Quote:
I heard a one-time permit for two lines is about $120
Anyone know…Does the first offense with fishing with an extra line carry the loss of fishing privileges for a year? Or only after multiple offenses?
Quote:
Quote:
I heard a one-time permit for two lines is about $120
Anyone know…Does the first offense with fishing with an extra line carry the loss of fishing privileges for a year? Or only after multiple offenses?
Just a ticket for the first offense…I heard.
Do they confiscate your gear?
Quote:
Do they confiscate your gear?
Do they confiscate your reputation?
Quote:
Quote:
Do they confiscate your gear?
Do they confiscate your reputation?
I never carry that with me.
Yes, I posted at 4:45 am. Love my job. Love being on-call.
You better sleep in this morning.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I heard a one-time permit for two lines is about $120
Anyone know…Does the first offense with fishing with an extra line carry the loss of fishing privileges for a year? Or only after multiple offenses?
Just a ticket for the first offense…I heard.
Thanks that’s what i thought.
Alot of Minnesota’s fishing violations carry the “Same or Similar within 3 Years” clause. You have a same or similar 2nd violation within a few years of your first violation, you lose your license for a year.
Seams fair to me. If the first one doesn’t teach you, hopefully the second will.
Interesting (to me) it seems so controversial to propose allowing more than one rod in the boat…
As far as site-specific regs, kind of a double edged sword isn’t it. Ideally, each body of water should have different management requirements, but then having too many site specific regs makes both enforcement and compliance a nightmare. 
Shawn, what’s lost in the translation to the cat forum is the State of MN is a walleye State.
If this were a catfish state, two or three lines wouldn’t be a problem for the DNR and other groups because the hooking mortality is lower than it is for our scaly friends. (I don’t like putting words in others mouths)
There were many examples giving at the Roundtable meeting of people using live bait and hooking walleyes and bass specifically, too deep.
The MN DNR is short money to stock the walleyes they want to stock now (costs have gone from $750,000. to last years $1.2 million+)
Whether we “keep” the walleyes or not, there will be more caught with two lines which will result in more money needed for more stocking.
I kept reminding myself that besides the DNR there might have been just a few that know how we catch cats or the size of them. When we say catfishing in MN, most think of 2 pound channel cats.
In a nutshell I was told by one of the many groups opposed to fishing two lines…”if you want to fish for cats using two lines, go to IA”.
Quote:
As far as site-specific regs, kind of a double edged sword isn’t it.
Double edge?
On a number of waters we have slots for walleyes, pike, muskies and bass. I would have to check on blue gills…I won’t even bring up the MN/WI border waters. 
I know what your trying to say, but we have a quadruple edge sword already.
Quote:
In a nutshell I was told by one of the many groups opposed to fishing two lines…”if you want to fish for cats using two lines, go to IA”.
What a great self righteous comment. Should have reminded him that not allowing people to fish for walleye would result in a 0 hook mortality rate, I mean if the D-Bag is really that concerned he should hang up the poles. Or how about forcing walleye guys to fish without hooks? One line only in the winter?
Probably a good thing I wasn’t invited to the meeting.
I like the idea of an endorsement to be able to fish with more lines… But I’ve got a WI license, so I don’t have to worry about that.
The endorsement would have to be similar to a stamp in the sense that it is for a specific species or group of fish. If that is the route that was taken, how would you go about protecting the species your one-line policy is in place to protect? I mean if they paid for the stamp, what’s stopping them from using multiple poles on muskies, walleye, and bass?
It would be a stamp entitling you to fish with multiple lines for catfish or roughfish only. If you don’t have the stamp, you could still go catting, but it would be with only one line.
Enforcement would be tough, especially when your using bait that can catch other species of fish. Just for the sake of an example… What if you caught a walleye with one of the lines and decided to bring it home for dinner while you were catfishing? And a game warden saw you do it? Which line is your main line, and which one is cat-only?
-Mike
The more I think about this, the more I would be happy with 2 lines on designated major rivers for catfishing only. I guess there is no real way to enforce it, but maybe require 1 line not have live bait.
Also, for a statewide 2 line reg, I’d be tickled to allow it only if 1 line had an artificial bait (lure). But I would also be happy if this too was only in designated major rivers.
I don’t see a lot of problems with multiple lines, especially if it’s done responsibly. If fishing is good, using only one line isn’t going to stop someone from fishing until they’ve caught their limit (especially if that’s their goal).
This is more an issue of re-evaluating bag limits and length requirements. The way it stands, the DNR is saying it is okay to keep x amount of fish of a certain species and length. I don’t believe a second line is going to lend to people keeping many more fish of any species.
-Mike
Quote:
If fishing is good, using only one line isn’t going to stop someone from fishing until they’ve caught their limit…
This is one of the arguments we’ve heard in debates about setlines.. if your worried about protecting top-end fish one guy with a few rods who knows how to fish them can do as much damage as someone running trotlines. Of course, if you’re talking numbers only having 50 hooks would make a big difference, imho.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
