How much?

How much WOULD you pay for an additional line stamp/endorsement on your Mn license?

Curious to how many actually would want it, and what it would be worth to them.

Personally I’d easily throw down $50 for an extra line all year. $15-20 seems like a legit # though.

Personally, I wouldn’t buy one. Ice fishing I Sometimes Use 2, but not all the time. But that’s just me…..

X2 on this! Its the reason why im traveling to Wisconsin on Saturday to do some good tip Up fishing.

At $10 – $15 I’d think about it.
More than that, nah. I rarely bobber fish or sit still. I have enough trouble keeping one line tangle free. Two would usually be a nightmare. Multiply that by the number of people in the boat.
If the cost was low enough I might buy one to throw out a second trolling rod on occasion.

I would have paid up to $22. Once it starts costing more than a license it seems a bit ridiculous. In reality I would probably pay up to $40. That’s $66 a year w/ regular licence.

I would drop a decent chunk of coin for an additional line. I do not think I would use it much in the winter time unless I was running tipups, but summertime it would be great! $50 seems high for most, but I could also get behind that price tag.

I would for sure throw $20-$50 at that. I troll a lot in the summer and often by myself. It would be outstanding to run 2 lines. 2 lines per guy running lead core on Mille Lacs The extra line in the winter means nothing to me, but summer time, heck yeah!!!

You guys don’t get to use 2 rods for trolling? In CA, my resident second rod stamp was about $12. Now in Utah, it is part of the regular annual lic. price.

I would pay to have more than one tip up out in the winter when I’m jigging. Not sure how much I guess it all depends on how many lines I can have out

I probably would not get one, and certainly not more than $10-15 if I were to get one. When fishing the Missouri River in SD, I almost always use two rods and do quite well with the two. But a lot of my Minnesota Fishing, I just don’t see myself adding a second.

I’d pay $100 and sacrifice half my possession limit. You can learn a lot with a extra rod.

SuperDave1959 wrote:

You guys don’t get to use 2 rods for trolling? In CA, my resident second rod stamp was about $12. Now in Utah, it is part of the regular annual lic. price.

Nope, inland MN has always been one line per person open water, two lines per through the ice. MN border waters are different depending on the body of water.

That said, I’d pay an extra $20. I grew up on Big Stone fishing two lines per person, it’s pretty nice to have when trolling or corking.

In the summer it basically would be another license in the boat so, I would be fine with twice as much as the license.

Tell me where that additional coin is going before you implement something like this.

I would pay more or less depending on where it’s being spent.

biggill wrote:

Tell me where that additional coin is going before you implement something like this.

I would pay more or less depending on where it’s being spent.

80% would go into the black hole of the DNR the other 20% into fisheries.

I’d be willing to fork over some additional money for sure, even if they drop the limits on fish. The amount would be dependent upon where its going. If it is strictly for things like stocking fish and lake restoration I’d be willing to pay something like $40-50, but if its strictly to add to the DNR’s budget my price point would be much less.

sticker wrote:

I would for sure throw $20-$50 at that. I troll a lot in the summer and often by myself. It would be outstanding to run 2 lines. 2 lines per guy running lead core on Mille Lacs The extra line in the winter means nothing to me, but summer time, heck yeah!!!

Same here, I too commonly am in the boat by myself and am on Mille Lacs. Being still the “student” I’m trying to learn precision trolling with leadcore lines. Would certainly be nice to have another line out at different depth/lure size, color, to help shorten my lifetime learning curve. I would still have apprehension though if on the outside chance I went through a pod of walleyes and happened to hook up a double. I would become depressed if I was possibly drowning a fish as I was reeling/netting another.

biggill wrote:

Tell me where that additional coin is going before you implement something like this.

I would pay more or less depending on where it’s being spent.

Could be similar to the current optional walleye stamp. I have been told (promised) by the DNR that all revenue from stamp sales goes to supplemental stocking of walleyes.

Interesting question.

I would be willing to pay for the extra line cost up to the cost of the license itself. Anything over that is probably overkill. I would pay more if I had the option to put a portion of that money towards a lake of my choice. I.E. call it “Extra line for the shoreline.” Something like that.

$20 for summer without blinking an eye, but $50 with a little cringing for yr round.

An extra crank line while trolling would be swell. Sign me up!

______________ wrote:

I’d pay $100 and sacrifice half my possession limit. You can learn a lot with a extra rod.

X2, absolutely!!

Dutchboy wrote:

In the summer it basically would be another license in the boat so, I would be fine with twice as much as the license.

It’s not really the equivalent of another license in the boat though because you’d still be restricted to the limit of your single fishing license.

I think that two lines/angler should be legal without any extra fees because I don’t like being nickeled and dimed all the time but if they want to charge for the privilege, charge something low like $10.
Other than initial administrative fees to change regulations, etc., it wouldn’t cost the DNR anything extra if two lines were allowed.

I fish in ND a lot as well as MN and two lines are legal there all the time. I like it.
Two lines doesn’t mean that you’re killing twice as many fish or even catching more fish in many cases and depending upon how you’re fishing, using two lines isn’t always practical anyway. A limit is a limit no matter if you fish with one line or two lines.
That being said, only being able to fish with one line certainly won’t deter me from fishing in Minnesota.

I wouldn’t spend a fine unless I know and agree with where it goes. Same reason I will never buy a sturgeon tag.

How much for 3 lines?

Where/which DNR sink hole would the $ it go into?

Why should I have to pay more than the current license?

Seems this will give undue advantage to the more wealthy fisherman in our society?

Public resource should have equal access not based on economics IMHO.

Either the resource can handle a two line reg for all or stick to one line. IMHO

$50-$100 extra without even giving it a thought to get a second line on inland waters.

Are you thinking this would this also include the ability to run 2 baits on one rod (i.e. Denver rig)? If yes then I’m definitely in.

I would buy the extra line. Is this something that the MN DNR is talking about?

Tuma wrote:

I would buy the extra line. Is this something that the MN DNR is talking about?

Think the more it’s discussed the better chances are of something happening with it.

There are members here who are part of these conversations and the more they know of how the average angler feels, they can pass that on.

Really encourage all those lurkers of IDO to sign up quick, and give a simple yes or no. If they are lowering limits, see a very prime opportunity to get something in return as chance of a 2nd line.

Tuma wrote:

I would buy the extra line. Is this something that the MN DNR is talking about?

No, we just made this up on the post/thread…seriously!

Zero. Be careful with the idea of paying more tax and fees to the government. Once they get your money, you won’t get it back and those fees will only grow. Want to fish 2 lines? Lobby to have the law changed instead.

Want an example? The three-eighths of one percent tax increase for the legacy amendment to support the outdoors and wildlife in Mn. Nearly a 1/3 of that money now goes to support the “Arts”. This fund was brought to the legislature by sportsmen. Once the criminals in the legislature got their greedy hands on the money, they changed the law. All of those funds were intended to be used for outdoors and wildlife.

To date:

Money to the DNR = $116M
Money to the Arts = $200m

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/legacy/index.html

-J.

Tuma wrote:

I would buy the extra line. Is this something that the MN DNR is talking about?

They just started talking about reducing bag limits citing technological advancements in angling. I don’t know why they would propose allowing 2 lines.

It’s my Personal opinion that the state will enact buying Possession stamps in the future. You will need a Fishing License to be fishing, and a possession stamp per species for taking some fish home.