Home Work Help

I’ve received the agenda for the MN DNR Roundtable and there’s a couple items that will actually be discussing as opposed to just listening about.

Both have been talked about before here and on other sites and of course this isn’t a scientific poll…but it should give me a flavor of the attitudes of fisher people.

There hasn’t been any guidelines announced. Just a discussion of:

Two lines in MN

Raising fishing license fees. (note last year this was brought up and the DNR was against it because “it wasn’t the right time.”)

I would like to take your comments along.

Brian, an issue that I haven’t heard in awhile, as far as license fees go, whether it be fishing or hunting, is reciprocal fees for out of staters. I would get behind that one BIG time !!! Do you know if that is a dead issue ?

big G

One thing WI has right in my opinion is allows multiple lines. I don’t think it will remove anymore fish from waters, but would make for more “Trophies” being caught. (And hopefully Released after pics/measurements)

I’m 100% ok with a small(4%) fishing license fee increase if those funds go directly back into the DNR budget, NOT the general slush fund.

Voted yes on the license fee increase. If it goes up a buck Im sure most people could handle it. Guess it also depends on where that extra buck would go.

2 lines?

I’m pro-increase for both as long as the money isn’t squandered away.

As said in the past, I believe two lines will not hurt fish populations because if you’re a meat hog and you’re on fish you’re still going to take 1 limit. There have been greater advantages given to fisherman recently other than an additional line… such as quality graphs/flashers and lake chips.

$.02 Chris

Quote:

---

reciprocal fees for out of staters.

---

I can’t say if it’s dead or not.

OK, maybe you can pose the question then Thanks !!!

big G

Give me the option for two lines and I’ll give you $10! If the DNR wants to scratch my back I’ll scratch theirs….then again it’ll probably be like my marriage; I’ll scratch their back and they will either run away, get a head-ache, or fall asleep.

Even thougn I reside in Sconniville I spend just as much time fishin MN as I do Sconni so I’d like to be able to fish 2 lines over there without an increase of my license fee

I would gladly pay two license fee’s to be able to fish with two lines in the open water.

Originally from Mn.(Bemidji), moved to Nebraska for work. Nebraska – 2 rods and no closed season. Unless you are an openwater troller or a bobber lobber – one rod is enough. Getting hung up on weed or rocks while trying to handle two rods in wind and waves isn’t much fun….I know that everyone sees the Tournament Pro’s on TV fishing 2 livebait rods in the bow, while watching the locator, while running the trolling motor…..they’re out there fishing for fame and fortune not for the enjoyment of angling…you want more rods out….take a kid fishing.
just my two cents worth.
best fishes – jim

Quote:

---

Originally from Mn.(Bemidji), moved to Nebraska for work. Nebraska – 2 rods and no closed season. Unless you are an openwater troller or a bobber lobber – one rod is enough. Getting hung up on weed or rocks while trying to handle two rods in wind and waves isn’t much fun….I know that everyone sees the Tournament Pro’s on TV fishing 2 livebait rods in the bow, while watching the locator, while running the trolling motor…..they’re out there fishing for fame and fortune not for the enjoyment of angling…you want more rods out….take a kid fishing.
just my two cents worth.
best fishes – jim

---

If one is enough for you and too much of an inconvenience, why would you want others to have that opportunity? Or maybe you don’t care either way. And if you take a kid out fishing, that doesn’t mean you can cast his line and reel in his fish.

Like I told Brian, I abstained from voting for a fee increase, even though I have lobbied (on the boards) for one for years. Raising it for the sake of raising it, doesn’t make sense, but if I know why and they are good reasons, I am all for it. I think we have had it pretty good for years as far as the cost of a fishing license.

Fees….. having it good….???? Is fishing a right or a priviledge… Stir….stir…

big G

Ah go watch your tape of the 3rd quarter of the Vikes vs. Saints in the conference championship.

Quote:

---

Stir….stir…

---

You? nah…

“Raising it for the sake of raising it, doesn’t make sense, but if I know why and they are good reasons, I am all for it.”

Amen!

It sounds like the DNR is studying just how much blood they can get from the turnip, like somehow we should be paying more simply because we can afford it. If there’s a justifiable reason why the cost of a license should go up then fine, but to raise it just “because” seems like a kick in the nollies to me.

Then again I am one of those that think fishing is a God given right and I shouldn’t have to pay at all…kinda like cell-phones, food-stamps, and health-care.

I should also add that I think the DNR is vastly underfunded.

A $1 increase would be okay…..and another easy way to increase the $$ in the DNR fund is to push hard for e-licensing. An e-license seems to me to be a lot cheaper way of handling the process. How about charging $1 more for buying it in the store……and keep the electronic licensing the same price to encourage that?

In truth – I have a lifetime license now, so an increase means nothing to me personally.

T

I’m against 2 lines bacause I feel you should be able to have 3 or more.

I didn’t vote since I live in Iowa. We are able to use two lines and I always have to remind myself about the MN rules when I go up to fish. I really don’t think two lines is a big deal. It sure does not help me catch so many more fish in Iowa and I really don’t see it as a problem. I have always wondered the reasoning behind the one line thing anyway??

I have a pretty healthy distrust of politicians. I’m greatly concerned that money would be taken from license/useage fees and added to the general fund to pay for, yet another, social welfare project.

If they’re provisions to guarantee that the money doesn’t go elsewhere I might be for increase in license fees. I would even be in favor of an increase in license fees for tournament anglers, like myself, if it meant the DNR would get the h*ll out of the way and quit treating us (tournament anglers) like the red headed step children.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to get off my soap box.

How’s that Natural Resources Fund working out for all those that voted to increase your taxes? Do you think if the DNR raises a bunch of extra money from increasing license fees that some of their existing budget dollars won’t be diverted to fill the 6 billion dollar (or whatever it is) state deficit?

Yes, to 2 lines. I’d be willing to pay an increased license fee for using 2 lines. No, to a flat license increase without being able to use multiple lines.

I am in agreement with an increase for fishing licenses as well, as long as it goes to the DNR or fisheries…..and does NOT just get put in to a general fund or divert current funds from the DNR.

I’m fine with two lines as well.

Quote:

---

I’m against 2 lines bacause I feel you should be able to have 3 or more.

---

Baby steps.

Quote:

---

Ah go watch your tape of the 3rd quarter of the Vikes vs. Saints in the conference championship.

---

OK OK, you guys with ref to the Vikes for everything I post.. you are SOOOOOO clever… I asked a legitimate question… don’t make me go to HSO and bad mouth you Pug….

big G

No and No

Two lines. I don’t know how people say this will not effect fish populations. More lines in the water means more hook mortality. I keep hearing here all the time that it’s not all about what you catch – then these same people say Ya I’m all for 2 lines. i guess it must be more about the catch than they say!!!!

Increase in license fee’s – Normally I’d say it is about time. But with the economy I just don’t think now is the right time.

By law all hunting and fishing license fees go straight to MNDNR fishing and hunting funds.

They are looking for an increase so they can do more for the resource in the face of their general funding having been cut to almost nothing the last number of years. In addition the problems of ever increasing population, more fence row to fence row farming, more field drain tiling and more and more pressure on all the natural resources are making them look for a way to fund the protection and enhancement of what we have left. Think about what a night at the movies costs or a ball game or a concert, hunting and fishing license fees are the best entertainment deal in MN.

As far as two lines cannot support that one. MN has held itself high in the fair chase standard for many years let’s not lower ourselves to the bottom of barrel just because some other state does it. Like baiting deer, because it is legal in some states does that make it right here? Would you jump off the cliff just because someone else did it? Thousands of folks from WI and IA as just one example come to MN every year because of the quality of our fishing. Their resources have been trashed by poor laws like multiple line rules. Let’s keep MN on the high road, the air and water is better up here versus the bottom of the barrel.

I’m not coordinated enough to fish with two lines at once unless one of those lines is a tip up or rattle reel. That doesn’t mean I don’t think other guys shouldn’t be allowed to tangle their lines, though.

I don’t quite get the “hook mortality” argument. If the fish is gut hooked, it is the responsiblity of the angler to reduce it to possession. Once your limit is in the livewell, it’s time for you to hit the dock. Whether it takes you one hour with two lines or 8 hours with one line makes no difference.

I could be wrong, but the only fish I’ve heard of that has a significant post-release mortality rate are muskies and even that is somewhat debatable.

Over the years, we have had some dandy “arguments” over the two line topic.