Allowing 2 lines

  • sandmannd
    Posts: 928
    #967678

    OK, I grew up in North Dakota and since I’ve lived in MN I fish mainly the Mississippi and St. Croix Rivers. ND is not hurting for fish. It’s two lines in the summer and their limits are 6 I believe. On the rivers here the limit is six as well and two lines. I use two lines every time on the river. I don’t get my limit every time out. Some days yes, some days not even close. What it does is allow me to see what they are biting on. Minnow on one, leech on another, maybe try a crawler or maybe jig one and rig another. Handlining I have two raps on one reel at a time. I also use one rod with a jig at the bottom and lindy 18 inches up from that. Many things you can do with two lines. If fishing is hot, I go to one line so I can keep up. It’s extremely rare that any walleye is hooked so bad it won’t live.

    As far as the buy a stamp for an extra rod and lower the limit….. Why? What’s the point? More nonsense, you pay more but now can keep half your limit, that’s half arsed. I’d buy a stamp for an extra rod but no way I would spend the money to keep half my limit if I wanted to. I’d stick to the river using my two lines and keeping a full limit if I choose.

    Fishing opener on Mille Lacs we had three lines in the water in our boat. Over two days we managed five keepers between the three of us. Talking to the DNR we were on the high end as the average was one keeper per boat per day. So with three lines in how much harm did we do to the fishery? Zero, non, nata.

    I’ve been fishing two rods on the river for nearly ten years. I have seen no down size in the number of fish in that system. I have no question MN could handle this. What does hurt it is the yahoo’s that think they need to keep the 20+” fish. I don’t keep anything over 18-19″ on the river. No need to. Rather than buying a dumb stamp to loose your right to half a limit, I would much rather see a stamp for the second line AND a statewide slot of 14-20″ with only one being over 28″. Those 20-28″ fish are the breeders, quite keeping them for table fair. They don’t taste as good anyway. Make the stamp an extra $20 so not just any Joe will buy it. Raise the cost of out of state licenses and charge them $40 for the stamp. Use the extra revenue to up your stocking efforts.

    The excuse of “you’ll catch more fish”, “You’ll keep more fish” and “You’ll kill the fishery” are like crying wolf. You can only have six in possession. Doesn’t matter how you get them, it’s straight up six. If you need more than six in a week or so then you better read the fish eating advisories.

    In Wisconsin it’s three lines. They have a lot of tourism and a lot of residents. Haven’t heard their fishery declining. In fact, didn’t someone just post about the WI DNR upping the walleye bag limit? But yea, it kills fisheries all right.

    cat dude
    Arlington, MN
    Posts: 1389
    #967682

    In North Dakota, they could probably use 6 lines each as there are far less fisherman.

    I cannot say that for Wisc.

    There were some on ML that did very well trolling cranks at night. At least that is what I was told.

    I agree one can only have the limit but one can stay a couple short of the limit and catch fish all day.

    I have seen the damage bobber fisheman can do with one line and I have to believe that those same people with 2 line would do all the worse for killing fish.

    I do agree one should be able to keep a limit if you are going to pay an added fee to use 2 lines.

    If I had to pay extra for another line and then cut my limit in half, forget it.

    I do not see Mn charging an extra fee to the non res fisherman as they are to concerned with raising the license fee and losing the tourism. Not saying it would not work but I do not see it happening.

    sandmannd
    Posts: 928
    #967690

    Quote:


    In North Dakota, they could probably use 6 lines each as there are far less fisherman.


    It’s pretty relative. Way less bodies of water there as well.

    Quote:


    I agree one can only have the limit but one can stay a couple short of the limit and catch fish all day.


    You can do that right now with one line, no difference.

    cat dude
    Arlington, MN
    Posts: 1389
    #967701

    I agree Shane but I would have to believe that with 2 line, they would deep hook more as it would take longer to get to that line while holding the other.

    Seems to me, much more possible damage to more fish.

    I know when I have ice fished panfish and the bite was hot, I would have to go back to one line as I was deep hooking way to many for me to live with.

    Not all think that way.

    mossydan
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts: 7727
    #967705

    A person can only keep a daily limit anyway weather its useing 3 poles or just one, you just limit out sooner. If theres a good crappie bite and the limits 20 crappies. With two poles you limit out in 2 hours. With one pole it takes four or all day but its still a limit of 20. When it comes to harming fish Id say a law that says you have too keep harmed fish instead of returning them would be good. Then you wouldn’t have those guys returning them back just to die. If conditions are such as to harm a fish and a person decides to fish for them and they are harmed, thier part of a daily possesion limit. That would stop the guys from returning those smaller walleyes just to have them die and more important yet to not fish after the first couple die and they see whats happening.

    sandmannd
    Posts: 928
    #967752

    I’m not arguing with you Tom. I get your points along with others. It’s just been my experience throughout my 40 years that the second line just doesn’t matter that much as far as mortality and catching a limit.

    Quote:


    I agree Shane but I would have to believe that with 2 line, they would deep hook more as it would take longer to get to that line while holding the other.

    Seems to me, much more possible damage to more fish.


    Not true. I can get to my rod in a heart beat. I have never gut hooked a fish on that second line because I didn’t get to it. That second rod is not even an arms length from me. If they gut hook it was do to inhaling the bait.

    Quote:


    I know when I have ice fished panfish and the bite was hot, I would have to go back to one line as I was deep hooking way to many for me to live with.

    Not all think that way.


    That’s the one problem and I agree. As I said before, when the fishing is good, I drop to one line. However, you can’t stop stupid and I could see cousins from the same mamma keeping two lines in and hurting the fish. But these same people hurt the fishery no matter if they have one line or ten. You can’t stop stupid and you can’t stop the idiots from fishing and hunting.

    cat dude
    Arlington, MN
    Posts: 1389
    #967766

    I understand Shane

    I guess this is why we have so many different opinions on this subject.

    Each has thier own beliefs.

    Michael Moy
    S.W. Wright Co. Mn.
    Posts: 31
    #967767

    I am not sure I get the logic of some people.
    Is fishing such a terrible past time that you must be in a hurry to get a limit?
    Can we not enjoy being outdoors without making it a race to a limit? I could be just doing it wrong ,but then I would have been done in less than 2 hours this morning, instead of watching the night turn to day and the wildlife wake up.[by the way I still only kept 5 walleyes]
    Yes, rarely do I deep hook a walleye trolling cranks, but pike on the other hand.
    Also, on a lake such as Mille Lacs 2 lines and delayed mortality factors the slot would get quite small which would be very hard on tourism!

    Michael Moy
    S.W. Wright Co. Mn.
    Posts: 31
    #967769

    Oh yeah,the Wi.D.N.R. upped the walleye limit from 2 to 3 not quite to 4 or 6 yet.

    danno
    Central MN
    Posts: 323
    #967770

    Quote:


    Also, on a lake such as Mille Lacs 2 lines and delayed mortality factors the slot would get quite small which would be very hard on tourism!


    The slot is the primary reason why there is hooking mortality in the first place. Instead of keeper-sized fish going into livewells they are tossed back because they legally cannot be kept. It seems that now the opponents are falling back to hooking mortality studies based on this one lake which really aren’t relevant to the rest of the state, as this lake has specific regulations and different fishing pressure than other lakes.

    Newsflash: there are more lakes in this state than just Mille Lacs. Lets try to think on a broader scope instead of how this would affect just one lake.

    sandmannd
    Posts: 928
    #967773

    Quote:


    I am not sure I get the logic of some people.
    Is fishing such a terrible past time that you must be in a hurry to get a limit?
    Can we not enjoy being outdoors without making it a race to a limit? I could be just doing it wrong ,but then I would have been done in less than 2 hours this morning, instead of watching the night turn to day and the wildlife wake up.[by the way I still only kept 5 walleyes]
    Yes, rarely do I deep hook a walleye trolling cranks, but pike on the other hand.


    Who said it was to hurry to get a limit? What I said is it’s nice to figure out what’s working. I don’t generally care if I bring fish home or not. I’ve fished plenty to bring none home. I either don’t keep them or give them to my fishing buddy of that day. You folks all try to make it sound like it’s just for meat hunters to load freezers, that simply is not the case. I’m sure there’s some that will but these are the same classless people that get a limit in the morning and are out in the afternoon for another one. Or the next day.

    Quote:


    Also, on a lake such as Mille Lacs 2 lines and delayed mortality factors the slot would get quite small which would be very hard on tourism!


    What tourism? Last I heard the tourism was going down rapidly. This, IMO, would probably stimulate it. You would have to show me proof that two lines means more mortality. I haven’t seen it first hand nor seen any studies to prove this point so to me it’s all huff and no puff. Prove it before throwing out how much mortality will go up and how much the fishery will be hurt. I’d love to see the numbers and then I could get behind that line of thinking. Until then it’s just smoke on the water.

    sandmannd
    Posts: 928
    #967774

    Quote:


    Newsflash: there are more lakes in this state than just Mille Lacs. Lets try to think on a broader scope instead of how this would affect just one lake.


    Amen brother!!

    Mudshark
    LaCrosse WI
    Posts: 2973
    #967779

    Quote:


    Oh yeah,the Wi.D.N.R. upped the walleye limit from 2 to 3 not quite to 4 or 6 yet.



    This is the limit for Ceded Territory waters in WI…..

    The limit on regular inland waters is 5

    sgt._rock
    Rochester, MN
    Posts: 2517
    #967839

    More lines means more fish faster. So I can reduce my gas consumption trolling for less time. This reduces our dependance on foreign oil. So you see it is really un-American to not want more lines.

    jeff_huberty
    Inactive
    Posts: 4941
    #967854

    Quote:


    Quote:


    Newsflash: there are more lakes in this state than just Mille Lacs. Lets try to think on a broader scope instead of how this would affect just one lake.


    Amen brother!!


    Let’s not ignore the fact of a single lake being devestated by fishing pressure.

    The hot bite word gets out and then all gloves are off.

    URL crappies for example.. if the opportunity is there to take a large amount of fish people will do so.

    I find what happened in that example embarresing …. and how about party fishing for limits?

    If any two line law gets enacted it will be the panfish dissapearing first.

    I don’t think two lines is a good idea, and I also do not want to have buy any more license stamps for fishing or hunting.

    dtro
    Inactive
    Jordan
    Posts: 1501
    #967859

    Quote:


    The hot bite word gets out and then all gloves are off.

    URL crappies for example.. if the opportunity is there to take a large amount of fish people will do so.

    If any two line law gets enacted it will be the panfish dissapearing first.


    First of all URL was a perfect storm scenario. Even if it was total C&R for the crappies during that boom, not much would be different right now.

    2 lines in the winter and not in the summer is pure hypocrisy in this state. And don’t even try to tell me that “it’s different in the winter”, or “it’s harder to catch fish in the winter” or “there are less people fishing in the winter” or “you can’t troll or work structure in the winter”

    It’s all bunk and if ANYTHING more fish are kept in the winter by the bucket brigade than in the summer. A tip up or rattle reel line is not much different than a set line in the summer when JoeFisherman is on the top bunk snoring away.

    mossydan
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts: 7727
    #967878

    What about rivers only because the way it sounds is some of the lakes could be over fished, just an idea to help the river catfishermen.

    jeff_huberty
    Inactive
    Posts: 4941
    #967906

    Quote:


    First of all URL was a perfect storm scenario. Even if it was total C&R for the crappies during that boom, not much would be different right now.

    2 lines in the winter and not in the summer is pure hypocrisy in this state. And don’t even try to tell me that “it’s different in the winter”, or “it’s harder to catch fish in the winter” or “there are less people fishing in the winter” or “you can’t troll or work structure in the winter”

    It’s all bunk and if ANYTHING more fish are kept in the winter by the bucket brigade than in the summer. A tip up or rattle reel line is not much different than a set line in the summer when JoeFisherman is on the top bunk snoring away.


    Yes it was the perfect storm,
    It dosen’t matter if was winter or summer, everybody and their brother went there and fished untill there were no more.
    Thats a fact.

    sandmannd
    Posts: 928
    #967910

    Quote:


    2 lines in the winter and not in the summer is pure hypocrisy in this state. And don’t even try to tell me that “it’s different in the winter”, or “it’s harder to catch fish in the winter” or “there are less people fishing in the winter” or “you can’t troll or work structure in the winter”

    It’s all bunk and if ANYTHING more fish are kept in the winter by the bucket brigade than in the summer. A tip up or rattle reel line is not much different than a set line in the summer when JoeFisherman is on the top bunk snoring away.


    Great argument Dtro. I would add that I believe there is more pressure in the wintertime. Fact is, those without boats can now get out on a lake and hit any structure they want. I would say that ups the pressure a lot. I never understood the two lines in the winter but not in the summer.

    Welcome to MN the land of 10,000 rules, regs and “fees”.

    chomps
    Sioux City IA
    Posts: 3974
    #968150

    Quote:


    Yes it was the perfect storm,
    It dosen’t matter if was winter or summer, everybody and their brother went there and fished untill there were no more.
    Thats a fact.


    totally missed the point made, my brother and I were both there, and the reason for the crappie boom was the lack of predatory fish (walleye) a crappie only has so long to live, the fact that everyone fished there has little to do with the present population. That’s a fact!

    Palerider77
    Posts: 630
    #968157

    Lots of interesting opinions. It seems that most of the arguments against the two line rule would be cured by slot limit revisions. A pontoon boat full of people keeping 10″ walleye would not be affected by a two line rule. Unethical fishing behavior will take place no matter how many lines are in use.

    As always, this debate seems to be between those who fish the river and everybody else.

    Palerider77
    Posts: 630
    #968158

    Quote:


    I appreciate everyone’s concern for over harvest and mortality. That is why next session I am getting a legislator to author true limit regulations. That means once you catch 10 crappie, whether you release any or not, you are done for the day. Same goes for your first 4 walleye.

    Now back to reality. As for people’s concerns about over harvest, remember, it is a possession limit. So unless someone is eating 4 walleye a day…

    No it doesn’t address mortality, but neither does you sitting in your boat with a limit in the freezer. Sure, you aren’t bringing any home (right?), but you are sticking a hook in a awful lot of fish. But when the water temps are over 70, there’s no need to worry about mortality with one line, right?


    Because what this state needs is another completely un-enforceable law to waste the time of the CO’s

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #968195

    Quote:


    Because what this state needs is another completely un-enforceable law to waste the time of the CO’s



    ? you know the regulation suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, right?

    jeff_huberty
    Inactive
    Posts: 4941
    #968237

    Quote:


    totally missed the point made, my brother and I were both there, and the reason for the crappie boom was the lack of predatory fish (walleye) a crappie only has so long to live,


    I am using URL as example

    The point being made is the fact that, when the walleye population crashed, and the crappie population boomed, everyone and their brother went up there and fished untill there were no more crappies left.

    The point then moves to the fact that if you give some people the opportunity to catch more fish than they would normally be able to catch, they will then do so, without reguard to the effect it would have on the fish population in any given lake.

    So to just ignore that fact is like putting blinders on and just looking the otherway.

    I oppose two lines

    Palerider77
    Posts: 630
    #968259

    Quote:


    Quote:


    Because what this state needs is another completely un-enforceable law to waste the time of the CO’s



    ? you know the regulation suggestion was tongue-in-cheek, right?


    Sailed over my head man… There is just so much silly stuff that gets written on these forums.

    mplspug
    Palmetto, Florida
    Posts: 25026
    #968302

    LOL, but this my post! I always say something dumb for at least a segment of each of my posts.

    jon_jordan
    St. Paul, Mn
    Posts: 10908
    #968304

    Let’s give it a try on Pool 2. The only 100% catch and release water in the state for gamefish. Make it an Experimental Reg for 5 years and see how it goes. Both fishing and enforcement wise. I’d even be willing to pay for a special use license!

    -J.

    Mike W
    MN/Anoka/Ham lake
    Posts: 13310
    #968310

    Quote:


    Let’s give it a try on Pool 2. The only 100% catch and release water in the state for gamefish. Make it an Experimental Reg for 5 years and see how it goes. Both fishing and enforcement wise. I’d even be willing to pay for a special use license!

    -J.


    mossydan
    Cedar Rapids, Iowa
    Posts: 7727
    #968313

    For checking mortality rates that sounds like about the best idea yet Jon, Isn’t pool 2 already totally catch and release anyway. Checking mortality rates would be more accurate in water like that. I didn’t know that some lakes up there are so heavily fished when the word gets out.

    dtro
    Inactive
    Jordan
    Posts: 1501
    #968337

    We’ve been doing it on P4 and the St Croix for decades. We don’t need to waste 5 years of the DNR’s $ and time. We know what happens when you gut hook a walleye or when you yank it out of 40FOW.

    Offer a stamp and tie it in to a conservation license. It can’t be more of a win/win then that. But, on the counterpoint there are those that would think that 1 line only is the clear winner. Nope, actually not fishing at all would harm the fishery the least.

    For those so concerned about hooking mortality, are you using barbless only then too?

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 77 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.