Student Project: MN and the Two Line Law

I received this email this morning. After asking permission, I’m posting it here to get more feed back from you, the anglers. Please state in your response what state you reside in.

Mary and I thank you!

Quote:

---

Hello my name is Mary G. I am a senior from Burnsville High School. In my Government Class we are researching bills that are being reviewed in congress and I am researching the “two line law” of summer fishing. This law allows fishermen and women to fish two line in the summer, like in ice fishing. This law is being brought to attention because the fishing licenses were at an all time low and need more people to fish so that the population will be under control. It is also because people don not have enough time to fish any more. So by increasing the number of lines, you can catch your limit in a lesser time.

I just have a few questions for you that will help me get some more incite on this topic.

1. Are you for or against this bill why or why not?

2. Do you think that poaching will increase due to this law, if passed?

3. If passed, would you use this “extra Line”?

Thank you for your time,

Mary G.

---

PS I’m going to pin this to the top for a couple days.

I just have a few questions for you that will help me get some more incite on this topic.

1. Are you for or against this bill why or why not?For it,Not going to make a difference in the amount of fish caught. Just like in the winter time………

2. Do you think that poaching will increase due to this law, if passed? I do not think it will increase

3. If passed, would you use this “extra Line? Yes I would.

1: No, I’m for it

2: A big NO (same bad people different law)

3: Yes, matter of fact, I would pay extra for the priveledge.

This general topic has been floating around in different forms in different places/sites, with mixed results (read arguments) Hopefully answers can be kept short and sweet.

As a side note I recently sent an online petition to the bills sponsors’ with nearly 150 signatures, in favor of the idea.

Being from IA where two lines are allowed, I can honestly say, I actually use 2 only about half the time. There are days, it really is a help in narrowing down what is the go to presentation, but often it is just more productive to only use one line.

I would be in favor of seeing 2 lines in MN, I don’t feel it would have any effect in increased poaching. If allowed I am certain, at times, I would use 2.

dave

Born and raised in WI. Been in MN last 22 yrs.

1. Are you for or against this bill why or why not?
I’m for it. Will have little or no impact on quantity of fish caught. Already legal on boundry water areas and winter seasons. Will bring more into line with surrounding states.

2. Do you think that poaching will increase due to this law, if passed?
No. Illegal activity has always been there and always will. More money for enforcement and larger fines will help control it.

3. If passed, would you use this “extra Line?
Yes I would.

1. I would support the regulation
2. No I don’t think poaching would increase
3. I would utilized 2 lines, especially for trolling cranks or searching for fish using different baits and presentations. After the bite has been identified I would assume most people would only be fising one line.

Quote:

---

1: No, I’m for it

2: A big NO (same bad people different law)

3: Yes, matter of fact, I would pay extra for the priveledge.

---

I second Dtro

1. I am for the bill. We use two in the winter and on border waters. I think that this will allow anglers to focus in on what fish want faster. For example if you are jigging walleyes you may have live bait on one line and plastics on the other. If they are hitting one more than the other then you know what you need to present them.

2. No I do not. poachers don’t care about laws, so they wouldn’t know the difference.

3. Yes I would. I use two in the winter and on border waters. If the fishing gets fast and furious you only use one line because you cannot keep up. I think that most people are responsible fisherpersons and know what they can handle.

1) I am from WI – And I am in favor of it. I enjoy multiple line approaches as I tend troll a lot, and the extra lines in the water helps me cover water more effectively.

2) Possibly. In certain instances, like trolling or slip-bobbering, the violators may have the opportunity to increase their catch. I don’t think that this bill will increase the number of people violating, but it may help the violators take even more fish. Then again, the violating type often times is already using too many lines, so this may not change things.

3) Yes – at times. IE: slip bobber fishing and trolling

Tim

1)
I’m against the bill being proposed to allow 2 lines in open water in Minnesota.

Reason being is that this will allow anglers to catch their limit of fish faster and easier.

Reason for my stance on this is that the DNR has set the bag limits based on what the “average” angler can catch. By increasing the odds of giving the average angler another line, the odds are increased for that angler to catch their limit of fish.

This will have impact on harvest levels. The MN DNR has already adjusted bag limits due to increased tools the average angler has today ( Hi-tech sonars, GPS mapping systems, Underwater cameras, specialty fishing rods, reels, fishing lines. ). Because of this stated above, bag limits on many waters have been reduced and also size restrictions have been placed, to prevent over harvesting and also to protect “primary” reproducing fish from increased anlger pressure on such waters.

Examples of these waters are:
Mississippi river
Mille Lacs
Lake of the Woods
Upper Red Lake
Rainy Lake
Leech Lake

2) Changing the amount of “lines” an angler can have in the water will not effect “poaching”. Criminals are criminals and do not care about laws.

3) Will “I” use 2 lines if the law is in place? YES! I will primarily use the 2-line opportunity for trolling for fish. This will allow me to decipher faster which lures the fish prefer or allow me to find fish faster and to eliminate waters that are void of fish. Because of this, I can fish “faster” and more effective to catch my limit!

Sorry for my confusion, but MN is only allowed to fish with 1 line at any given time??

WI can use 3, but I’d be up for a 4th

I also am from Wisconsin and fish the boundry waters.

1. I am all for the bill allowing anglers to be able to use 2 lines.

2. As stated before there will be no difference in poaching…same bad people will continue to do the same bad things.

3. Last you can bet I will use that extra line when I’m trolling on Mille Lacs for that Oct bite.

Quote:

---

Sorry for my confusion, but MN is only allowed to fish with 1 line at any given time??

---

Yes, only one line during open water. Two lines for the ice fishing season.

Ron

Quote:

---

1. Are you for or against this bill why or why not?

---

I am in favor of two lines, mostly for trolling and bobber fishing.

Quote:

---

2. Do you think that poaching will increase due to this law, if passed?

---

No, poachers are going to do what they want when they want.

Quote:

---

3. If passed, would you use this “extra Line”?

---

Yes, under certain conditions. The way that I fish mostly I could not handle two lines. Trolling and bobber fishing walleyes, Yes. Bobber fishing panfish, Yes. Other than those examples, most likly NO.

Ron

Quote:

---

Reason for my stance on this is that the DNR has set the bag limits based on what the “average” angler can catch. By increasing the odds of giving the average angler another line, the odds are increased for that angler to catch their limit of fish.

---

In that case, I’m all in favor of trading a reduced bag limit for an extra line.

1. Are you for or against this bill why or why not? I’m for it. The change would bring us in line with bordering states.

2. Do you think that poaching will increase due to this law, if passed? No. Poachers will poach regardless of this change. I would be in favor of more Consevation Officers to enforce the law if it were changed.

3. If passed, would you use this “extra Line”? Yes. Particularly when “searching” for fish.

Good luck with the report.

-J.

im from wis also
1.we can use 3 lines and im for it.
2.poachers will be poachers regardless
3.i would pay extra.even though ive never fished in minn.
one more question what are the regs on boundry waters such as mississippi river and st. croix for minn. residents?

Gary,

I am a little confused by your post. I thought Minnesota allowed two lines, at least on the Mississippi.

As for the initial questions I reside in Wisconsin and am allowed three lines on the Mississippi River.

1. My use of three is about 25% of the time, mostly bottom fishing, and practicing CPR I don’t think the additional line hurts the fishery. Ironically perhaps, when trolling I use only one line.

2. I don’t think poaching is a major issue when it comes to number of lines.

3. I already use three lines periodically so the question is mute for us Wisconsin folks.

My kids and I do make an annual trip to Rainy Lake and stay on the Minnesota side. For whatever reason I don’t remember ever using more then one line so perhaps that is what Gary is referring to. I would prefer multiple lines, but don’t have enough info on Lake Fishing to render an informed opinion.

Quote:

---

one more question what are the regs on boundry waters such as mississippi river and st. croix for minn. residents?

---

Direct from the MN DNR web-site:

WISCONSIN–MINNESOTA Regulations
• Two lines with a single lure or bait on each are permitted. If fishing
with one line you may use two baits.

I am from MN.

1. I am for it, I would like the additional line when trolling or bobber fishing.

2. No it will not increase poaching

3. Yes I would use 2 lines.

On a side note I would like to see 3 lines in the winter so I could have a couple tip ups out while jigging.

I live in Minnesota.
1) I am for a second line because with two lines because you can catch more fish. More fish= more fun.
For the record, I practice catch and release.
2) Poaching would not increase because poachers are already using illegal methods to take fish. They dont care what the law is.
3) I would definately use a second line if the state allowed it.

1) I am totally for allowing the use of two lines, all the other states around us do.

2) We have laws already to deal with Poachers, that is really a non-issue

3) Yes, I would fish two lines where appopriate. More anglers practice catch and release these days so this law only makes sense. Plus, it is allowed on most border waters already.

FYI

Here is the current version of the proposed bill.

No frills or thrills, just a simple rewording.

Let’s hope it at least gets a vote:

Two Line Bill

I am from Minnesota.

I agree with Jon , Scott and all who support the 2nd line for summer use.

Dino

I would be in favor of two lines, mostly for trolling and bobber fishing.

No, poachers are still going to do what the do. Its up to the avg. angler to report them when they see them.

Would I pay more. If they would use this extra charge for a special fishing fund, Yes I would be infavor of it. But it would have to go into fishing only.

1. I favor 2 lines all year.

2. Poachers already use more than 2 & even nets. I am sure it will not affect them.

3. I would use 2 lines, when fishing was slow, to locate fish and find the preferred bait.

big g

Quote:

---

1. I favor 2 lines all year.

2. Poachers already use more than 2 & even nets. I am sure it will not affect them.

3. I would use 2 lines, when fishing was slow, to locate fish and find the preferred bait.

big g

---

I second that! I am all for it!

1. Are you for or against this bill why or why not?

I’m in favor of allowing Minnesota anglers to use two lines on in-land waters during open water. If proper bag and size limits are in place and obeyed by anglers, the effect on fish populations would be minimal.

To play devil’s advocate, one argument against allowing two lines on in-land waters would be the effects of releasing more fish who were stressed out from being caught, and die as a result. This could especially be a problem when using live bait, where fish are more likely to be deep-hooked. This would happen more often if anglers could use two lines, and tighter limits would do nothing to reduce the mortality of fish that were released.

2. Do you think that poaching will increase due to this law, if passed?

No. Poachers will do what they do no matter what.

3. If passed, would you use this “extra Line”?

Sometimes–it depends on the situation. For instance, when anchored or shore-fishing with live bait, an extra line is a major boon. (I currently live “in exile” in Iowa, where two lines per angler are legal. I also fish the Mississippi on a regular basis, where two lines per angler are also legal on open water.) When I am trolling a Mississippi River wing dam, I only use one line, even though I am allowed to use two lines there year-round. Running two lines on top of maintaining boat control is just too much in situations like that.

Looks like we have overwhelming support for this change here at IDA.

How will this effect Lake Mille Lacs?

Twice as many bobbers, rigging and crank baits has to effect the lake and how the DNR will manage it.

Do you see a smaller slot or bag limit on Mille Lacs.?

Thanks Pier….

1. I agree with Gary on these points. I do not endorse the 2 line amendment. It basically is there to aid deep water trollers. It will only increase the numbers that have to be allocated on Mille Lacs for hooking mortality, plain and simple. Most trollers seldom if ever take home slots, so why add to the “mortality” numbers by running extra lines. Just so you can have more fun??

2. Yes, I am from Minnesota.

3. No, even if given the chance, I will not run more than 1 line per person in my boat, even while guiding and bobber fishing.