Overharvest of a fishery vs two lines proposal

Oh my, we have gotten to the point of the argument it’s just stupid, so let’s not do it!!

I will not argue by adding a second line, that I increase my odds of snagging and losing some tackle. Do you have links to the environmental studies showing what affects the lead used in our fishing tackle has? How about fishing line lost or what about crankbaits?

[sarcasm]I love that by being able to utilize a second line for fishing, we are suddenly going to pollute our rivers and lakes beyond the ability to support fish populations. In reality, we would have decimated the populations so badly by over harvest, that this factor will be of little significance. Although, we probably won’t know it until the bighead carp have taken over all the waters in MN.[/sarcasm]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

how many anglers actually boycott Minnesota waters because a party of 3 can’t fish 6 or 9 lines?

---

Maybe not boycott Minnesota waters…but I always recommend out of staters to buy a WI fishing license because of the number of lines and baits that can be used.

I’m going to guess and fairly accurately, that MN loses 12 licenses per year because of me. I’m just one guide…and that’s not BS.

Was it mentioned that MN is seeing lower revenues from fishing license sales?

---

So fishing License sales are up in Wisconsin and down in Minnesota because of 2 lines?….noted!

There might be this or that narrow angler niche that frumps and grumbles , but how many anglers actually boycott Minnesota waters because a party of 3 can’t fish 6 or 9 lines?

Nice try though…

Quote:

---

Maybe I missed it but can you guys show US any substance or reasoning for switching to two lines other then the Fluff that has been posted above…

---

TO CATCH MORE FISH!! I’m sorry I’m greedy and want to catch more fish, cuz it’s a lot of fun for me…And every fisherman I’ve ever met when I come to think of it.

The fluff above has been almost solely been in rebuttal to the “facts” being typed by our resident self proclaimed professional panel of experts who are against this law. Proving for the most part, you have nothing but tradition to stand on.

I’ll keep fishing my 4-5 times a year with one rod and be darn happy I get to go when I do. No matter if/when this law finally passes I’ll be happy, until then, it’s just another silly law I get to poke fun at MN with.

Quote:

---

So fishing License sales are up in Wisconsin and down in Minnesota because of 2 lines?….noted!

---

I don’t remember typing that…I think I said I steer out of staters towards WI licenses.

That was by best try.

Last one kooty I promise…

At last count you have told us 16 times that more lines does not equal more Fish harvested or killed….

How do you feel about the DNR’s Creel survey that says/said.

This summer the DNR did a creel survey of the boarder water in MN/ND. They found that of those that did use 2 lines their bag limit was 30-50% higher then those that didn’t use 2 lines.

I will agree that the number 1 reason I want to use another line is because it will make fishing more fun for me. I go fishing to catch fish. That probably explain the reason I would rather catch and release 50 panfish rather than wait it out all day for a chance at 1 or 2 walleyes.

As for the “increased” hooking mortality issue, I’ve got a solution. Why don’t we get rid of slots so we can keep those wounded fish? I’m not a fan of cutting up a large fish, but I think its better off on my plate then rotting on the shoreline.

I believe most people would still end up only using one line, myself included, but I would like the option. I’ve spent 15-20 days on the ice this year and on 4 of those days I used a second line.

Hey, I’m sure there are isolated incidents where more harvest will occur occasionally. It won’t for me. But to say unilaterally this change means more fish killed, just doesn’t sit well with my simple little common sense meter.

I’m all about reading as much as I can, when I’m interested anyway. Send me a link to this info. A good debate is fun.

So does every state that allows more than 1 line have it wrong then?

How do you explain states using more than 1 line that still have amazing fisheries? How do all the anti-theories apply there?

I don’t think you can answer it – I said before that every “opinion” on why not to have two lines can be discredited simply by looking across the border….how do you not agree to that?

just wondering – good discussion – thanks

Just for the record, I only really want the option for a 2nd line in the open water season.

In the winter, I am very content to use just one line most of the time. That line is a 1/4 inch rope afixed to a 7-tined hook, BTW. And NO – I don’t practice C&R in the winter, so my mortality rate is about 100%………See avatar for clarity…… LOL.

This has been an interesting discussion to follow but I don’t think many minds have been changed on either side. For the most part we have been civil and it has gotten a few hearts pumping.
Totally tongue in cheek but if we follow the logic that 2 rods would increase catch then what about the people that take people with them to get an extra rod in the boat. Isn’t that a form of 2 rods???? Maybe we should limit it to one person per boat or 1 rod per boat. This might hamper guides but if it would save the life of one fish Come on —laugh—it was funny

To give you an idea how popular this bill is in the Senate, one of “my” representatives replied:

Quote:

---

Thanks John! I’m not familiar with this but I’ll be looking for it.

---

This bill is now getting some press and it was heard Monday by the House Game, Fish, and Forestry Division.

Star Tribune Link

Bill would allow anglers to use 2 fishing lines
By ELIZABETH DUNBAR , Associated Press

Last update: January 26, 2009 – 11:14 PM

ST. PAUL, Minn. – Minnesota anglers could have one line rigged with bait and a bobber while casting with a spinner on a second line under a bill in the House.

“It makes the sport more enjoyable when the fish aren’t biting,” said Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, the bill’s author.

He told fellow lawmakers the bill allowing anglers to always fish with two lines fits better with what surrounding states allow and could give Minnesota a new source of revenue. Currently, anglers in Minnesota can use two lines only in border waters or while ice fishing.

The bill was heard Monday in the House Game, Fish and Forestry Division. Similar legislation has passed the House before but has met opposition in the Senate.

Juhnke testified that he’s received calls and letters from anglers and resort owners from across Minnesota urging the two-line limit. But four people testified against the bill on Monday, saying it could put the state’s fishery at risk.

“It’s not a fishery population issue, it’s a quality issue,” said Ed Boggess, deputy director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife for the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Boggess said putting more lines in the water would result in more fish being caught, potentially causing more stress on the fish, sometimes leading to death. The DNR might have to respond with more restrictions on certain lakes if that became an issue, Boggess said.

Shawn Kellett, president of the Twin Cities chapter of Muskies Inc., said allowing anglers to use two lines for muskie could be especially harmful. Anglers distracted by having two lines might not reel in a muskie right away, leading the fish to swallow the hook and eventually die, he said.

“The bill is more about angler greed than creating a better fishery,” Kellett said. “If the fishery isn’t what it is now, people won’t come to our resorts from out of state anyway.”

But Juhnke said states like Wisconsin haven’t had problems with the quality of their fisheries in allowing multiple lines.

He also said the bill could bring in potential revenue if the DNR were to make anglers buy an extra stamp to fish with two lines. For example, if the stamp cost $10, the state could bring in an additional $1 million a year, Juhnke said.

Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, said he still opposes the bill. Chaudhary, chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, has said the change could hurt Minnesota’s conservation efforts.

Here’s another press release:

Pioneer Press Link

Legislator pushes two-line fishing bill
By Chris Niskanen
[email protected]
Updated: 01/26/2009 06:24:42 PM CST

State Rep. Al Juhnke, DFL-Willmar, said he is determined to make it legal for Minnesota anglers to use two fishing lines year-round.

“We can fish with two lines in the winter and you can fish with two lines on border waters,” said Juhnke, who has introduced a bill to legalize two lines year-round. “You can fish with multiple lines in Wisconsin. If you travel, you know it’s common to fish with two lines in other states.”

The two-line bill has passed the House twice, Juhnke said, but has failed in the Senate. Last year, the House proposal required anglers to pay an extra $5 to use an extra line.

While the fee hasn’t been proposed this year, Juhnke said it might be a way to raise money for the Department of Natural Resources, which will have its budget cut this year. A $10 fee to use two fishing lines could raise potentially $1 million for the agency’s programs.

“I don’t think anglers are unwilling to pay for that privilege,” Juhnke said.

Sen. Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, opposes Juhnke’s two-line proposal.

“It’s not in the spirit of conservation,” Chaudhary said. “I’d be OK with two lines if we had minimum size limits for walleyes and a reduction in our limits.”

The DNR also opposes the two-line proposals over concerns it will lead to increase harvests of fish. Assistant DNR commissioner Bob Meier said anglers using two lines on Lake Mille Lacs, for instance, could mean anglers would more quickly reach the state’s walleye allocation.

He said the agency is looking at data to determine what impacts two lines would have.
Juhnke’s bill, HF 0022, is scheduled for its first hearing Monday in the House Game, Fish and Forest Division. The committee will also discuss Juhnke’s bill, HF 0026, to legalize nonresident licenses for dark-house spearing.

Quote:

---

Shawn Kellett, president of the Twin Cities chapter of Muskies Inc., said allowing anglers to use two lines for muskie could be especially harmful.

---

We need this guy to start a Flatheads Inc.

I’m not exactly sure what could be so distracting that someone doesn’t notice that a Muskie is bending the rod in half, well except for gawking at a female boater who has misplaced her top. That would be an issue for me, one or two lines.

After all this, it comes up to some people who probably never fish, to decide. I will go way out on a limb and say, if 2 lines on open water is passed…. there will be a “special regulation” on Mille Lacs & select lakes…. Drumroll please…………….. Only 1 line per angler on open water on Mille Lacs & select lakes !!!! Mark my words if it passes……

big G

Quote:

---

After all this, it comes up to some people who probably never fish, to decide. I will go way out on a limb and say, if 2 lines on open water is passed…. there will be a “special regulation” on Mille Lacs & select lakes…. Drumroll please…………….. Only 1 line per angler on open water on Mille Lacs & select lakes !!!! Mark my words if it passes……

big G

---

In respect to Mille Lacs, it doesn’t matter what the rest of the state does. As long as that lake is subject to tribal harvest and treaty managment, that will never be allowed. so don’t even get your hopes up. Mille Lacs is totally seperate from any law that might possibly be passed for the rest of the state of Minnesota. Truth be told, the state of Minnesota has little if any say about the managment of the lake. It has all been decided by the court. The state has been assigned the job of just managing the sports anglers use of the lake to fit within the rulings of the court.

As a footnote to that, there are 110+ lakes and streams within the “Ceeded territory” that are subject to that same ruling of the court. If needed, the same regulations used on Mille Lacs can, and will, be enforced on those waters as well, and all of us have absolutely no say about it.

Thought I’d share the second response I received from my local representation.

Quote:

---

Dear John,

Thanks for your e-mail regarding increasing the number of fishing lines in MN. I appreciate you contacting me on this issue.

The bill was heard Monday in the House Game, Fish and Forestry Division. Similar legislation has passed the House before but has met opposition in the Senate.

Presently there is no compainon bill in the Senate. Senator Satveer Chaudhary, DFL-Fridley, said he still opposes the bill. Chaudhary, chairman of the Senate Environment and Natural Resources Committee, has said the change could hurt Minnesota’s conservation efforts.

The MN DNR also opposes the bill stating, putting more lines in the water would result in more fish being caught, potentially causing more stress on the fish, sometimes leading to death. The DNR might have to respond with more restrictions on certain lakes if that became an issue.

It apears this bill may have a rough road ahead. Please keep in mind if this issue comes before me on the Senate floor for a vote I will keep your comments and concerns in mind.

Again, thanks for your e-mail. Please don’t hesitate to contact me with other concerns you may have.

Sincerely,
Amy Koch

---

Looks like you got a “Dear John” letter…..

big G

Probably not my last…

Dang it! Jack has gotten to them first!

Thanks Chris!

Now when this idea gets shot down everyone will blame me.

I appreciate you stepping up and taking the blame Jack. However, the bill will likely never see the floor in the senate. Our lovely system will have this buried until again next year. Then we can debate again!!

No need to debate the same thing every year.

Just put this same thread up next year. Everything has been said already.

Quote:

---

No need to debate the same thing every year.

Just put this same thread up next year. Everything has been said already.

---

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.

In my pea sized brain nobody has definitively “Shown” where 2 lines will hurt a fishery either. Same as how trolling hurts the fishery in WI but not in MN? Two lines in winter (Where I catch MANY more panfish than in summer. )is OK but only 1 in Summer.

Anyways..

You just said yourself, you catch twice as many panfish using 2 lines in the winter than you do using 1 line in the summer, and that is reason to change the law?

If you want to change the world today with natural resources, you need to be able to show or sell the benefits in order to make the change. There is no arguement for the use of 2 lines that can show a benefit to any of the resources. 2 lines only fill the needs of individuals for their personal gain, and nothing more.

The arguement that not allowing 2 lines is hurting our tourism business is hard to swallow since we only allowed 1 line when our tourism business was at its peak. It’s my opinion that our “slot” managment programs have more influence on that choice of coming here to fish or not. Many of the favorite walleye waters for people coming to Minnesota now have restrictive slot managment, and in some cases reduced limits on them. Many non resident fishermen I’ve spoken to over the last 10 years have told me that is the primary reason they are thinking of going to either other waters in Minnesota to fish, or possibly other states. “It’s not worth the money to come all the way up here and not be able to keep anything but small fish. We can do that at home!” “It’s a lot of fun catching all these big fish, but we want to keep ’em, not throw them all back!”

As for placing blame on the use of gill nets, in regards to tourism, I agree, they are responsible for much of the regulation changes in “some” of the state. I think there are 110 different lakes and streams that are within the Ceeded territory that are now under “Treaty Harvest Managment”. Mille Lacs, Winnie, Leech, Red, all have special regs tied into some form of “Treaty Managment”. But……since 1992, the DNR has totally changed its fisheries managment program in terms of its stocking efforts state wide. Those changes were made in order to fit stocking into a limited state budgeting, as opposed to the state financing the stocking as needed, as it had been done for all time prior. (1992 was the same year the legislature decided to take all license sales revenue away from the DNR and funnel it into the General Fund. Prior to that the DNR was well funded by those license sales and could do a much better job stocking and ensuring better fishing for everyone.)

Lastly…….as for the recruitment of younger people into fishing. For many many years we had no problem getting young people interested in fishing by just sitting on the bank of a lake with a cane pole and a can of worms. We were still able to get them interested when we had rods, reels, and aluminum boats with motors, and while still using 1 line. Our biggest drop off in recruitment has taken place once we got all of our fancy technology.

The question is, is it our boat technology that is pushing them away, or all the other technology they have that prevents them from being interested. Are we going to have to run multiple lines using auto piloted trolling motors with automatic throttle controls in order to get our live bait imitating XYZ crank bait tied to extra thin abrasion proof super co-polymore line with the 2 ball bearing stainless steel swivel in front of those fish we are marking with our color sideimaging sonar with 4500 x 6000 pexiles that gives us a mark with only 1/100th of an inch seperation and are suspended just off the river channel drop off that we are following with our contour following GPS auto pilot program? If so, maybe it’s time to take all of these so called fishing education shows and DVD’s off the air, and off the shelves, because what I just described is not what fishing is supposed to be about.

I think the cane pole and can of worms offered the kids a bit more intrigue as to what might be out there and what could maybe happen. It did me, and many others for many years, and all while using just 1 line in Minnesota.

Quote:

---

You just said yourself, you catch twice as many panfish using 2 lines in the winter than you do using 1 line in the summer, and that is reason to change the law?

---

Meaning I don’t fish panfish that much in the Summer.

Nice try though.

Quote:

---

If you want to change the world today with natural resources, you need to be able to show or sell the benefits in order to make the change. There is no arguement for the use of 2 lines that can show a benefit to any of the resources. 2 lines only fill the needs of individuals for their personal gain, and nothing more.

---

And again, the rational that allows us to use two lines in the Winter is overlooked. If not overlooked, looked past. Why do people use 2 lines in Winter? I would argue that Pool 4 sees more fishermen per fishable acre than Mille Lacs…all the while putting out numerous records for many species! All on a body of water that sees WI folks using 3 rods, and MN 2 rods. The River is fished right through the spawn en masse with no ill effects. So the whole argument about adding an extra line and it being a detriment to the fishery is lost on me. I am sorry, but that is how I feel. Hey, allow it and if we see anything detrimental takes place! The law can always be reversed.

Oh, and what is the benefit? I have more fun!!! Isn’t that why any of us fish in the first place? It is for the fun factor! Jack, you are a cork fisherman for the most part. And that is fine, corking for the most part I do with one line anyway. When doing so you are fishing a tighter area of structure. I would bet, that corking with your one rod and a boat full of people…you are hooking and releasing more fish (To die???) than I am with two rods. I am catching bigger fish that tend to be roamers. I am a troller and a rigger. I like to cover larger areas where fish are much more scattered. Trolling basins, rigging large flats only “Ups” the fun factor for me. It allows me to utilize another line to contact fish. If I was doing that over rocks, I would only use one line. It is my choice. There are many reasons people would benefit by getting to use two lines. It increases the enjoyment as opposing to making it more restrictive.

Weird reasoning, two lines are bad for the resource because more fish are caught? I suppose the utopian world would then have no lines for fishing which would make it a perfect world for our resource. For the fish anyway….