Overharvest of a fishery vs two lines proposal

I think everyone should be afraid of me….

I sent Ron an email with several questions. I’m hoping he or someone on his staff will take the time to respond. I also referenced this thread.

Quote:

---

I also referenced this thread.

---

IMO, fishing with two lines instead of one is simply another “tool” to increase your odds to catch more fish.

Look at all the other “tools” we use to help us increase our odds of catching fish. Maybe we should get rid of some of those too.

For example, maybe we should get rid of all those sonars that help us locate those fish. That tool definitely helps us increase our odds of catching fish. And the more fish that are caught, the more hooking mortality right?

And let’s get rid of crankbaits too with all those treble hooks. Why can’t we just use a single hook? In fact, let’s just get rid all those treble hooks because that too increases our odds to catch more fish and leads to more hooking mortality.

And let’s get rid of those contour map chips. This tool gives another advantage to the angler that is really not necessary.

And what’s with those long fishing rods? Isn’t a 6 foot long rod good enough? If we don’t stop it someone is going to come up with a 100 foot fishing rod and would be able to have a really distinct advantage. So let’s change the law to 6 foot and under.

And what’s with those bottom bouncers? That’s another tool that increase the anglers chance to catch fish in deeper water or current. Let’s get rid of those too and besides, it’s bad for the env. Better yet, let’s get rid of all weighted jigs, isn’t a hook and a worm good enough these days?

OK I could go on and on…. but hopefully now I made my point and obviously not if favor of any of those things listed above.

IMO – using two lines is simply another tool to catch fish and that’s it.

The focus should be on managing the fishery and the fish versus fishing equipment and the anglers who catch them.

I’m all for fishing 2 lines statewide. I love to use 2 lines on the river. It keeps the kids busy! I think the MNDNR statistic is it takes an average of 10 hours to catch 1 walleye in MN. For that one line guy it must be dramatically shorter. I also do not believe you automatically catch more fish with 2 lines…but you can. I don’t think you will magically fill the freezer or double dip using 2 lines, if you do YOU ARE A POACHER! We already have a limit so that’s already covered.

I do think the only way it will change is if the DNR makes more money on it somehow or their leadership changes.

Ferny

Buy a nonresident license and come to Wisconsin we’ll let you use 3 lines both summer and winter.

Minnesota Special Regulations

Here is a 23 page list of just Minnesota’s inland waters that have special regulations. Boarder waters, and trout waters are not included.

Every year there are more waters added to this list. I didn’t look to see if the 110 lakes and streams in the Ceeded territory that have both tribal and state regulations are included here. If not, you could almost double the size of this list.

If we need to protect all these waters today after using just 1 line per person all these years, how will using 2 lines not have any effect?

Where is the logic?

Quote:

---

Where is the logic?

---

My thoughts exactly Jack. There is very little logic involved when it comes to the DNR and some of it’s rules.

Finally, we agree!!!

I guess I dont see your logic how 2 lines are going to effect special regulations like reduced limits and slot limits.A limit is a limit and fish in the slot go back.

I dont get down to Pool 4 much but when I do I dont see many guys using 2 rods and when I do I dont see them really doing better than guys with 1.Mostly I see guys running 2 baits instead of 2 rods.

What do you River guys think ? Does 2 lines have an effect on Pool 4?

I also really dont think 2 rods adds all that much if any to hooking mortality or extra fish.

Also if the DNR is worried about the fish why do they panic when licence sales are down.Wouldnt less people fishing help fishing?

Every other state around us you can use more than 1 line and they also have regulations and they still have great fishing.Why is that?

I only want 2 lines so I can throw out 2 lines and cranks when Im trolling or maybe fishing 2 different species at the same time.

If I just want a fish fry I can get enough with one rod.

Quote:

---

Also if the DNR is worried about the fish why do they panic when licence sales are down.Wouldnt less people fishing help fishing?

---

I’m surprised they even notice if sales are down seeing as they have no idea where the money is spent.

Audit faults DNR again!

Quote:

---

Also if the DNR is worried about the fish why do they panic when licence sales are down.Wouldnt less people fishing help fishing?

---

I can answer that!! $$$$ Which is not based on scientific evidence!!

Ok…seriously, the MN DNR does an outstanding job most of the time. Every agency has it’s faults as does private business and…believe it or not…even me.

I would really like to hear from either Ron or the DNR in general as to why they don’t support 2 lines. I doubt they don’t support it…”just because”.

Hey Brian you are around Pool 4 all the time.How much do you and Dean see guys running 2 lines.Do you think it has any effect on it.

2 lines in the spring and fall are not that big of a deal on P4.
However, come summer time, better throw 3 guys in the boat so you can run 2 lead core rods, 2 long-line rods and 2 planer board rods.
Give me 4 guys and I’ll up that to 4 planer board rods.
Yep, 8 rods total.
Why?
To decipher in the quickest amount of time, which bait is the “go-to” bait. Once figured out, then all rods get that bait. Then it goes from fishing to catching.
End results were up to 50+ fish days by doing so.
That is walleye fishing though.

The same could be done on any body of water, for any species too, from crappies to walleyes to pike to muskie.

Being the devil’s advocate,
I’m sure all of you whom support the 2 lines are HUGE fans of the pontoon trollers on the north shore of the pond?

Quote:

---

Being the devil’s advocate,

I’m sure all of you whom support the 2 lines are HUGE fans of the pontoon trollers on the north shore of the pond?

---

Nope but he has every right to fish in this fashion. Gary I am a fan of your post however since it really sums up the idea why to be able to run multiple line. I also would like to add that besides paying for an extra line stamp I would never have fish in the livewell while running the extra lines so my harvest would NOT go up any.

It was explained very well a few years back by a Pro Staffer(no names) on here. How often do you go out and catch a limit of game fish? I bet most anglers do not reach their limit of fish as often as they would like. So, just for a example, you catch 2 walleys on average at your local lake and now you catch 3 with two lines. This will hurt the fishery if the stocking stays the same as it does year after year. It is simple math. Now I used walleyes as a example, but every fish will be affected.

Another thing that I noticed is a lot of references to Pool 4. When you compare Pool 4 to the average Minnesota lake it is like comparing apples to oranges. Pool 4 is a awesome fishery that can not be compared to a 200 acre lake that gets 30,000 fry stocked every year with no natural reproduction.

I think I might lean towards a 2 line law if there is a stamp as others have mentioned and all of that money is reinvested into stocking more fish in every lake. But, if that is not done I am a supporter of the the 1 line law.

Some quick math… We have 1.2 million licensed anglers in MN, a number which has held steady for years. If an extra line stamp was purchased by 1/3 of the anglers at $25 it would amount to an extra $9 million in revenues for use on and protecting our natural resources. You think an extra $9 million put into our natural resources could help any? I also think the number of anglers willing to pay for an extra line stamp might far exceed the 30% but I wanted to use a conservative number for argument sake. Just a thought but it sure would cover alot of stocking, etc. to compensate for any hooking mortality.

That doesn’t sound too bad. What do you think the odds are that the DNR would use that 9 mill on just stocking or lake management? I know if that was the WDNR, I would have little faith that those revenues would be used for what they were intended. Sorry to sound negative about a good idea, but facts are facts.

Quote:

---

If an extra line stamp was purchased by 1/3 of the anglers at $25 it would amount to an extra $9 million in revenues for use on and protecting our natural resources. You think an extra $9 million put into our natural resources could help any?

---

Your math is correct, however there are no separate “funds” for fishing, hunting, camping, parks, etc.
All the money gets pooled and then alloted.
That way, there are parks in the inner city, that have no water or hunting grounds our license money goes too. Those parks do not generate money.

It is only a hoop dream that the DNR would alocate money like you state above. However, the system denies it and there are not enough over ruling voices to change the system.

Quote:

---

Hey Brian you are around Pool 4 all the time.How much do you and Dean see guys running 2 lines.Do you think it has any effect on it.

---

Very few guys use multiple lines here during the verticle time of year.Once the 3 way & trolling bite starts,then virtually everone uses multiple lines.Wi regs here allow Wi License holders to use up to 3 lines each,Mn license holders 2 lines max / angler.In my opinion based on info from our fish management folks and what I see with my own eyes,the number of lines issue is not at the top of the list for contributing factors of the past,present or future status of the Pool 4 fishery.I am sure there are folks that wont agree with my assesment.I do not consider myself as an expert on this subject by any means.Most of the Pool 4 controversy issues are the 12 month a year open season.

As far as other bodies of water being discussed here,I read the opinions being posted here with an open mind.Good points being made for sure,but in the end, we are all pretty darn lucky to have the bodies of water to fish that we do,regardless of how many lines used.It is in all of our best interest to use common sense and respect for whatever body of water we are on.

Gary!

Quote:

---

It is only a hoop dream that the DNR would alocate money like you state above. However, the system denies it and there are not enough over ruling voices to change the system.

---

Actually there were enough voices at the last election. Problem is that the funds from that amendment are doing what the moneys from license sales were supposed to do. Our dear legislature still gets all the revenues from our license sales deposited into the General Fund, and then they use it as they wish, which includes an annual funding of about $2.6M for fisheries and stocking, of which about 20% ($500,000+/-) is used for research and studies of our exsisting stocking program. Whats left is actually used for stocking. Stocking in Minnesota was drastically reduced in 1992 when the economy was bad and the state was in deep financial dodo. It has never been brought back to those pre 1992 levels since. Instead of the state budgeting the funds needed to run the stocking program as they did before the cut backs, they forced the DNR to reduce the stocking programs to fit what the legislature budgets them. End result, a “new” science in fisheries managment thats costing us tax payers that 20% each year so they can figure out if it they can make it work.

If you remember we had quite the discussion about that a few years ago on here. I think the thread title was something to do with “Minnesota walleye stamp”. It was during the Red lake stocking period and about the first year of the Leech Lake emergency stocking program starting.

Can I get an “AMEN” for Dean I too have been reading with an empty…. er…. I mean open mind. I really am not for or against it. What I am for is, healthy lakes, with healthy fish and happy fishermen !!! There are definitely some people with passion posting here…

big G

Minnesota= 1 buck, 1 fishing line
Love the tradition
If the fish are biting, how many poles does one really need???

How many do they (we) need? The personal option to wear a cycle helmet, wear seat belts and fish two lines.

At the risk of taking this post in another direction…I stole this from the catfish forum..thanks Pug!

Quote:

---

HOUSE:

Monday, January 25: Game, Fish & Forestry Division. HF 22 (Juhnke) dealing with anglers being permitted to use two lines to take fish; HF 26 (Juhnke) dealing with fish spearing from a dark house allowed by nonresidents.

---

My dad taught me to spear only because he wanted me to be able to try it before it was outlawed. If someone would tell him within 20 years they would be trying to open it up to “out of staters”, he would have ask you to share your whiskey with him.

Quote:

---

There are definitely some people with passion posting here…

---

Let’s not confuse passion with common sense. I moved here 9 years ago this month. Every time I go fishing, I question why in the world MN only allows 1 line per angler. I’ve run across some really dumb laws in this state, but this one takes the cake when it comes to the outdoors.

Thankfully I still get to go fishing once in a while and I’m happy for that. Do I wish I could enhance the “experience” by occasionally using a 2nd line and catching more fish?? NOTE: catching DOES NOT EQUAL killing!! The good thing, I can all write our local/state representatives and ask them to support this bill.

Kooty, I agree, but Common Sense to one person does not mean Common Sense to another. One persons common sense tells them that 2 lines will not hurt a fishery and another cannot see how it could not. Is either one wrong ? Who knows. I can say I am getting educated on the pros and cons in this thread. Where passion comes in, is where someone literally takes personal shots at someone, for their beliefs. That takes passion, common sense and courtesy are out the door, when we let our emotions get in the way of a good clean debate. I have heard good reasons for 2 lines and equally good reasons for one. I look at it as little bit, as having to put a plug in my duck gun… if I can use that analogy. Some points that have been brought up, really pose good questions…. if 2 lines are allowed…. why not 3 ? What is the magic number ? In somes scenarios, the sky could be the limit. I would think at some point, most peoples common sense would tell them that having too many lines out will hinder their ability to efficiently fish all the lines without deep hooksets, tangled lines… etc etc etc. Is 2 easy to handle, probably for most, maybe not, I don’t know. I mainly bobber fish (lazy) so I would love 2 lines, to narrow down color, depth, bait etc. But when I am trolling (I do very little, see lazy) I don’t know what I would do with a double hookset. There are times when it is going to happen. Do we then trust everybody to fish 1 rod under them circumstances ? I don’t think that is plausible. Maybe most of the time, 2 lines would be fine, but when the bite is on, I guess I see it as a possible danger to the fisheries as we know them. Limits are limits is correct. Any fish taken in a limit is dead, gone and hopefully accounted for in equations of harvest. A released fish is a ?????? I would guess they come up mortality rates, with estimates based on hours on water, creel counts and netting data, based on people fishing using one line. Would you then have to double the equation ? Simple math would be probably pretty close to double, maybe more if more people will fish MN waters, being allowed a second line. Like I said, I really am not concerned with 1 or 2, I am happy to fish !!! Would I use 2 if it was allowed… ABSOLUTELY But what I would be careful about is, is it going to affect the waters and in 10 years, & have the DNR saying, we have to close Lake X, because the populations are too low. I also think we cannot turn all our lakes into catch and release, as then it becomes just a game with no spoils and I think alot of fisherman actually go fishing to get some stink in the pan. Again, I am on the fence, but can be tipped either way. If 2 lines will not hurt the fishery or lower limits, I am all for it. If it will cause slots to be tightened, limits to be lowered (Mille Lacs, The Walleye Factory, is already lower than the state limit) then I would be against. The question really is, will 2 lines cause any of this and I don’t think either side can say unequivically that it will or won’t. I guess the reference to other states, could be argued, what would their fishing success and fish numbers be, if they only allowed one line ? Who knows ? Keep this thread going, maybe it will lead to some answers…. then again maybe not

big G

One thing to consider with the question you raise about peoples effects on a body of water a few years later.

Every body of water has natural “carrying capacities” for each species of fish living it it. There is a high, and a low to each of those carrying capacities for each species. If one species gets too high in numbers (like crap in some lakes), that species could eliminate or force down the levels of other species.

The problem that possible over fishing brings in is the low side of this equation. We never know what the minimum population is for a species to remain viable in a lake. At what point do we cross the line and unknowingly cause the demise of a lakes natural ability to sustain that species in it. As a population gets smaller, other fish in that system will take that space. Look at Red Lake, just as an exmple, at what point did human harvest cross the line of “no return” for walleyes to naturaly maintain their numbers in that body of water. The largest natural walleye lake wholly within the contenintal U.S., and man had to restock it to bring it back. If we hadn’t taken that effort, the crappie explosion would have continued to prevented the small natural walleye hatches from ever repopulating the lake to its original state.

I think you meant “Carp” Jack…but point taken.

Quote:

---

Look at Red Lake, just as an exmple, at what point did human harvest cross the line of “no return” for walleyes to naturaly maintain their numbers in that body of water.

---

How can you even think of comparing what happened to Red Lake to fishing with 2 lines? That lake has been netted for years and years. If had not been netted do you think it would have ever been “fished” out? Would 2 lines have fished it out? I doubt that as well. How many of those netted fish were catch and release such as what many of us sportsmen/women do by catching them on a rod ? Not very many!! So to use that lake as an example or a selling point against two rods is pretty poor in my opinion.

Since you seem to have all the statistics in harvest then please post how many pounds of fish were netted in say 10 years prior to the restocking program of Red Lake vs how many pounds were actually caught on a rod during that same period of time. Since we are talking about walleyes lets just keep the numbers to just walleyes.

I thought maybe he was referencing Little Rock Lake…

big G

Jack,

I’m not sure what a lake that was netted to death and two lines have in common?? Seems both the Indians and non-indians can take some blame for destoying that lake and it’s surrounding businesses. That’s a whole nother thread, but I pray they don’t do it again.

Yes, lakes have a biomass and the ability to support X amount of fish. Each lake is unique and depending on the primary source of food, it will help dictate how well a given species will do. How this has any affect on using one or two rods is beyond me??

Your basic arguement comes down to more lines = more fish killed. I agree, using more lines would help me catch more fish on certain days. However, I’ve been skunked many a day in SD when running multiple lines.

So, by simply dangling a second line into the lake does not magically produce dead fish in my livewell.

G, my common sense meter may not be as accurate as come others, but when I look around at our neighbors and see they can manage fisheries just fine with two + lines…. Well, it seems to peg out in the BS range when the DNR tells me it can’t be done.