2 Lines and Bullheads~on to the Govenor!

Here’s the highlights of the bill moving on to the Gov. to sign. This was sent out by Anglers for Habitat this morning.

I’ll add that our bullhead length law is included in this bill and will become effective the day after the Gov. signs it. I guess it didn’t make the highlight list because the State isn’t charging a $10. fee for larger bullheads. </sarcasm>

Quote:

---

Highlights:

Please forward to your constituencies.

1. Walk-In Access Passes–Funded at $1.4 million

2. All kids will fish for free starting 2011

3. Modified two-line fishing: “Rewarding Conservation”

–New provision will start next year
–$10 endorsement must be purchased with license only
–Purchaser is restricted to half the limit for entire season–even if fishing with one line.
–Two lines may not be used on special reg lakes with lower limits. Half possession limit still applies, rounding down if appropriate
–Open water season only

4. Cass Lake spearing legalized. Illegal Muskie take will have increased penalties

5. No new deer baiting or feeding rules

6. No spearing of big game

7. No changes to placement of duck decoys on adjacent land.

8. Game and Fish Fund Oversight Committee extended one year

9. Invasive species education added to boating safety certificate

10. Height restrictions on hunting stands removed on private lands

11. Hunting from ATV restrictions restored–10 feet

12. No scopes on muzzleloaders

13. Duck season permitted to start one week earlier

—
Anglers for Habitat is a non-profit alliance of anglers dedicated to the preservation and improvement of aquatic habitat, clean water and fishing in Minnesota.

For more information contact Vern Wagner 612-756-3474

---

I’m gonna need another cat rod pretty soon.

I don’t have any numbers to support my comment below…not that I haven’t asked….

But…Since many of the catch and release (mostly) folks are down grading to the “conservation license”, what a great way to bump them back to the full price license and then up grade them by $10.!

“We can’t just pick which WI laws we want”…unless we tack on a $10. fee.

IMO it’s a shame that we would have to concede to paying more for an added line, when there isn’t any added cost.

Just my opinion.

That is the weirdest twist?

So, if you wanted to eat some channels, you could keep two under 24″? And if it applies to bait, you could only keep 50 bullheads? It’s like some game where there’s a huge boon/bane thing going on. Like you get double strength and you have the tendency to spontaneously explode.

It might be a little goofy but you don’t have to do it, I guess. So that’s cool and it might suit some people very well.

afterthought: was there any bite last night? I stayed home. Figured the 10 degree cool off would make things real slow.

Thanks for posting that Brian, I’ve been trying to keep up, but that summarized nicely.

In regards to Bullheads and conservation licenses, this is specifically how the law will read:

(a), up to 100 bullheads that are greater than seven inches and equal to or less than ten inches in length may be taken, possessed, transported, and held for use as live bait as provided in this section.

I think this is regardless of regular or conservation license.

I am however a little confused on the 2 line wording. Especially regarding cats. So is it 3 total with only 1 over 24″ and only one can be a Flathead?

Here is another one that could potentially affect us catdudes:

allowing the taking of minnows (for non-commercial purposes) from water classified as infested with milfoil, if it is ONLY milfoil, and are taken via a trap.

I got chills reading this. Two lines, really? I thought on the senate side it was out of the question. This law is perfect for guys like me. I rarely keep fish and I normally only keep enough for 1 meal, so it is perfect for me.

I wonder who in my family will opt in. Generally they don’t keep fish either, but I am not sure would want that restriction, have to pay an extra $10 or deal with an extra line. I am pretty sure Ron won’t want to cut his limits in half, because he enjoys eating fish.

I wish I knew the 2 lines was going to pass because I have ideas about how to avoid some confusion, as it already seems to have reading this thread. I would suggest on the Croix, every one can use 2 lines and those who bought the extra line still only use 2, but can keep a limit. Guys who fish the Croix most of the time aren’t going to buy it anyway.

Might not need to worry…

I’m working on getting the details…but the DNR has sent a letter to the Governor asking him not to sign the entire bill into law.

Once I have more details I’ll be starting a new thread.

BTW…I’m really glad we aren’t allowed to spear big game.

Either way, I just sent out an email voicing my support:

[email protected]

The DNR just wants to clean it up, right? They aren’t looking to pull things like allowing 2 lines? I don’t think they can anyway or are there some things the governor can line item veto without the Supreme Court of Mn’s blessing?

Quote:

---

The DNR just wants to clean it up, right?

---

What was relayed to me in a phone conversation this morning was “the DNR will be asking the Gov to not sigh (the whole) bill)

I need to get the letter before I say anymore…

Dtro is being proactive and that can’t hurt!

Quote:

---

Unfortunately the email has information that cannot be shared. Simply just have your guys email the gov, [email protected] , and let him know of their support for the bill regarding the issues that are important to them.

---

Last email received.

Time to send an email!

I wouldn’t be surprised if the DNR recommendation was based upon the spearing proposal alone. Groups such as Muskies Inc, have a lot of clout with the DNR and they should, they are well organized and are active in supporting their cause.

Not a big fan of omnibus bills, using this one as a good example.

This is not good news, as I can’t see the Gov going against the DNR.

Quote:

---

3. Modified two-line fishing: “Rewarding Conservation”

–New provision will start next year

–$10 endorsement must be purchased with license only

–Purchaser is restricted to half the limit for entire season–even if fishing with one line.

–Two lines may not be used on special reg lakes with lower limits. Half possession limit still applies, rounding down if appropriate

–Open water season only

---

How will that work for tournament fisherman?

I would guess the tourney rules would include specifying one or two lines.

AHH! Now the fish in possession would have to be cut in half as in the conservation license.

So what your saying is all tourney guys couldn’t buy the two line stamp if they wanted to weigh 6 eyes.

Quote:

---

I would guess the tourney rules would include specifying one or two lines.

AHH! Now the fish in possession would have to be cut in half as in the conservation license.

So what your saying is all tourney guys couldn’t buy the two line stamp if they wanted to weigh 6 eyes.

---

BINGO

I kind of understand that thinking and it really doesn’t make sense on the surface. However I don’t buy a license to keep fish. I buy a license for the privilege to wet a line. If I so choose to keep a fish then I have a bag/possession limit.

Now I have the choice to use 2 lines, and with that choice comes a reduced bag and an added fee.

We will all have that same choice.

…if it passes

I’m with Darren on that. I think also paying more means you are serious about staying within the bounds.

And why can’t tourneys limit the limits to half the normal to make it fair for all. Or, although it would require passing a second reg or amending one day/one line full limit licence?

How many of you are aware you can buy a conservation licence now for $18. No 2 lines, but half limits.

Quote:

---

How many of you are aware you can buy a conservation licence now for $18. No 2 lines, but half limits.

---

Even better, it’s only $11

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

How many of you are aware you can buy a conservation licence now for $18. No 2 lines, but half limits.

---

Be nice Darren, I am a little slow.

Even better, it’s only $11

---

Quote:

---

I do not keep many fish but why do we need to pay more money to keep less fish? Does this really make sense to you guys. I am all for smaller limits but I am not sure we can charge more.

---

It doesn’t make sense to me either. I can see having to pay $10 for another line. That’s cool, but why reduce the bag limit.

If it was buy a second line stamp and a normal limit I would have bought it in a heart beat. Now I will seriously consider if I buy it or not.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I do not keep many fish but why do we need to pay more money to keep less fish? Does this really make sense to you guys. I am all for smaller limits but I am not sure we can charge more.

---

It doesn’t make sense to me either. I can see having to pay $10 for another line. That’s cool, but why reduce the bag limit.

If it was buy a second line stamp and a normal limit I would have bought it in a heart beat. Now I will seriously consider if I buy it or not.

---

Personally I see it as they are willing to allow a two line privilege to people who don’t keep fish normally. A half limit still affords them the chance to keep fish from time to time or when a fish won’t survive release. But they don’t want people who will be still trying to keep a limit every time they go out.

It was Senator Satveer Chaudhary’s concern that people would end up harvesting more fish with two lines. Or maybe their concern is with two lines on a day where you catch 0-1 fish will turn into 2-3 fish? When they having been pushing for a 4 fish statewide limit recently, I suppose more 2-3 fish days (walleye) that would have been 0-1 would give them pause. As I have been saying I think it is not something they want a lot of people doing, so this is a way to discourage people who try limiting out every time and keep as much as they can. A reduced limit won’t deter them if they think they can turn their 1 fish kept to 2-3 with 2 lines. After all, they have labeled it with conservation and to me that it a simple way to say catch and release.

If only there were a place where a guy could use three lines, and use bluegills…

Quote:

---

If only there were a place where a guy could use three lines, and use bluegills…

---

How’s the construction industry in your state?? I’m ready for a move.

“3. Modified two-line fishing: “Rewarding Conservation”

–New provision will start next year

–$10 endorsement must be purchased with license only

–Purchaser is restricted to half the limit for entire season–even if fishing with one line.”

This is lame to me. Just my opinion. I don’t keep fish regularly, but I do fish tournaments…and this rule alone would prevent me, and many others from ever buying this license.

As far as changing tournament limits to make it “fair”. How fair is this to all the tournament directors in this state. They have enough of a fight with scheduling, and every other aspect of holding a contest in MN, now they’d have this to consider???

I truly hope this doesn’t pass.

And one more thing to consider…how is risking increased hooking mortality “conservation”???

I’m all for two lines, but under different circumstances. Maybe just an added fee and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Personally I see it as they are willing to allow a two line privilege to people who don’t keep fish normally. A half limit still affords them the chance to keep fish from time to time or when a fish won’t survive release. But they don’t want people who will be still trying to keep a limit every time they go out.

It was Senator Satveer Chaudhary’s concern that people would end up harvesting more fish with two lines. Or maybe their concern is with two lines on a day where you catch 0-1 fish will turn into 2-3 fish? When they having been pushing for a 4 fish statewide limit recently, I suppose more 2-3 fish days (walleye) that would have been 0-1 would give them pause. As I have been saying I think it is not something they want a lot of people doing, so this is a way to discourage people who try limiting out every time and keep as much as they can. A reduced limit won’t deter them if they think they can turn their 1 fish kept to 2-3 with 2 lines. After all, they have labeled it with conservation and to me that it a simple way to say catch and release.

---

That just seems dumb to me. If you aren’t a good enough fisherman to catch fish with one line, what makes them think you are good enough to catch them with two.

The value to me for two lines would be to eliminate ineffective techniques/presentations faster.

I rarely keep fish, but once in a great while. I’ll keep a limit (about twice a year) if I have friends or family coming to visit and wanting a fish fry. It’s sad that those two times could potentially stop me from throwing another $10 at the DNR and fishing with 2 lines.

Quote:

---

This is lame to me. Just my opinion. I don’t keep fish regularly, but I do fish tournaments…and this rule alone would prevent me, and many others from ever buying this license.

---

The rule isn’t meant for everybody. I sure hope it envy isn’t playing a part in some people’s decisions just because their circumstances would prevent them from being able to buy this license.

Quote:

---

As far as changing tournament limits to make it “fair”. How fair is this to all the tournament directors in this state. They have enough of a fight with scheduling, and every other aspect of holding a contest in MN, now they’d have this to consider???

---

I wonder if other states have the same type of rule where you can use multiple lines and are limited in the amount of fish you can keep? I wonder how those tournaments work. I know for red fish down south, they can’t keep anything over a certain size, those tourneys seem to be doing fine.

Like I said, this is not for everyone and if you plan on fishing tourneys, don’t buy the license.

I know in bass tourneys they try releasing all the fish that can be released. What happens in walleye tourneys? Tournament caught fish go through a lot of stress and I believe the mortality rate of these fish is higher then fish released immediately. Tourneys are not exactly conservation minded.

Like I said, either a tourney director says if you bought a conservation license, well then you have to keep half a limit. Or if the license is popular for tourney fishermen, which I highly doubt it would be, require everyone to fish 1 line and keep half a limit to make it fair for all.

Quote:

---

And one more thing to consider…how is risking increased hooking mortality “conservation”???

---

Fishing one line does not prevent hook mortality and I can’t speak for everyone, but I imagine there are many circumstances where I wouldn’t use 2 lines, especially if the action was so fast that it made fishing two lines a burden. But that is also why there is a half limit, so that those fish can be kept.

Quote:

---

I’m all for two lines, but under different circumstances. Maybe just an added fee and leave it at that.

---

So you are not concerned with hook mortality, but just don’t like it being used in the wording of this regulation? Not having the limit decrease means the spirit of the regulation is just to give people a chance to catch and keep more fish.

Quote:

---

That just seems dumb to me. If you aren’t a good enough fisherman to catch fish with one line, what makes them think you are good enough to catch them with two.

The value to me for two lines would be to eliminate ineffective techniques/presentations faster.

I rarely keep fish, but once in a great while. I’ll keep a limit (about twice a year) if I have friends or family coming to visit and wanting a fish fry. It’s sad that those two times could potentially stop me from throwing another $10 at the DNR and fishing with 2 lines.

---

The value to me, besides what you mentioned would be to be able to maybe cast a lure while waiting for a catfish to bite. Or maybe throw a sucker minnow off the dock and while waiting for a taker, catch panfish on another line. I guess lastly would be to place a bullhead in a couple of spots that might be routes a flathead would take out of cover to go feed and cover my bases.

Cat fisherman need two lines. It’s the nature of the beast.

However, the DNR is against a number of items in this bill on the Governor’s desk including the two line option. As I mentioned before the Commissioner has sent a letter asking him not to sign this bill into law.

If you are for (or against) the two line option, now is the time to send an email to Gov. Pauwlenty.