Overharvest of a fishery vs two lines proposal

Chris,

Rivers, especially the Mississippi are a totally different scenario than an enclosed lake, and how do you know there has been no ill effects of our fishing from what it was years ago, say before the influx of electronic technology into the fishing world? I know Dick Sternberg would be glad to go toe to toe with any individual that thinks that. He is an old river rat from way back before he became the famous biologist and writer he is today. As you well know, rivers are always in a state of flux. A walleye caught in Red Wing could have been down by Winona 2 days ago, and some where down in Iowa the week before. That same fish could have originated in some lake and washed over a dam in the spring and swam down some small feeder river many miles before it got to the Mississippi. The point is, the all famous P4 is stocked daily by any one of many different means with fish that are catchable the day they arrive there. There is no way to truly say that any fish is a P4 fish, because the day before they might have been in P2, or last week in P12. There was a telemetry study done several years ago by the Wisconsin DNR studing the movements of walleyes in P4. It is amazing just how far those fish would move in a day. The only constant was that there were 3 spots on Pepin that always held at least 1 fish during that study.

Bottomline is this, 2 lines is not an issue on P4, but you can not compare what happens there with any other body of water in the state. There is no constant to the river to set a base line for the study.

How about Big Stone or Traverse? Both amazing fisheries that fly under the radar constantly, yet two lines are allowed.

Boarder waters. People have been given the “right” to fish with multiple lines in S.D., Minnesota is not empowered to take away that “right” on waters shared between the two states.

There is a huge difference in law between what is a “right” and what is a “privilege”.

Not sure what you just said… All I’m saying, if P4 isn’t a good example of how a fishery can be world class and still use multiple lines. Then, how about the lakes I mentioned. I don’t care who has what right/power/blah, blah, blah.

They are great fisheries that allow multiple lines. How can that be?

Once again, you are talking rivers/reseviores. They get stocked from many different sources, just like P4.

Those special regs will really help Mille Lacs.That way the natives can keep increasing their quota and the resorts can keep decreasing.You guys keep listening to the DNR and one day you are going to wonder where everyone went.

Quote:

---

nobody has definitively “Shown” where 2 lines will hurt a fishery either.

---

I can sit here and argue the results of the telemetry study as you interpret them, but for the sake of this discussion I wont. Besides, a fish traveling from Pepin to the dam is no different than a walleye swimming from the Boot to Father Hennipen in my book.

You are concerned with only Mille Lacs. There are a number of lakes across the State where it would be a benefit to the angler to use two lines and increase the catching or “Fun Factor” in my book. In fact, it may draw some of the pressure off Mille Lacs. We have done mortality studies down here on the River and it showed minimal impact. Not every lake in the State is managed like Mille Lacs. You need to put that boat on a trailer every now and then.

Do you really believe Dick Sternberg won’t say the fact we have cleaned up the River dramatically over the last 30 years may be a major contributing factor to the enhancement of the fishery on the River? If the fact that 2 or 3 lines is a detriment to the fish per acre on the River…you sure couldn’t tell it by catch rates or the average size of the fish. Both are world class. Right now up and down the River we are competing with an exceptional shad population! Catching a fish at all is quite an accomplishment at times!

PS…Fish in Pool 4 would have a heck of a time coming from Winona. Unless of course it was in a car or locked through on a barge!

OK Jack. I’m so confused. Only rivers/reservoirs are stocked from various sources. Lakes don’t have runnoff, creeks that connect them to other lakes etc… What about the Rum river and it’s association Mille Lacs. According to your theories fish from Winona should be able to travel to Mille Lacs. If that is the case, then why not allow two lines on Mille Lacs, which seems to be your only concern. You seem to be leaving out all other species except walleyes and the other 9,999 lakes in MN.

Lastly, your arguments that state Pool 4 isn’t a good example are classic talking out both sides of your mouth. Mille Lacs has one of the best natural reproduction for walleyes year in and year out. It doesn’t need all the external sources that so greatly benefit Pool 4.

One other thing I’ve thought about. Aren’t fish very vulnerable during ice season, especially late ice?? Assuming this is true, isn’t using two lines going to be very detrimental??

All I’m asking for from the DNR is factual evidence that shows two lines will deplete our fisheries to a point they can’t successfully manage them. Hey, I’m sure those biologists in WI and SD are a bunch of hacks. Pretty soon MN will be the only state left with fish.

Mille Lacs is not my only concern. I do not want to see 2 lines allowed in Minnesota inland waters during open water season. I’m not even worried about it happening on Mille Lacs.

Also, NO….an enclosed lake does not get nearly the outside stocking that P4 or any other part of the Mississippi River gets from feeder streams and spring runoffs. Remember that all flowing waters in the heart of the contenintal U.S. flow to the Mississippi.

Again, I’m waiting for any one here to give just 1 example of how allowing 2 lines will be a benefit to our state fisheries. All I hear are reasons of personal gain, nothing for the betterment of our resources.

If you don’t like my arguements against the issue, feel free to contact the DNR Fisheries people and ask them. They will tell you the same thing I’ve been trying to tell you….It is not a smart idea, and they do not want it, and they are going to prevent it from happening.

I think the industry of fishing would benefit from letting you MN guys have an extra line. The bigger the industry, the bigger the attention it will get. If the QUALITY of fishing starts to reduce, more money will be pumped into stocking and preservation measures, thus helping the fisheries ANYWAY. MN wants MORE FISHING. It’s huge for the state! Increase catchability, not raise limits. If need be, lower limits but STILL INCREASE catchability.

JLD……you can’t tell me that you yourself, fish for any other reason than personal benefit. It relaxes you, energizes you, gets you in the outdoors, puts some “free” fish on the dinner table…..yadda, yadda, yadda…… they’re all personal reasons. Nobody here is ever going to convince me that they buy a $20,000 (or more) boat and is just itching to get on the water because they’re concerned about the fishery! Every last one of us does this for ourselves and the fact that there’s any argument at all leans toward the idea that we just feel like one rule would be better than another for…….who? Ourselves.

Why do we CPR? Better fishing for….ourselves. The fact that there’s limits at all states that we do not hold ourselves accountable enough to protect our own intersests. Greed sets in and hoarding takes over. How do you suppose those offenders get that way?

This whole issue is about a business that we label as recreation. If MN wants more fishing, 2 lines is a no brainer and it will fly. If MN listens to the voices of those already in the industry that want to retain their own preferences, 2 lines will always have opposition.

I will say that overall, MN has some of the best quality fishing I’ve seen anywhere, but limiting an angler to one line, I do not believe, is the reason why. There’s too many factors involved.

The bottom line is that education is key. Until the generations pass over glutteny and CPR and selective, limited selective harvest is the norm, the number of lines will only be one more thing to fuss over.

Yeah, I guess I don’t recall anybody giving an example how two lines is benefit the resources, but I haven’t really seen any proof that it is bad for the resource either (I think there was one small paragraph in a previous post that might have had some scientific study to it but I can’t find it now). Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but Jack your opinion is not a fact (as much as you might think it is). You are assuming all these horrible things will happen. Where is the proof? The proof I have seen posted by Kooty is a study of hooking mortality and water temp, not one line versus two hooking mortality. If your big concern here is what is the best for the resource, then you should be in favor of closing all walleye fishing in the state for July and August. I could be wrong, but I believe you said you are not for that. So why not?

Is the number of posts on this thread getting close to the Favre for MVP thread yet?

Quote:

---

Not really, nobody has said or shown how adding a second line is going to benefit any fishery in the state. The only benefits discussed for 2 lines have been for personal gain.

---

OK, let me give it a shot: According to evidence presented here, fishing with 2 lines will deplete the walleye, muskie, and since many pike are also caught using the same methods, we can assume that population will be depleted as well. All of those species are predator fish. With the population of predator fish depleted, there in theory, should be a huge boon in forage/pan fish. With out the competition from the above mentioned, the BASS population should increase (most if not all BASS fishermen I know use artificial baits and “cast” for their quarry, thus they are only able to use 1 line!). NO ONE keeps BASS and they surly do not EAT them! So, in theory, we have increased the bass population,and the pan fish population, all the while increasing the economic impact fishing has on any given community! (Have seen the oodles of cash a bass tourney brings to a community? Just reference the threads where some one has complained about a local tourney and the bass guys spell it out pretty well). So, allowing 2 lines not only benefits the bass and pan fish fishery, it also helps the economy! Hey maybe we can get Obama to declare a national 2 line regulation and get us out of this economic mess we are in!

** Note to all… This is posted TONGUE IN CHEEK For HUMOR… I have no opinion either way on this!

---

I will say that overall, MN has some of the best quality fishing I’ve seen anywhere, but limiting an angler to one line, I do not believe, is the reason why. There’s too many factors involved.

---

I disagree. I think that the use of 1 line in MN in the open water season is a big reason why we have a quality fishery. You guys think these other states have such great fishing and I’m not seeing it. MN has WAY more quality in their fish than any of these other states. WI muskie fishery is a frikken joke with a ton of small fish. WI is not even close to being in the same class with MN as far as quality goes. One line is here to stay in MN whether any of you like it or not. Our DNR supports the concept of keeping our fishery in MN a quality one and one way to do that is to control the mortality rate of those big fish that are released back in to the water. Saying a limit is a limit is a pile of crap. The mortality rate for catch and release is a lot higher than any one of you wants to admit.

Quote:

---

You guys think these other states have such great fishing and I’m not seeing it.

---

Leave the state and maybe you would.

If MN’s fishery is as great as everyone touts it to be, then allowing two lines should be a non-issue. Other states allow multiple lines and their fishing is doing just fine, if not better than here.

Go fish in WI then or one of those other small fish over fished lakes in those other states! I have fished in WI plenty of times, once again the bordering states do not even come close to the QUALITY of the fishery in MN PERIOD!!!!

Stillakid2,

You asked about my personal benefit. I am a guide. My benefit is purely monitary. Seldom if ever is my time on the water purely for “pleasure”. I spent over 120 days on Mille Lacs last year either guiding, looking for other guide spots, or working with the DNR with any studies that they might ask for assistance with. I had all of 4 fish dinners at home last year, although I’ve enjoyed many meals eating those fish my clients have shared with me from their daily bag. When I do fish for fun, it is always on another lake. I might also mention, I never keep any fish I catch on those days. The last thing I want to do on my day off is clean fish. Without looking up the exact numbers, I’m going to guess I cleaned a little over 600 walleyes last year.

Brent,

I understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think most people here understand why I am so sure of my arguements. Mille Lacs is the most scientificaly studied fresh water fishery in the U.S., and possibly North America. FYI…those studies started before Treaty Harvest Managment. I have had the opportunity to work hand in hand with the DNR on Mille Lacs for more than a few years. The findings made from the studies done on that lake are used by biologists all across this country in their own assesments. Slot managment, and hooking mortality are but 2 of those studies that have been done there. In case you or anyone else is interested, I am the person who first came to the Input Group and asked for the 48″ minimum on muskies on Mille Lacs. 2 years later it was started there, and look where it has gone since. I feel good about that, but have never made it known till just now.

Have they done a 2 line assessment, no! They do not need to, because their other studies have already PROVEN what effects contact with man has on fish. Regardless how good we might claim we are at handling and releasing fish, studies have proven that up to 5% will die when water temps are below 70 degrees. When the water temps top that 70 degree mark, that number can inflate to 20+%. Those effects are not just what happens on Mille Lacs, and that is why the studies we have done there, and the conclusions that have been made on that lake, are used to make assessments all across the country.

If we increase the number of fish we make contact with by the use of 2 lines, how can we not have more fish dying?

How can we not want to err on the side of conservation?

It’s been advised to me from members of the DNR and the Walleye Advisory Board to remove myself from this discussion. They do not feel that the internet is the proper place to put this issue on public trial.

So with that, I am dropping out of this discussion. I’ll still read it because I want to see if anyone can still come up with an arguement that 2 lines will help our resources. Trust me, you can’t!

Quote:

---

PS…Fish in Pool 4 would have a heck of a time coming from Winona. Unless of course it was in a car or locked through on a barge!

---

Really. How is it then that Silver and Asian Carp are now a danger to the system? They have made it all the way up from way down south. Thier sustainable populations are advancing an average of 15 miles a year in the river, and mankind can’t find a way of stopping them.

Can they swim where walleyes can’t?

If you dont think there is quality fishing in any of the surrounding states of MN,wow you must have fallen out of bed the wrong direction & landed on your I will not take anything away from MN & how they regulate the resources as they have some great fisheries!If you cant get so called quality fish in WI, ND or SD you might consider hiring a local guide to help refine,sharpen up or try different tactics with you!Maybe a bit of research time on the body of water your going to fish would help.Its very hard to compare waters from 1 state to the next,or even 1 part of the state to another as they all have differing sizes, water qualities,forage bases… therefore can fish quite differently.You might also try to pick a lake that might have similar water qualities,structure type & possibly forage base to fit what type waters or style your used to fishing.Fitting the bill of finding sizable waters that would compare to LOTW, URL or ML is near impossible.Although there are many smaller bodies of water that fish alot similar to some of the larger MN lakes with good forage bases & quality fishing.

Quote:

---

It’s been advised to me from members of the DNR and the Walleye Advisory Board to remove myself from this discussion. They do not feel that the internet is the proper place to put this issue on public trial.

---

Would that mean behind closed doors is a better place?

I’m not saying you should or shouldn’t back out Jack, but I would think this IS the place to educate many…many people.

It’s kind of funny. I have some friends down in Tx, members of a fishing forum.

They’re hashing out if trot lines are ethical.

So far it appears in the posts that trot lines are ethical…although some people that use them are not.

BTW Roller dams and locks don’t stop fish.

Quote:

---

It’s been advised to me from members of the DNR and the Walleye Advisory Board to remove myself from this discussion. They do not feel that the internet is the proper place to put this issue on public trial.

---

If I was a DNR employee or a member of any advisory board (walleye, northern, panfish, pike, muskie, catfish etc…) I would be ashamed by the comment above.

This has been a great debate with both sides coming up with very good reasons on why 1 or 2 lines should be allowed.

Everyone knows this is not a public trial… It’s purely educational with input from anglers all around the midwest. And who is more important than that?

Brad,

Their point is that the DNR has a process established for the public to speak their minds on these topics. If people want to be heard, they should do so in the right forum.

Believe it or not, these topics on websites like this do get followed by people in the DNR.

They have a policy of never engaging in internet discussions. That is why you have never seen any DNR official on any discussion board anywhere. They might do an interview, but they will not get on a discussion board such as this.

Quote:

---

That is why you have never seen any DNR official on any discussion board anywhere.

---

I’m a member of an outdoor forum web site here in Iowa that has a DNR Fish Biologist as a member and will answer any question posted on this site.

Ed

Jack, you still didn’t answer and now you can’t since your buddies told you not to, but why are you not in favor of closing the walleye season when the temp hits 70 degrees? That is what is best for the resources, right? All you keep saying is bad things happen when it hits 70 degrees so imagine how bad it would be with two lines. That hasn’t proven anything about two lines, only about temp. If they want to error on the side of caution, close the season! But that would cause tourism and guide trips to take a hit. So it is not all about resources.

MN is actually in a unique situation here since they currently only have one line. It would appear that many people are in favor of 2 lines, so it should be studied. They could open up a group of lakes to study the impact of two lines. Mille Lacs would be a great place but with the treaty junk it wouldn’t happen. But if they open up some “hot” tourism lakes, small lake, and big lakes, they could get a real study done to see the impact. They could study increased fishing pressure. Impact on number of licenses in the area and increased tourism. They could study what methods anglers use the most with two lines. And they could measure extra pounds of fish killed. Maybe they find that there really isn’t much impact on the fishery. Maybe they find devastating results. You make it sound like the MN DNR is the greatest organization in the world and everybody looks at their research. Maybe the results are so devastating that other state would take a look at their laws. Maybe they find that the increase in tourism greatly exceeds the damage done to the resource, and the additional revenues come in would allow the DNR to do more stocking or whatever to offset the additional damage done to the resource. Jack, would you change your mind if they found that fish kill went up a marginal amount like 1% or 3% and you got an extra10 guide trips (not that this would be happening on Mille Lacs, just an example) out of it?

But instead the DNR already knows what is best for everybody. I’m sure an argument would be that there is no money for this. Well the great folks of MN already decided we are not taxed enough and now I am paying more taxes to the DNR. They should put that money to good use instead of spending it on elaborate parties.

By the way, did anybody catch James fishing with two lines this morning? Maybe Jack is right and James should study and learn more so he doesn’t need two lines to catch his fish.

I completely understand why the DNR does not want any of their employees getting involved stating their personal opinions in these types of forums. That could lead to misrepresentation. I’m also glad to hear that the DNR reads these forums since a big part of their job is to listen to anglers who pay their salaries.

However, I don’t feel the same with any advisory board outside of the DNR. Why wouldn’t they want any member to participate in this type of discussion? I think most of us here would welcome them in open arms since they may bring some very good insight to this discussion. Obviously an advisory board member would have to defrain from giving their personal opinion but they may educate us on studies, research, trends etc… BTW – Isn’t an advisory board made up of a bunch of individuals stating their personal opinions?

The more people involved, the more advisory groups involved, the more public elected officials involved, the more anglers involved stating their opionions and the more discussions being held, the better we can make a decision.

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone from the DNR or perhaps an “Advisory Board Member” write a comment like this:

“Dear IDO Members and Anglers of MN, we thank you for stating your opinion on this forum in regard to the bill that is trying to be passed allowing MN anglers to use 2 lines versus 1 during the open water season. It helps us better understand what MN anglers want and we thank you for educating us and we will take these comments under consideration.”

I realize this is not going to happen and the DNR can only influence the decision, but that should be their attitude towards an open internet forum such as this versus “They do not feel that the internet is the proper place to put this issue on public trial.” No DNR employee and no Advisory Board Member is more important than an individual angler. In the end, we all get one vote.

Quote:

---

They have a policy of never engaging in internet discussions. That is why you have never seen any DNR official on any discussion board anywhere.

---

Might want to visit the catfish forum more often.

296 posts….A guy would almost have to wonder if people were talking about Brett Favre in here.

Yes, the DNR does read these threads. That way they have all the answers(predetermined) to the questions we have.

…and that’s the smart thing to do..which ever side they are on.

But if that’s the case.

Hey guys! How are we doing on the large size bullhead for bait rule change? It’s been three years.

Quote:

---

It’s been advised to me from members of the DNR and the Walleye Advisory Board to remove myself from this discussion. They do not feel that the internet is the proper place to put this issue on public trial.

So with that, I am dropping out of this discussion. I’ll still read it because I want to see if anyone can still come up with an arguement that 2 lines will help our resources. Trust me, you can’t!

---

Jack,

I can’t believe the DNR has asked you this. I’m gonna send Ron Payer a note stating what a load of BS I think this is. The fact that someone with your “pull” in this advisory board can’t talk online…Well, I can’t type what I really think about it. Suffice to say, everyday my confidence in the MN DNR is shaken more and more.

I’d love to know when the next public input meeting is being held to discuss 2 lines in Mn. I’m guessing a couple of us would gladly show so we could be “educated” with all the science the DNR has to support their decision. This is an old boy rule that a few purist don’t want to give up.

Man, what copout.

So now I am to believe that Winona and all the tributaries to the Mississippi are devoid of fish because they all escaped to Pool 4 to be caught by multiple lines?

Now the debate has shifted to “Show us how it (2 Lines) benefits the fishery?” Hmmmmm….I would think that this very argument should have been held with the advent of the flasher. Even more so with the LCD graph. Not to mention GPS! Those innovations were all made and adopted to enhance the fishing experience for the ANGLERS not the “Fishery.” That is my point here. I still have not seen definitive data saying it would be detrimental to the fishery. Lots of suppositions and “Guestimates.” Especially when 2 lines are allowed in Winter and 2-3 lines are allowed on the most prolific fishery in the Midwest being the Mississippi River whether or not it is “Stocked” from different sources. People are leaving the fishing and hunting sports in large numbers. Maybe not leaving, but not being introduced. Groups like PETA are in our schools telling kids fish feel pain…yada..yada..yada. As soon as these Wii and Xbox kids make up the larger part of our population, we are done for. Fishing industries are going to collapse. If my DNR wants to put my money where their mouth is…make the experience MORE FUN for the angler, and manage the fishery…not guess that it may be bad. Allow two lines and prove to me it is a detriment, and lets have this debate with cold hard facts. Where is the information shared by the Dakotas and Wisconsin where it is legal? Or are we the elitists who know better? We are all competing with cyber entertainment and it is going to be a losing battle. Jack, being a guide, I would think you would be a big proponent of that type of thinking, or the sport and profession you love may disappear for good.

Anyway, I think I have made my point as clear as I can. Again, I am not saying my position is the only right one. But in looking at the advancements in the fishing industry over the years…the “Benefit to the fishery” was not and is not the primary focus.

Jack…Maybe you could pass this on to your DNR cronies…when you Google “Pool 4 Telemetry Study” IDO Fishing comes up first. Maybe the DNR could stand to take some “Advice” from day to day anglers that spend a lot of time using the resource we all pay for.