Overharvest of a fishery vs two lines proposal

This may seem to be a loaded post, but a few things in the past week have been bothering me.

I had a friend over that I do not see very often, a guy who bk (before kids, sorry Brian) I used to hunt and fish with very often. He was telling me about a trip last year when they got on crappies on their beds, and their family (6 people) were able to harvest 200 fish over their trip. This rubbed me the wrong way.

Then I read the legislature is discussing the 2 line option again.

Now I would love to use 2 lines on inland waters, but feel it increases the opportunity to overharvest a fishery. It is not the responsible fisherman, many of who read these, but the guys like my friend who will take as many fish as they can over a trip because that is their right.

Am I wrong to be a little off kilter about this and need to grow up a move on? Maybe the 2 line proposal (that I don’t think will pass anyway) has no effect on increase harvest, and maybe I am worried about the 1% of fish hogs that will be hogs no matter what.

With all that said, I would like to hear thoughts on the two line proposal. Is this a good or a bad thing, will it effect fish harvest or delayed fish mortality from release, or does it have no effect on fish period.

A limit is a limit whether you use one line or two so it shouldn’t affect the amount of fish taken. It may draw a few people back into the sport that have wandered off over time. The main advantage I see to two lines is that it is a learning tool. It would let a person try casting while drowning a minnow or whatever. For the people who shore fish I think it would give them a little more incentive to keep at it. On the river we have used two lines forever and it hasn’t seemed to hurt the resource. Just remember –no snagging—it is illegal you know—right BK (inside joke)

Farmboy, we have enough rules on the books. (I kid! )

Couple of things, if the fish were biting that good two lines are too many. Just can’t keep up with them. Also, a limit is a limit. Although the DNR will argue that limits are set thinking not everyone will fill a limit….so we might see limits lowered. That’s fine by me, but there will be many that the news of lower limits will put a frown on their face.

I’m in favor of a two line rule on inland waters. I’m in favor of people taking what they can use.

Unfortunately there are many that can only fish once or twice a year and they like to “stock up” for the year. My point here is that it won’t make any difference to the folks that want to stock up if they have one line or two.

2 lines will result in extra harvest. If you have a 2 hour corking night bite and get a few keepers an hour, now you will be filling out every night.

I think of the nightmare of 3-4 boats w/ 3 people and 6 lines out cranking effectively shutting down large reefs or humps. It is fine when people know what they are doing…..BUT……

I do support 2 lines on catch and release water (like Pool 2) though. Heck, catfisherman frequently do it anyway and we all know about the poaching that goes on year round there.

I agree with all that is said, but on a tough bite, you don’t think an extra line trolling for open basin Walleye will effect the amount of fish caught? If nothing else, it allows a fisherman to find a pattern sooner, therefore allowing them to catch a limit on a day when normally they would not. IMO, this increases quantity caught.

I also understand the DNR knows much more about this then I do, and should be able to write laws that do not harm the fishery, but I’m hesitant to withdraw my bar room biology

Let’s be the devils advocate and say that it would help people catch a limit. Now maybe that person that has been so so on fishing starts to get the bug more. They start figuring out patterns and catching more fish. They start reading up on fishing and going on-line. They stumble on IDO or some similar website(if any exist) and read about selective harvest and catch and release. They start talking and listening and it “clicks”. Even though they are catching more fish they are actually keeping less. I know it sounds crazy but I know one old guy very personally that had it happen. There are so many variables in the equation it is almost impossible to figure it out but I do know that I have been all over the country and other parts of the world and Minnesota is the only place I have ever fished that limits you to one line and it seems like everywhere else still has fish to catch

Any input on how 2 lines has affected the fisheries of state that do allow this? I think a person from MN could argue all kinds of different points but how would they know if it has not been seen 1st hand.

I’d be opposed to it primarily because I don’t think Joe average angler does do a good job of paying attention to one line. I would expect hooking mortality to increase with 2 lines. No hard and fast evidence here – just a gut feeling based on observations while conducting the creel survey on Rainy Lake that last 3 years.
I don’t use 2 lines more than 30% of the time on hard water.

Quote:

---

I’d be opposed to it primarily because I don’t think Joe average angler does do a good job of paying attention to one line. I would expect hooking mortality to increase with 2 lines. No hard and fast evidence here – just a gut feeling based on observations while conducting the creel survey on Rainy Lake that last 3 years.
I don’t use 2 lines more than 30% of the time on hard water.

---

I agree with Pete. I think there will be more throat and gut hooked fish with the use of two lines. For those of you who think that cutting the line with a hook in the throat or in the gut will allow the fish to survive, think again. If I were in this for selfish reasons, I would be for 2 lines. But since I am more concerned about successful catch and release practices, I am against the useage of 2 lines.

If you feel that using two lines increases fishing mortalitity – should we outlaw using 2 lines during the winter too?

All of our neighboring states have laws that allow you to use 2 or more lines. These states had these laws in place before CPR was even being practiced. Not a reason to change but just an interesting fact that it seems to work in other states – why wouldn’t it work in MN?

I would be in favor of an extra line and would be willing to pay some type of fee for it (anglers choice). The state of CO does this and it generates money for other DNR causes (maybe we could use if for stocking). I would also be in favor of a law that you can use two lines on open water if you do not have any fish in your livewell. Reward anglers who practice catch and release.

Why do you have to do what other states are doing? Besides that, you just want an extra line because you are a crankbait troller. I think it will be bad to use live bait with 2 lines in open water fishing. Winter is a little different because the angler is less mobile to move around to find fish versus the open water angler who can cover way more ground to find the fish.

One thing that no one is thinking about here is even if you caught your limit every time you went out, if you were an honest sportsman who followed the reg, unless you ate fish pretty much daily, you would be at your Posession limit fairly quickly (usually double the daily limit)and then need to practice catch and release!
Having said that, being from Wisconsin I can tell you first hand the affect two lines has on a given body of water… there are no fish here what-so-ever especially the Wisconsin side of Pools 3 and 4 so you guys from Minnesota shouldn’t bother with them and just keep to the fish filled inland lakes over there

AMEN….Mr Crankbait troller

Two lines would be fantasitc. I don’t keep fish unless the little man is in the boat with me, and even then, we don’t fill even one limit. I will keep some pannies duing the winter for a fish fry, but the entire open water season is all catch and release. Hey Brad, how many of those basin walleyes did you eat this year…none

The thing this state needs to realize is that your average fisherman or woman is not out there to fill the livewell. Catch and relaese has done some truly great things for good old MN, but its not our average angler that takes limits of fish out of our waters. Two lines would put more fish in my boat, there is no question about that, however all those fish end up back in the lake for someone else to catch another day. Education is the key to making the future of fishing really great. Teaching techniques and proper handling skills will help with the mortality rate, but after all, its fishing, and thats part of the risk we all take when we put a line in the water.

Quote:

---

Besides that, you just want an extra line because you are a crankbait troller.

---

Don’t understand your logic.. That’s like saying you don’t because you’re not a crankbait troller…

Quote:

---

Why do you have to do what other states are doing?

---

I said not a reason to change but an interesting fact. I don’t hear about over harvesting in those states.

Being a Wisconsin angler, where we can use 3 lines, I just don’t see it making a difference if Minnesota switched to 2 lines. A limit is still a limit, and the few times that having an extra line results in a limit when one line would not isn’t probably going to have that big of an effect. I understand the concern, and some good points have been made, but I wouldn’t be too worried about it.

We can’t have two lines because it may harm the resource…but certain groups can use gill nets during the spawn, and that is seen as OK.

there are so many factors involved… its hard to say with any certainty that two lines during open water would matter a lot…. many of our fish species are hurt the most in the winter… in the winter you CAN have more than one line… and heres the killer.. in the winter access cant be controlled.. by that I mean that as many people can drive onto a lake as wish… what happens is a lake gets hot and it gets killed….. in the DNR they see this all the time… one of my ol DNR buddies Dave Zapitello used to say “if we build it they will come”… I think you know what he meant…. basically a fishery cant long survive discovery… I wish there was a way to control that… but currently there isnt.. not unless they implement catch and release rules… which is what I think should be done on some lakes… but the politics of this issue is what kills it….. no one wants “their” lake to be catch and release… they are too short sighted to see how cool it would be to have an awesome fishing lake… they only see that they wont be killing fish from “their” lake anymore…

Quote:

---

We can’t have two lines because it may harm the resource…but certain groups can use gill nets during the spawn, and that is seen as OK.

---

Excellent point Tuck! It’s amazing how we have a tendency to forget how ludricrous our laws really are!

Here we can use 2 lines and we have an amazing fisherie. While we just implemented state wide panfish limits, 25 gills, 25 crappies and 25 perch per day. It has in no way harmed the size of fish we catch. Granted we live on a stocking program for walleye and muskie, but 2 lines in the water just means sometimes you get the pattern together faster. Do we limit every time out? No. But by elimitating patterns faster by being able to cover several different lure types at a time saves alot of time on the water searching. I always run 2 lines for the most part unless wading for eyes or casting muskies. Trolling I’ll run 2 different set ups, drifting I’ll run 2 different baits, bouncing same thing 2 baits 2 different spinner sizes/colors to get zeroed in faster. Some days 50 lines wouldn’t make a difference somdays you cant keep up with 1 line. I know nothing else but 2 lines and I see no problem with it.

Whats the difference 1 guy in a boat running 2 lines vers 4 guys in a boat running 4 lines.

Quote:

---

no one wants “their” lake to be catch and release

---

I could argue that…but I won’t.

ok… well.. there are a few enlightened anglers who would be HAPPY to have some fisheries protected!… but unless things have drastically changed there isnt enough of them to have the political clout it takes to get it done…

Anyone who actually believes two lines will hurt a fishery, well, I question their mental stability. Please look around the nation. How many states have a 1 line per license?? I don’t know of any others, but then I’ve only fished a few neighboring states.

Everyone in this state has been brainwashed by the DNR into two lines will ruin every fishery Mn has to offer. Funny, our neighbors to the east have just as many lakes and their fisheries seem to be doing OK. Let’s use the border waters as an example. Pool 4 and Big Stone come to mind. How are those fisheries doing?? I’ve seen those “slob” Wi guys using 3 lines. They must be ruining Pool 4. How about those “pigs” from SD who use two lines on Big Stone???

If you can’t tell I feel strongly, well…. I jest, but I feel very stongly that the Mn DNR loses a ton of credibility when they support issues like this. The slobs will be slobs. They will take 3-4 limits a day if they can. They are probably using two – three lines anyway.

The fact so many of “us” are brainwashed by an outdated rule is what really bothers me. Until we stand up and push our government and DNR to listen to us, they will continue to pull the proverbial wool over our eyes.

For those who think 2-3 lines will ruin a fishery, please explain how WI manages to keep their fisheries so healthy? What about other states??

Kooty: Add to that in WI most of the possesion limits are double the daily. In MN other than perch we have only the daily as possesion. So using the new math they teach in school aren’t they taking twice as many fish and still have good fisheries.

Quote:

---

I would also be in favor of a law that you can use two lines on open water if you do not have any fish in your livewell. Reward anglers who practice catch and release.

---

Exactly. I would be more than happy to pay for a 2 line stamp and have the money go towards stocking, etc.

Quote:

---

Besides that, you just want an extra line because you are a crankbait troller.

---

True and reading the current In Fisherman article on hooking mortality on Mille Lacs the LEAST hooking mortality came from using CRANKBAITS. In-Fisherman Feb 2009 page 14.

We can use 3 but I find I can only get that many lines out when the wind is perfect. Also, as a Wisconsin resident, I’ve heard forever of the fine fishing in Minnesota but don’t go there because I can use more rods here in Wisconsin. I think more tourists would come there if more lines were available. Don’t they let you use one tip up and one jig line in the winter? I don’t understand how this is any different.

Unfortunately, overexploitation has been a long standing issue that has ruined, or exterminated many a species (passenger pigeon as an example). People are never happy, in WI people wanted unlimited doe tags and now are screaming years later that they are not seeing any deer.
I understand your point, but number of lines just will not matter compared to limits. In todays fishing, esp. ice fishing, technology has exploded and has become easier for the average angler to utilize such devices. Catching effeciency has progressed to the point where real looks have to be taken. Take our local lake for example at first ice: One known bay is a wintering hole for bluegills and crappies. At first ice, on a normal year when the fish are biting, it is not uncommon to see 200 anglers out there catching their limit. Cut the number in half (100 guys, 10 panfish limit, 21 days-3 weeks at first ice) equals removal of 21 thousand fish from that one little bay alone. Now, at the old limit of 25 panfish the number would increase to 52 thousand 500 fish for that same 3 week period. There is another area of the lake system that a similar senerio exists and happens–so that would be 42 thousand fish potentially taken out of this system alone in a 3 week period. On the flip side, it really shows how prolific panfish really are.
Now, that is only at first ice, figure in catch during the spawn and rest of the year and I don’t think I have enough cervical adjustments in the office to take care of the headache caused by that number.
The fishery biologists have stated for years, down the pike reduced bag limits and slot sizes are going to be the norm.
Good job bringing this topic up, awareness will only help.

Jeremy

First I want to say Kooty, your wrong. Not that I disagree, just wanted to say that to make myself feel better

I may have been trolling when I wrote this. I am very interested to see what others have to say about this, and felt if I put in my feelings that two lines are not a big deal and hogs are hogs, it would stop any and all discussion.

I am interested to hear peoples views on why not to allow two lines, and am still interested to know, but felt I could get better responses by playing devils advocate.

Thanks for the responses.

Brent
B.S. Barroom Biologist 2009 IDO University

Sgt.

Same in SD. Most possessions are twice your limit. I don’t feel comparing SD to MN is apple to apple due to the amount of fisheries/fisherman without see actual statistics. However, WI to MN has to be very comparable.

Mallard,

If you believe hooking mortality is such a large factor, how is WI managing it’s fisheries successfully with 3 lines??

Quote:

---

If you believe hooking mortality is such a large factor, how is WI managing it’s fisheries successfully with 3 lines??

---

What is Wi managing? Premier walleye lakes dont come to mind when thinking of Wisconsin. Hammer handle pike lakes sure do.
More lines = larger harvest = less fish.