2 Lines and Bullheads~on to the Govenor!

Just sent off my email.

Quote:

---

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.

---

You sure it isn’t greed that drives you to support a rule that would in reality benefit very few anglers, an extreme minority group you may fall into?

Quote:

---

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.

---

The answer is no, but I haven’t been to all 50 states. How many Redfish tournaments have you fished?

Quote:

---

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.

---

Tournament anglers were the initiators of conservative fishing, and Catch and Release. Please stop speculating about fishing tournaments, as you clearly have little knowledge in the subject.

Quote:

---

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.

---

There is already a higher rate of hooking mortality than most people care to believe. We should double that because of a smaller bag limit? I mainly bass fish…80-100 days a year…I haven’t kept a bass in years, but i’ve killed thousands(not braggin’,just sayin’). I imagine there are diehard walleye anglers in the same boat. People fish to catch fish…the more the better. If anglers can use two
lines to catch and release more fish in a day…they will.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Sounds to me you just like the idea of giving the DNR more money, and patting yourself on the back for doing so. Last I checked…they still take donations.

Having two lines allowed would be great, but to allow it under such extreme circumstances that would alienate a vast amount of MN anglers is merely foolish. I’m sure the MNDNR hassense enough to realize that. MN is in the minority when it comes to allowing only one line. As a ctfisherman…it makes no sense to me. As many other states have far better catfishing, with little to no regulation on # of lines an angler can use.

Also, we can use 2 lines in through the ice without the burden of extra costs or reduced limits. Why should the angler who DOESN’T ice fish(ME) be excluded from this benefit???

Why do I need a stamp to catch a trout?

Why do I need a stamp to shoot pheasant?

Chalk it up to business as usual in MN and I’ll take anything I can get, even if that means at a cost.

Quote:

---

Why do I need a stamp to catch a trout?

Why do I need a stamp to shoot pheasant?

Chalk it up to business as usual in MN and I’ll take anything I can get, even if that means at a cost.

---

I agree, but with the stamps you’ve listed…you’re paying for habitat and a put and take resource. I buy the stamps as well.

If your intentions are fishing 2 lines for flatheads…what has the MN DNR done for flatheads lately that would even warrant extra costs??

A ten dollar fee for using two lines, to me, is acceptable. There is no reason we can’t just leave it at that.

Quote:

---

You sure it isn’t greed that drives you to support a rule that would in reality benefit very few anglers, an extreme minority group you may fall into?

---

So I am being greedy by volunteering to pay an extra $10 and cutting my limit in half when I don’t keep fish 99% of the time. The exception to that being not wasting a fish that cannot be released? If it is an extreme minority who would buy into this, then what is the problem?

Quote:

---

The answer is no, but I haven’t been to all 50 states. How many Redfish tournaments have you fished?

---

You missed the point that tourneys in other states have directors able to work within the given rules.

And you are saying no that most states don’t allow more than one line whether you are required to buy a special license or not?

Quote:

---

Tournament anglers were the initiators of conservative fishing, and Catch and Release. Please stop speculating about fishing tournaments, as you clearly have little knowledge in the subject.

---

I clearly know that fish are placed in a aerated container of water for hours, bagged, weighed and released. That is not speculation. If I was running tournaments where a lot of fishermen came to a local lake and put extra pressure on a lake, I’d look for a PR campaign that would put me in a better light too.

I have no problem with tournament fishing at all and I am clearly being provocative, but it is something to think about.

I remember going to a weigh in for an club tourney on a lake I fish and seeing many fish released or attempted to be released that clearly had no chance of surviving. It happens. And it does point out that despite taking every precaution humanly possible, some tourney fish die. Kind of like what would happen with 2 lines.

Quote:

---

There is already a higher rate of hooking mortality than most people care to believe. We should double that because of a smaller bag limit? I mainly bass fish…80-100 days a year…I haven’t kept a bass in years, but i’ve killed thousands(not braggin’,just sayin’). I imagine there are diehard walleye anglers in the same boat. People fish to catch fish…the more the better. If anglers can use two
lines to catch and release more fish in a day…they will.

---

Even if we assume your argument, it will only double for those with a license which you have already stated, and as I believe, will be a minority. And if my argument that people will not fish 2 lines when inappropriate, in circumstances where the action is fast and hot, that number goes down even more, negligibly different than a one line catch and release fisherman. In my opinion people of a certain responsible mindset will be the majority of people who opt in to this license.

Quote:

---

Sounds to me you just like the idea of giving the DNR more money, and patting yourself on the back for doing so. Last I checked…they still take donations.

---

Nope. I just would like the opportunity when appropriate. And I already buy a full license despite being a catch and release guy.

Quote:

---

Having two lines allowed would be great, but to allow it under such extreme circumstances that would alienate a vast amount of MN anglers is merely foolish. I’m sure the MNDNR hassense enough to realize that. MN is in the minority when it comes to allowing only one line. As a ctfisherman…it makes no sense to me. As many other states have far better catfishing, with little to no regulation on # of lines an angler can use.

---

There are plenty of lakes with special regulations that are alienating the people who frequent them.

I don’t know what point you are trying to make about other states,their catfish fisheries and number of lines allowed.

Quote:

---

Also, we can use 2 lines in through the ice without the burden of extra costs or reduced limits. Why should the angler who DOESN’T ice fish(ME) be excluded from this benefit???

---

I am not sure how it hurts you either other than you don’t like the idea of other people being allowed to do it.

Quote:

---

Chalk it up to business as usual in MN and I’ll take anything I can get, even if that means at a cost.

---

I know were Dtro is coming from. If I could only use one line on the Mississippi for catfishing, I would pay $100. to fish with two lines and I don’t really care where the money goes.

Pretty much the thought is “whatever it takes to use two lines”.

Although I support the two line fee for my cat fishing friends, I don’t think it’s right.

Quote:

---

A ten dollar fee for using two lines, to me, is acceptable. There is no reason we can’t just leave it at that.

---

That is the real issue you have with it then. I can understand that, but I think then it also makes it too easy for what I like to call ‘Chronic Harvesters’.

Again your greed shows.

People kill fish. People eat fish. It’s pretty simple. And it’s always going to happen that way.

By making a statement like “chronic harvester” you show you really don’t accept anglers who fish for food. And those “chronic harvesters” are doing it with one line as it stands.

I could take or leave two lines for catfishing. If there were an option to buy a two line stamp, I would.

Quote:

---

Again your greed shows.

People kill fish. People eat fish. It’s pretty simple. And it’s always going to happen that way.

By making a statement like “chronic harvester” you show you really don’t accept anglers who fish for food. And those “chronic harvesters” are doing it with one line as it stands.

---

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I don’t feel like I am being greedy.

I still don’t see how 2 lines is going to add significantly to the mortality of fish.

The Chronic Harvester label was tongue-in-cheek.

Last Saturday we had a lovely fish fry up at the cabin and couldn’t eat all the fish, so we sent the rest home with my uncle and cousins.

I have no problem with harvesting fish. What really tweaks my nipples is people who only harvest the biggest fish that will fill their limit. When enough people do that they do damage the fishery and people should keep their first limit of legal fish period and not practice reverse natural selection, keeping only the biggest fish that can fill their limit.

I’ve said it before, I applaud that walleye anglers came up with the term “eater” and the practice of keeping fish in that 15″-18″ range or whatever you want to term an eater. That practice has kept a very healthy walleye fishery going, despite the pressure walleyes bare in this state.

I’ve read that the fee will go directly to the fisheries fund, and not a general fund.

While I get pigeon holed in to a “Catfish everything” guy. I’m an all around fishing fool, whether it has whiskers or not. I just happen fish for catfish more than others. I have no problem with my money going towards hiring more CO’s or habitat improvement for Pike spawning or stocking walleyes, or whatever it might be.

I really don’t see the reduced bag limit as a big deal at all. How many times is a limit brought home anyways and when that happens would a ½ a limit have been OK?

No matter the discussion, it ALWAYS comes down to “I’m not going to be able to keep as many Walleyes” and “This is going to hurt the Muskies”. The Bass guys never seem to get bent out of shape. In my next life, I think I should become a Bass fisherman, they seem to know how to roll.

Quote:

---

The Bass guys never seem to get bent out of shape. In my next life, I think I should become a Bass fisherman, they seem to know how to roll.

---

So does this mean I am not a bass guy?

Quote:

---

I’ve read that the fee will go directly to the fisheries fund, and not a general fund.

I really don’t see the reduced bag limit as a big deal at all. How many times is a limit brought home anyways and when that happens would a ½ a limit have been OK?

No matter the discussion, it ALWAYS comes down to “I’m not going to be able to keep as many Walleyes” and “This is going to hurt the Muskies”.

---

You are 100% correct. Everyone wants special rules that benefit them the most.

All i’m saying is, there is no reason we can’t be allowed two lines, under the current regulations. What harm would that be???

Quote:

---

The Bass guys never seem to get bent out of shape. In my next life, I think I should become a Bass fisherman, they seem to know how to roll.

---

Your assessment of a few of us is accurrate!! However, even most bass guys live in the same fantasy land as muskie and walleye anglers.

I like the compromise! Although there will be some hooking mortality the 1/2 limit will easily over come any over harvest issues.

I have and do disagree with the notion that if everybody is allowed 2-lines on ALL waters, with full limits, that the harvest/mortailty will not go up substantially.
I find that notion floating around ..Preposterous!

How is this for compromise. No new license, decrease the slot limits and allow two lines. That way we all are happy, right?

Quote:

---

That way we all are happy, right?

---

Are you Jimmy Carter or something?

Quote:

---

Are you Jimmy Carter or something?

---

You did not just call me that!

Quote:

---

How is this for compromise. No new license, decrease the slot limits and allow two lines. That way we all are happy, right?

---

Now that’s what I’m talking about! Sign me up!

Quote:

---

I have and do disagree with the notion that if everybody is allowed 2-lines on ALL waters, with full limits, that the harvest/mortailty will not go up substantially.
I find that notion floating around ..Preposterous!

---

I agree.This would likely occur even if all catch and release anglers were to have the benefit of using two lines.

The reason we all want to use two lines is simple, to increase our odds of catching fish, and likely it would result in us catching more. The fact is, the more fish caught and handled by anglers, the more will die…regardless of limits.

Quote:

---

How is this for compromise. No new license, decrease the slot limits and allow two lines. That way we all are happy, right?

---

Although I don’t understand “decrease the slot limits”, but I see you’re on the right track.

There’s really no reason we need to accept extra rules and fees to use two lines. Damn…we got enough rules to worry about as it is!

Someone mentioned “at any cost”. Why not just use two lines now?? There doesn’t appear to be much of a CO presence on the river at midnight. It may be several years before one would get pinched for using two lines. Maybe never happen at all. If you had to pay a $50-75 fine once every few years, it would be a bargain.

I think it is time to ask out resident DNR biologist, Joel, although I am not sure he’ll want to go on the record with an opinion. At least he could provide info on the number of conservation licenses currently being purchased oppposed to the normal license. I think I am also going to poll IDO members for their thoughts.

People get pinched after dark more than you would think… I think the extra line fee is $125.00 if i got the right info.
DNR likes going in stealth mode, and most people think that they won’t get caught because of the dark….

Just for Pug….

Licenses sold in 2009

Conservation Individual Angling 14,212
Conservation Combination Angling 4,218
Annual Special Angling 18,523
Permanent Angling 1,060
24-Hour Angling 63,253
Resident Individual Angling 485,413
Resident Combination Angling 204,383
Resident Spear from Dark House 15,390
Resident White/Tubilee/Herring 666
Non-Resident Shelter 289
Non-resident 7 Day Shelter 145
Resident Dark House Shelter 48,751
Resident Dark House (Rental) 1,716
Non-Resident Individual Angling 56,470
Non-Resident Family Angling 29,094
Non-Resident 14 Day Couple Angling 22,845
Non-Resident 7 Day Angling 71,576
Non-Resident 72 Hour Angling 40,491
Trout Validation 89,701
Trout Validation and Stamp 6,858
Sturgeon Tag 2,484
Walleye Stamp Validation 1,827
Walleye Stamp Pictorial 3,635
Youth Angling 677
Resident Individual Sports 96,675
Resident Combination Sports 82,917
Lifetime Angling 3,758
Lifetime Sports 4,054
Nonres Lifetime Angling 25

Totals 1,371,106

Quote:

---

Conservation Individual Angling 14,212
Conservation Combination Angling 4,218
Resident Individual Angling 485,413
Resident Combination Angling 204,383

---

So just looking at these numbers, about 3%? (conservation total/Resident annual). My guess is that was mostly influenced by cost, so if instead you have to pay more, that number is going down.

No surprise…VETOED!

The governor contends the Legislature overreached with its sweeping outdoors directive. By DOUG SMITH, Star Tribune Last update: May 25, 2010 – 9:26 PM There will be no two-line fishing in the summer. No free fishing for 16- and 17- year-olds. No early duck season or special hunter access program this fall. Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed a wide-ranging game and fish bill on Tuesday that contained numerous controversial items, including special regulations on Fish Lake Reservoir near Duluth, where a state senator who pushed for the measure has a cabin. The bill would have allowed open-water anglers to use two fishing lines and would have created a hunter access program that would have paid landowners to allow public hunting. It also would have closed or restricted fishing on three lakes or rivers — action Pawlenty said had no scientific basis. It even would have set the deer hunting season in southeastern Minnesota, something not normally done by statute. The governor said that several provisions reflected “legislative overreach” and that legislators tried to set “arbitrary hunting and fishing management policy” that conflicted with Department of Natural Resources experts. The DNR opposed many of the provisions. Signing it would “condone an approach that establishes harmful precedent for managing our natural resources and undercut public confidence in the process,” Pawlenty wrote in a letter to legislators. He said it also would accelerate the declining balance in the DNR’s game and fish fund, which is funded by hunting and fishing license fees. “I recommended a veto,” said DNR Commissioner Mark Holsten. “It wasn’t any one thing; it was the volume of them and the fiscal implications.” But Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee and a chief author of the bill, said the veto was a blow to outdoor enthusiasts. “I feel bad for Minnesota sportsmen who brought these initiatives to the Legislature,” he said. As for legislative overreach, Chaudhary said: “Sportsmen and the Legislature simply acted when the DNR would not.” Chaudhary himself made the bill more controversial when, at the 11th hour, he had a colleague insert an amendment directing the DNR to adopt special regulations for Fish Lake. He has said he thought the majority of the lake’s residents wanted the action but learned afterward that they didn’t. Chaudhary has taken public criticism for appearing to try to boost fishing on his own lake, but he said he did nothing unethical. The financial shortcomings of the bill also prompted the veto, Holsten said. Pawlenty said there was no evidence that a provision to allow anglers fishing open water to use two lines for an extra $10 would generate up to $2 million in revenue. Anglers buying tags would have had their bag limits cut in half and faced other restrictions. Holsten said he doubted anyone would buy the endorsements. Those revenues would have helped offset the proposed $1.4 million “walk-in” hunting program, which would have allowed hunters access to private lands. Such a program, popular in other states, has been long- sought by Minnesota hunting groups. Despite his veto, Pawlenty directed Holsten to develop a program, though funding remains uncertain. The veto kills some provisions the DNR supported, including allowing the duck season to start in September instead of October. It also would have reinstated a requirement that hunters on ATVs step away from their machines before shooting at ruffed grouse. “There were a number of things we would have liked, but none so critical that we can’t wait a year,” Holsten said. THE BILL ALSO WOULD HAVE: •Closed parts of the Mississippi and Rum rivers to smallmouth bass fishing until the third Sunday in June and closed fishing on parts of Florida Lake one month before the regular fishing season. •Allowed northerns to be speared on Cass Lake. •Boosted the fines for poaching a trophy deer. •Removed a 16-foot restriction for hunting stands on private lands.

Quote:

---

Chaudhary said: “Sportsmen and the Legislature simply acted when the DNR would not.”

---

Lot of truth in that statement.

I can tell you this much. I’ve had it. No more wasted time for this dude.

So Brian…

Bullheads?? Next steps??

Not that long ago this was supposed to be a rule change and was basically awaiting the signature of the governor for it to be enacted.

It now became a part of the omnibus bill and thats shot down.

So where does it sit?? Start over??

Really wish I could comment on this without fear of losing my job.

The rule change is still going on. I was told the earliest would be August.

When I wright my book on how to change an insignificant law in them, I’ll be asking for anonymous quotes.

Quote:

---

The rule change is still going on. I was told the earliest would be August.

When I wright my book on how to change an insignificant law in them, I’ll be asking for anonymous quotes.

---

I have a quote for ya, but even the worst word filter would dump 99% of it.