obscure enough that 99% of the time we would be safe, I think any prosecuting party following the direct path of logic would be able to do so following that the “Other bodies of water” does not include the St. Croix, and the law quoted by the DNR agent is reference to keeping fish, and that angling methods are covered by a different law.

Once again, not trying to be a downer, just want us to all be safe from losing all our stuff!

I was actually incorrect in stating that a MN CO would be out of jurisdiction on the WI side of the river. I asked the WI wardens about this and they said that they have jurisdiction on the entire river but they are only able to enforce the more conservative laws within that state’s boundaries. This is of course the mirror image as far as the anglers’ rights go.

I agree 100% that ignorance is no excuse, which is why I am in this conversation to begin with.

Quote:

---

While I think the law is obscure enough that 99% of the time we would be safe, I think any prosecuting party following the direct path of logic would be able to do so following that the “Other bodies of water” does not include the St. Croix, and the law quoted by the DNR agent is reference to keeping fish, and that angling methods are covered by a different law.

---

I believe that far too many laws were written poorly enough that a procecuter or defender would be able to have plenty of room to state a very solid case. This certainly does not stop us from moving forward.

Quote:

---

6266.0100 GENERAL REGULATIONS FOR TAKING FISH ON BOUNDARY WATERS WITH ADJACENT STATES.

---

You are correct in that it says “taking fish”, but the title as a whole states “regulations for taking fish”. my interpretation is that “angling methods” is clearly included. At least to me it is clear.

Unfortunately it comes down to how comfortable you feel personally about how well the law was written. I personally feel very comfortable in how it was written and have been reassured by both agencies that what we suspected is actually true. The WI wardens also seemed to lead on that there has been some talk about these issues within each department and some clarification has been given to the officers themselves. The WI warden also assured me that the statute clearly states this as well.

One more thing to add.

Quote:

---

B.

Where regulations differ between this state and an adjacent state on such boundary waters, the exercise of the more liberal regulations is limited to persons licensed by the more liberal state and confined to the territorial waters of the more liberal state.

---

With how this is written in the statute, it states “regulations” not “limits”. This appears to be intentional to include all laws that are not shared between each state.

The one that still gets me is:

Quote:

---

limited to persons licensed by the more liberal state

---

I have an email chain with the MN DNR about this. I’ll post here when I have an answer. Who know’s, this could all change…

Two written emails from two border water CO’s on the MN side and one verbal from a WI CO (even though second hand)….I’m good.

And again Mr. Gill I thank you for bringing this up!

Ps If anyone would like to see the original emails sent from the MN CO’s, shoot me an email and I’ll forward them to you.

Quote:

---

Ps If anyone would like to see the original emails sent from the MN CO’s, shoot me an email and I’ll forward them to you.

---

I’ve got some too. Maybe with some different names attached as well.

I’ll forward these to you BK when I have some kind of conclusion.

Anybody remember this post??

http://www.idofishing.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=ftlgeneral&Number=524259&fpart=&PHPSESSID=

From your 2007 post:

A phone call to WI CO Russ Wilson provided this answer,

I asked him the following questions…..

If a MN angler with a MN license is fishing in WI waters, between the tracks, will he receive a citation-warning for fishing with 3 lines or using legal game fish as bait??….. No.

If I, as a WI resident…were fishing on the MN side with either 3 lines or (here ya go Bret) or legal gamefish as bait…Could I receive a citation-warning for such from a MN CO ??…..Yes

He told me that the regulations on page 54 of the WI booklet are correct and quite clear…

Russ Wilson @

785-9000

Jeff

The Wisconsin regulation is correct. An angler must obey the regulations of the state in which they are fishing.

The example of using 3 lines in Minnesota waters would be a violation that could result in a citation.

Minnesota CO’s have jurisdiction on the boundary waters between the rail road tracks. We enforce like laws from for both states. Example: life jackets – same for both states, fishing license – same for both states. Our authority covers all of the boundary waters.

When the laws differ between the states Minnesota CO’s only enforce MN laws on the MN side of the river. This is the same for the WI Wardens. Example: 3 lines on the WI side – we do not enforce MN law on the WI side of the river.

Your efforts to educate our fishermen through a news letter or the local paper would be beneficial.

Contact me if you have any further questions.

Conservation Officer

Scott Fritz

(507)895-4263

Two more “random” CO’s explaining the border water laws.

Hey Biggill,

The ignorance is no excuse wasn’t directed at you, it was just the sentiment I directed in the emails towards the house members I emailed, since it’s one of those phrases that officers of all branches like to stick to us, to lead into that ambiguity of the laws shouldn’t be as well.

In regards to the comfort of it.. I think I would have a good chance to fight any issued tickets… but since I have had some officers reply in emails that we can’t, this means that there are some officers out there that will ticket us for it.

Which in the end, even if we are able to defend ourselves that’s still a big hassle.

I imagine at the end of it all, until the state just put’s into the darned St. Croix specefic rules (or statewide) that we can just use panfish, we get the collection of statements that say it’s ok together so we can all keep them for defense.

It’s tough when we get conflicting reports.. such as

Here’s a response from a WI DNR agent (I clearly stated that I was from MN) when asking

Hi Josh, In general it would be legal to use a panfish that you caught as bait: 1. It must be legally possessed (ie subject to standard species and bag limits. A fish you caught and then cut up for bait still counts toward your bag.) 2. It must not be used in a water body other than that in which it was caught ( to limit spread of VHS and invasive species). 3. In the St Croix boundary waters the Regs depend on which state you are in, MN or WI. The dividing line is mid-channel. So to be safe you should be closer to the WI side! 4. Wisconsin residents need a Wisconsin fishing license and Minnesota residents need a Minnesota fishing license. Residents of other states need a non-resident license from Wisconsin or Minnesota

but then here’s a response the same day from a MN DNR agent

My understanding on this situation has been this…you are bound by the rules of your home state. I had been told that a MN resident could not fish the Wisconsin bass opener on the St Croix, EVEN IF they purchased a WI non resident license. Your home state has rules and seasons, so when it came to MN/WI border waters, MN residents were bound to the MN opener on the St Croix. I have been applying that to ALL rules, regardless of what side you are fishing on. I was told border waters are border waters, and the same rules applied throughout as defined by your home state regulations. I know that puts a crimp in some catfishermens tactics as far as fishing with bluegill or whatever, but following that logic would definitely keep you out of trouble.

and I guess at the end of the day, any Enforcement officer’s interpretation of rule 6266.0100 may differ as much as yours and mine.

At the end of the day I think we should all still do what we do, but keep the pressure on to get things cleared up.

If you want something else to throw in for confusion and fun… under 6266.0500.. Catfish get nullified as gamefish?

“B. “Game fish” means all species and size categories not included as rough fish, minnows, and catfish taken by angling”

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/rules/?id=6266.0500

Yawn… I sure hope the Packers kick the crap out of the Vikings this year.. again. I think I’m going to invent a couple of stealth rods for my Minnesota friends. What is that? oh that is just a landing net with some line stuck in it. Perhaps we should raise Brian’s taxes again.

Josh, could you supply the CO’s name?

Private Message would be fine if your not comfortable posting it.

Thanks.

Quote:

---

Josh, could you supply the CO’s name?

---

I’m curious also……

When you say “agent” are you talking to a CO ? or somebody who works @ a DNR center?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Josh, could you supply the CO’s name?

---

I’m curious also……

When you say “agent” are you talking to a CO ? or somebody who works @ a DNR center?

---

The quoted above was a Wisconsin CO, and a MN Researcher..the two other “Nos” were voicemails from CO’s from each state, which I didn’t keep around since that’s not going to help us at all..

I also just left a few voice mails at the Deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners offices explaining the multifaceted answers and general ambiguity of the law.

Our Cat fishing Friend Joel Stiras at the MN DNR helped me out with this one from the MN DNR.

From: Peterson, Jason.R R (DNR)

Sent: Friday, September 02, 2011 4:05 PM

To: Stiras, Joel K (DNR)

Cc: Salo, Gregory (DNR)

Subject: RE: MN/WI border regulations Good afternoon sir!

>>It looks like a MN angler could legally fish with bluegill that the angler caught if fishing on the WI side of

the river(s) as it is legal for WI anglers to use bluegill as bait in WI. Some people think that a MN angler could fish three lines on the WI side of the river(s). My interpretation is no, they cannot as page 48 states “Unless otherwise noted, all general regulations related to angling methods, licensing, seasons, limits, possession and transportation of fish, apply to border waters (see pages 9-13).” On page 57, it states only two lines may be used, so I treat that as “otherwise noted” and therefore MN anglers can only use two lines. Does a WI non-resident license get a MN angler that privilege?

Answer to your first question: A MN resident with a valid MN angling license can use the more liberal regulation (in this case 3 lines) while angling on the WI side only.

>> Anglers are bound by the seasons set forth by their home state (even if a MN angler has a WI non-resident license). Is that correct? So on the St Croix, MN anglers must wait for the September 4 opener for lake sturgeon even though the WI opener is September 1, regardless of what side the angler may be fishing. Or does a WI non-resident license get a MN angler that privilege?

Answer to your second question: A MN resident with a valid MN angling license may fish for any open season (including WI) on the bordering water even if it differs from MN.

>> WI only allows use of live crayfish as bait in the Mississippi River. MN allows use of crayfish on the St

Croix River downstream of the Boom Site (i.e. Lake St Croix). Can a MN angler use live crayfish on the

WI side of Lake St Croix?

Answer to your third question: I would need to look at WI regulations as it pertains to your crayfish question.

Applying the same logic, my first thought would be that if WI does not permit the use of crayfish as bait on the St. Croix, just because MN does would not make it lawful to do so on the WI side.

Please let me know if you have any further questions. 1LT Jason Peterson

District 14 Supervisor

MN DNR Division of Enforcement

651-460-8141

<a href="mailto:[email protected]“>[email protected]

I’m thinking that’s pretty much cut and dried although I don’t care for the crayfish answer. After all we are talking a possible ticket and fine.

Now I’m just waiting on the WI written answer. Not sure why they would be any different but checking out all the angles.

Josh, I think we agree more than we realize.

Quote:

---

My understanding on this situation has been this…you are bound by the rules of your home state. I had been told that a MN resident could not fish the Wisconsin bass opener on the St Croix, EVEN IF they purchased a WI non resident license. Your home state has rules and seasons, so when it came to MN/WI border waters, MN residents were bound to the MN opener on the St Croix. I have been applying that to ALL rules, regardless of what side you are fishing on. I was told border waters are border waters, and the same rules applied throughout as defined by your home state regulations. I know that puts a crimp in some catfishermens tactics as far as fishing with bluegill or whatever, but following that logic would definitely keep you out of trouble.

---

I think this guy is a nutjob . Not sure where to start.

You are not bound by the rules of your home state. Thats ridiculous! Say you are a MN resident without a MN fishig license but instead ONLY have a WI non-res license. Are you still bound to MN rules because you live there??? I completely discredit anything this guys says.

I know the ignorance thing wasn’t directed at me, I’m just one that totally agrees with that. Too many people out there are out to exploit loopholes that don’t relly exist. I’m not one of them.

You can call me a nut job and think you need to discredit me all you want, but that is what I was told 6 years ago. Back then, a MN angler could not fish the WI opener for bass which opened before the MN season did…because the angler was bound by the rules of their home state. Obviously things have changed, whether it is agreement between the two states over time, better interpretation of existing or new laws, or court cases. I have gotten my new answers and so have you.

Sorry about that comment, I had to assume it was a recent quote. This is why I usually never engage in these types of conversations. It’s my fault for commenting on unreliable information.

Although if I was told that today, I would feel the same.

Quote:

---

You can call me a nut job and think you need to discredit me all you want, but that is what I was told 6 years ago. Back then, a MN angler could not fish the WI opener for bass which opened before the MN season did…because the angler was bound by the rules of their home state. Obviously things have changed, whether it is agreement between the two states over time, better interpretation of existing or new laws, or court cases. I have gotten my new answers and so have you.

---

I didn’t have any idea who said the quote that Big Gill was referring to…Joel wasn’t the only one that’s been going by the “old” rules.

I was just as surprised as he was when the email came back to me from Officer Quant!

Jon Jordan has been saying the same thing as Officer Quant for a few years now. I didn’t take Jon seriously because I called St Paul and Madison myself a number of years ago and it was a completely different tune then.

It was just last year when I was talking to the head of enforcement for the WI side of Pool 4. He was under the same impression because he stated “what MN is doing is unconstitutional”. We were talking about a MN CO giving a ticket to a MN licensed angler on the WI side of the river.

I quote “If you get a ticket on the WI side of the channel by a MN CO for following the WI laws, just demand to have your court appearance in the state that you were ticketed in.” MN law does not apply in another state.

I personally do not blame ANYone whether it be a DNR CO or a biologist for having the laws messed up. I hold the DNR’s as a whole for not having this clear in the synopsis years ago.

After all, is it the hunter or fisherman’s responsibility to dig, research, call AND email the DNR’s to find out what a law is?

My hat’s off to all that have helped with this clarification.