Roundtable Back Porch session

Just thought I’d chime in on the Roundtable Back Porch session. This is about the only time that anglers really get a time to bring up their issues. This year the hot topic was two-line fishing in MN inland waters. With the exception of the Catfish guys, most angling groups oppose it. The Lake Superior folks can use two lines now but want to go to three. The issues brought forward were delayed hook mortality from gut hooking more fish and increased harvest rates. Apparently Catfish aren’t easy to gut hook.

I fish for all kinds of fish and am all for two lines.

Could have got your point across just as well by say “I’m opposed to two lines” If I didn’t have to work today I would have liked to get my two cents in.

Stuart, it’s likely your not alone on thinking two-line is OK. Come on up to the Capitol and testify at the hearings. Whats great about the USA is we all have a voice.

First, I was at the DNR back porch discussion as a cat guy. I didn’t see any bashing there nor do I take Buzz’s post as bashing.
No need for this thread to go down hill.
What I did see was the walleye, bass, and musky groups passionately expressing their viewpoint.
There was a lot of support for not allowing two lines.

One thing I would like to folks to know is that the groups that are against two lines are the groups that want more money from the DNR to stock lakes where the fish populations can’t handle the fishing pressure and rely on DNR money to stock these lakes so that their catch rates stay up.
There is not enough natural reproduction to support their fishery.
I agree, two lines are a bad idea on these waters.
But… these waters also have special regulations limiting the size and harvest.
While these groups are passionate about this issue, I don’t beleive they represent the general angling population.

I would suggest allowing two lines on waters that do not have special regulations or that can support their fishing pressure.
One example is border waters. The bordering states have less strict regulations and are not being stocked, yet they remain great fisheries.

Statewide two line with special regs for those waters that allready have special regs or cannot support their fishery.

You’re faster than me Dennis!

I’ll be back shortly to add my two sense worth. (miss spelled on purpose)

I see nothing wrong with the initial post. He did not even add his point of view. We all need to take a breath and have a great discussion.
DT

did i miss read or did you say that using two lines leads too more gut hooking?
i fish the mississippi with two lines my whole life for all species of fish and the only time i have ever had a problem with gut hooking is when i was a kid we would leave a crawler on the bottom over night, if you are leagally using two lines witch means you need too attend your lines there should be no problem with gut hooking.
also it should not affect the harvest too greatly your either catching fish or your not and theres a limit on how many fish you can keep daily and possesion, it will help too use two diferent baits too zero in on what the fish are biting on, you may catch your limit faster but you still can only keep your limit.
im not going too say i am greatly apposed or for two lines i just dont think it would be a problem too our fishery would be affected that greatly by it.

P.S. most people are too incapable of fishing with two lines anyway, most people that do fish with me on the river unless trolling only fish with one line anyway.

Stuart, Vern just wanted to get a discussion going and he knew he could bait me.

What I really wanted to say at the back porch was since the DNR won’t let us use bass for bait, at least they could allow for two lines on inland waters..

Ok…opinion time from BK<<<<

Two things are clear. Most anglers in MN want to be able to use two lines on in-land waters.

The Professional Guides, “Fish” advisory board members, Professional Tourny anglers and other stakeholders that made up the back porch session….are VERY loudly apposed to this.

Why the split? I asked myself.

The main reason from what I picked up was hooking mortality. Well, that’s the general answer.

There were a number of examples giving like, “I’ve seen deep hooked bass that people would just yank on the line to pull the hook out” and “the average angler can’t handle two lines” and “using slip bobbers on Mille Lac using two lines will give us dead floating fish like the slot limit does”. I better toss in the comment about the muskie fisherman here too. If you have a sucker off the side of your boat the hook has to be swallowed to catch the fish. Even if you release the ski, it will die. One Muski Chapter representative said “You can use 3 lines in WI, but do you want a limit of 2 walleyes? They don’t allow trolling either. Do you want to give that up?” Many more similar comments.

It seems the DNR has quite a bit of pressure placed on it’s shoulders to stock (mostly) walleyes in many of our lakes. In fact there’s lake associations that were born because their lakes couldn’t support natural walleye reproduction and they weren’t being stocked. The squeaky wheel gets stocked. I don’t blame them.

The price of raising or what’s becoming more and more common, buying stocking size walleyes is going up and the DNR’s budget is going down. For a number of years the DNR was spending $750,000 on stocking. This wasn’t enough. So they have been raising the dollar amount each year to todays current 1.2 million.*

Fact: People come to MN for it’s outstanding walleye fishery.

Bottom line?

With two lines there will be more mortality.

The DNR is short stocking funds now.

Hooking mortality or delayed mortality is going to mean more stocking.

I have a hard time arguing with that and since no one give a crap about cats…we’re sucked into this one line piece too.

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say very few if any folks at that meeting knows enough about catfishing fishing to say that all cat folks should go down to Iowa if they want to use two lines. Without giving them all a 20 minute seminar on the use of circle hooks for channels and the large mouths, large hooks and large baits used for flatheads, they just aren’t going to understand. I’m not saying a cat doesn’t get gut hooked, but is certainly does not come close to a newbie lindy rigging or slip bobbering for walleyes.

I think Dennis has the right idea. Special regs for certain lakes AND the Minnesota River. Not every lake is built the same.

*To keep it simple, I’m leaving the “mostly unknown” walleye stamp out of this.

Hey there were three people for two lines!

Dennis
Myself
and
Steve Quinn from InFish

Don’t sell us short Vern!

i like alot of your points brian, i like that you go and put in your two sense and stand up for what you want, same thing too anybody else that went too this round table discusion/ right letters and make phone calls too the athorities that make the final calls in out state regulations

Drew I read your first post. The one thing that we have to remember is that most of our waters are inland and that most of the folks at these meetings do not fish the river.

If you’re in favor of two lines in MN, you really should contact your State Representative.

If you’re not in favor, do nothing…you’re pretty safe.

I am all for going with two lines. I like to catfish and would like to have that extra line for catfishing. I will have both my lines in front of me where I can attend to them.

BK, I sure hear you on the walleye stocking thing. I loved your comment about being a Catfish guy living in a Walleye world. Seems like in Minnesota Walleye’s, Walleye stocking trumps every other species. I joking thought that if I ever had car problems, I could just stock it with walleyes and everything would be alright.

Quote:

---

I joking thought that if I ever had car problems, I could just stock it with walleyes and everything would be alright.

---

It does seem that way.

The truth is, people come to MN to FISH.

I would like to see the choice to buy an extra line stamp. Added revenue could also help pay for even more musky and walleye stockings (species I dont even chase), but have keep the lakes productive to keep folks off the river.

What’s your thoughts on special regs (with or without extra fees Buzz? You’ve been around there since the glaciers left.

Whatcha thinking?

For the past 4 years I’ve been pushing for 2 lines. I’ve emailed and talked to my reps and even organized an online petition with a few hundred signatures in favor of, only to be disappointed every year.

If 2 lines are so detrimental to our fishery than let’s please do away with them in the winter too. A lot more fish are harvested during the ice season.

It’s one of the most hypocritical regs we have here in MN. It’s almost comical.

How does all our bordering states get away with it? I know people who go to WI and SD and ND all the time to fish. All the fish should be gone over there by now with all the lines you can use.

Seems like whenever my favorite sports team is losing I quit watching, then they start to win again, so that is my plan with the whole 2 line deal…look away and hope for the best.

All, this is a good conversation and getting all voices in, is a good thing. We all may have preferences and they need to be respected. here are the two line Cons: that came up

Will more fish end up being killed and discarded due to gut hooking more fish?

The DNR estimates that the harvest might increase 30-40%, so what does that mean to the Fishery?

In the other States such as WI, SD, ND, what is the daily bag limit on walleyes? It was suggested in the meeting that if we went to 2line, it is quite possible we would need to reduce bag limits.

My issue is that bag limits are a double edged sword. If you could only harvest 2-3 walleyes per day, how many “smaller” ones get released and what is the hook mortality from this. I for one don’t want to go to No Cull, just to justify 2line.

The overriding thinking by the opponents to 2line, is that our current fishery is managed for the allowed harvest techniques/ if those changes everything may need to be changed.

SD = 4 daily, 8 possession(varies with some lakes of course)
ND = 5 daily, 10 possession
WI = 5 daily, 5 possession

This is what I found in a quick 2 minute Google search, I didn’t verify on each state site.

I was not aware WI fisheries are in such terrible shape. If so, how have they determined the cause of this to be from using 3 lines vs. 1?

Do I think hooking mortality will go up some by having more lines in the water, you bet. But how much is what I really question. I don’t see most casual/weekend/once a year fisherman using more than one line very much anyhow. If they are like me, I’m guessing they have all they want just keeping one setup tangle free.

My biggest argument has always been the DNR doesn’t support the regulation change, but doesn’t provide any fact based evidence to support there stance. One creel survey or two from some lake in NW Mn isn’t a study. The fact is, walleyes are being stocked into systems they can’t naturally sustain themselves and it’s a waste of our tax dollars. The DNR can now use this crutch to further support they are “protecting” these fisheries from decimation.

Quote:

---

A lot more fish are harvested during the ice season.

---

I’m not sure I follow this. Are you saying there are more fish caught during the winter than the summer? If that is the case, I would like to see proof of that. I would think that summer fishing would yield a higher catch rate than winter would even with the ability to fish two lines. I could be wrong though. What do you members think, are there more ice anglers than open water anglers including spearing with the winter?

Quote:

---

I for one don’t want to go to No Cull, just to justify 2line.

---

MN is already No Cull.

Kooty, one comment from a professional guide was that he’s getting more and more people from WI because we have a much better walleye fishery.

I about fell off my chair when another fella said trolling isn’t allowed in WI and the walleye limit is 2.

Someone posted as delayed mortality study on Ido the other day. I’ll look for it.

For the people that don’t fish these lakes that don’t see natural reproduction, it’s a waste of money. If we lived on that lake, I’m guessing we wouldn’t see it that way.

Lastly, did I mention I’m pro two lines…at least to some extent?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I for one don’t want to go to No Cull, just to justify 2line.

---

MN is already No Cull.

---

That is not true. I called and asked about this a few years ago. It is frowned upon, but you can cull in MN as long as you don’t have your limit in the livewell.

This is from the MN regulations

• Once a daily or possession limit of fish has been reached, no culling or live

well sorting is allowed.

Page 9 of the MN fishing regulations:

Quote:

---

Once a daily or possession limit of fish has been reached, no culling or live well sorting is allowed.

---

Funny I just posted the same thing. That says you can cull as long as the limit isn’t in the livewell. Meaning if you are on a lake that allows 6 walleyes, and you have less than that in the boat, you can release a smaller one and replace it with a larger fish that you just caught, but once you have your 6 in the box you are not able to keep fishing for walleyes once your limit is in the boat. Like I said it is not encouraged, but not illegal.

I about fell off my chair when another fella said trolling isn’t allowed in WI and the walleye limit is 2.

Isnt the 2 fish limit in areas of Wisc where spring spearing and netting is allowed for minorities?

Sure am glad some of you guys where down there to these meetings and reporting on them other wise myself, and Im sure most people would of had no idea they where even taking place.

A few years ago it was changed to No Cull. The next year it was change to what Farmboy posted.

This was done for the angler that wanted 3 fish for a meal but only caught one. The No Cull law wouldn’t allow him to return his single fish to the water.

Quote:

---

Kooty,

I about fell off my chair when another fella said trolling isn’t allowed in WI and the walleye limit is 2.

---

This is true on some lakes, it vary s from year to year on possession limit. Class A musky lakes in the state have no motor trolling which really sucks if your a walleye fishermen.

The way he said it, it gave the impression of “all” lakes. If he would have said “some” lakes, it wouldn’t have been so misleading.

Wouldn’t the guy who wanted 3 fish, just be releasing a fish if its the only one he had ? Do you not have to upgrade a returned fish to be considered culling or at least have something left in the well ??? Very weird…

big G