How much?

Jon Jordan wrote:

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.

x2.

Jon Jordan wrote:

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.

X2!

I would pay nothing. Pay the dnr to much all ready. Anyone suggesting we pay more money to the government should also loose there outdoor privileges.

Jon Jordan wrote:

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.

Jon, all due respect and I mean that sincerely, I don’t read it that way from the link you provided. You took “total funding” for the arts but not from the other totals. If you were taking total funding for both it would be

DNR= 815,461,000
ARTS= 200,149,000

Another point is, the arts were part of the bill before it became law. I was fairly aware of this as it was going thru. The only way they could get the bill thru the legislature was to include the arts. I hated the idea, but it was a compromise that had to be made to get the funding.

The Star Trib this week had a article of U of M President Kahler begging the legislature for a $147 million dollar budget increase. This would make the yearly funding to the U $1.4 BILLION DOLLARS. Story went on to say the funds or any taxpayer funds would not be used to pay off the athletic departments problems. This shows you how stupid they think we are.

NOBODY CARES AT THE STATE LEVEL WHAT WE THINK ABOUT ANYTHING UNTIL YOU CUT OFF THE MONEY.

The above has nothing to do with the topic but still pi$$es me off.

milacs would be shut down twicw as fast then

I can tell you this right now….and I know this from personal conversations with him that the fisheries Chief is not a fan of two lines and will not support it. I’ve been on a 2 line rant for the past 10 years. Started petitions, Facebook pages, contacted legislators, participated in groups, etc etc. Then one year everything was in place and the stars aligned. Legislation was introduced and PASSED! We made it…we got 2 lines! Oh wait, the Gov had to sign it. Sorry, try again. Ever since the day of that veto… I’ve been defeated. To answer the question how much I would pay? Well probably the double the license fee, but I think $10 would be more in the target zone for most people The Musky and Walleye groups don’t support it because the second line almost always means one of them will be live bait (not always but most of the time) and the fear is hooking mortality. I will support the fight however I can, but unfortunately my glass is not half full.

Seems to me like two lines need to be included with the standard fishing license. Other wise game wardens will be spending a lot of time checking who is in compliance and who is not.

Sticker, The point is if the Mn legislature (Senate and house) go to the Dems, they will steal money allotted to the DNR from this fund. They try each and every year to steal more. They will keep at it until the money is gone. Then go back to the taxpayers for a increase to steal even more. It never freaking ends!!!!

Starting out as good intentions by sportsmen turned into a trainwreck. Same would happen if our legislators catch wind that sportsmen are “Ok paying more”. Just not a good idea.

-J.

JJ I agree, however will add it’s not only the Dems doing the stealing.

Mike W wrote:

Seems to me like two lines need to be included with the standard fishing license. Other wise game wardens will be spending a lot of time checking who is in compliance and who is not.

IOWA seems to have no enforcement issues with their 3rd line permit.

I have been having this discussion a lot recently. I am not interested in paying more money for a 2nd line but I am very interested in the state allowing the use of two lines. Other than a higher up being adamantly against it, and the Muskie crowd (which is a small fraction of the fishing public) fighting it there is just no justifiable reason that it can not be allowed. I recently read that the Walleye groups would fight it as well, that I find hard to believe, trolling two lines is pretty much the norm in the Walleye world. I honestly have not looked into every other state in the union but I know personally in the 10 or so I have fished multiple lines were allowed in all.

Here is how I think this fight should be approached:
Why are 2 lines ok through the ice but when the ice goes away it magically becomes an issue?

Again, I am not a biologists and I do not have the answers. All I know is that if all laws in this state were based on the idea that someone did not like it we would be in a lot of trouble.

How do we organize and fight together for this?

What percentage of the fishing public would vote for it?

Again, I don’t see any reason there should be an added fee more than a standard raise of license fees. 10% maybe.

Just my thoughts, Chris Winchester

The question was “how much would I be willing to pay for a second line.”

I’m not in favor of a second line but wouldn’t vote against one either. For me I would only use it for pulling cranks so it would be nice but I’ve grown old without two so it really doesn’t matter.

Since we are playing “what if?”

What if the DNR said next year they were reducing ice fishing to one line per angler.

Dutchboy wrote:

What if the DNR said next year they were reducing ice fishing to one line per angler.

At least we would have consistency. Remember, the 2 line rule in the winter wasn’t the DNR’s doing it was introduced through legislature. 2 lines year round can be passed without the DNR’s blessing and if we ever do get it, I’m sure that is probably the vehicle in which it will happen.

I’d pay another $25, or probably up to $50 honestly. If a group of 2-3 guys could run 9 tip-ups instead of 6, that’d be great! Trolling in the summer by myself would be a lot better too.

The concerns about where the money goes and how it is used are completely legit, but honestly, we are pretty dang spoiled when it comes to license fees for fishing. What is it, $22 to fish for 12 months on over 10,000 lakes and keep and eat as many fish as we can?

Most hunters I know don’t mind spending whatever it is for the chance to shoot ONE deer in a 9 day time window. Obviously apples to oranges, but they could raise fishing license fees in general to $100 and it’d still be worth it(obviously they wouldn’t go that extreme).

dtro wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Mike W wrote:</div>
Seems to me like two lines need to be included with the standard fishing license. Other wise game wardens will be spending a lot of time checking who is in compliance and who is not.

IOWA seems to have no enforcement issues with their 3rd line permit.

Wait a minute, I thought I read on here there are no COs in the field or at least not many.

Is it really different from enforcing a possession limit? We already know a lot of people poach and get away with it. But at least a extra pole fee would generate revenue.

Seems to me most of these responses do not reflect what the possible outcome might be on the resource.

4Seasonsport you said “Why are 2 lines ok through the ice but when the ice goes away it magically becomes an issue?”

Obviously when Ice fishing you are stationary but during open water you are not. Covering a lot more water with two lines will inherently increase your catch rate. Once again how is this going to affect the resource?

I think another reason I have heard over the years is that fish metabolism in the winter is low and leads to a better survival rate for released fish…as long as the fish doesn’t swallow the bait when you are messing with your second line.

Jon Jordan wrote:

Sticker, The point is if the Mn legislature (Senate and house) go to the Dems, they will steal money allotted to the DNR from this fund. They try each and every year to steal more. They will keep at it until the money is gone. Then go back to the taxpayers for a increase to steal even more. It never freaking ends!!!!

Starting out as good intentions by sportsmen turned into a trainwreck. Same would happen if our legislators catch wind that sportsmen are “Ok paying more”. Just not a good idea.

-J.

I agree 1000% with your point Jon!

You have to look at this way, most fishermen are only going to keep so many fish if they catch them with 1 line or 5 lines. It would hopefully just reduce the amount of time to do so.

I never keep more than a meals worth of fish unless I want to have a fish fry with family members.

Out east they have 5 lines in many states. If you want to worry about hurting the fish population, in WI the tribes can use unlimited numbers of Tip ups/Tip Downs and take as many panfish as they want. Now that will put a hurting on a lake.

If the DNR came out and gave specific information about where the funds generated from a second line would go, I’d be far more likely to be a customer. I think $20 would be an amount that most anglers would gladly pay IF the funds were allocated correctly.

I really don’t care to see the funds spent on excessive walleye stocking efforts in some pothole lake that I will never fish in Southern/Central Minnesota. I also don’t want my funds spent on research and stocking for lakes that are netted and outside the exclusive control of the MNDNR. I’d be far more interested in seeing the funds go towards the enforcement of laws we have in-place (specifically possession limits). I really don’t think many anglers take more than a 1-day limit on the water, but rather they revisit the same body of water and continue to keep fish in the following days…knowing that they will likely never get caught.

As far as enforcement, i believe that to be a non-issue. The warden is either checking people or not……if somebody uses a second line, it would just be another line item on the license, or a seperate license. Same as a trout stamp currently….

Why are you so concerned where the revenue goes? Buying a license is buying a right to fish. Even if all the money went to DNR one couldn’t control how or whether the money was mismanaged or not.

I’d gladly pay $50 for an annual license and another $50 per extra rod allowed.

Personally I would rather pay an extra $10 or $20 bucks for the license and just make it 2 lines year round. That said if I knew that it was going for strictly fishing projects or more CO’s to help with poaching/over harvesting I would gladly pay an extra 25 for the second line.

SuperDave1959 wrote:

Why are you so concerned where the revenue goes? Buying a license is buying a right to fish. Even if all the money went to DNR one couldn’t control how or whether the money was mismanaged or not.

Problem here in Minnesota is the DNR has to much tied up in management in headquarters and not enough boots on the ground. To many building, vehicles, researchers (I think they have researchers) lobbyist and not nearly enough enforcement people.

Jon Jordan wrote:

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.

I remember some of my sportsman friends telling me to go vote for that, then I read up on it – ARTS? what the heck! I voted no.

But I would spend $50 to throw out another line maybe $100.

I will throw in my three cents here,inflation ya know!!
I get one week a year to go on a fishing vacation and for the last thirty five plus years now I have chosen the Bemidji area as my go to place.

in the those many years,I have spent north of 40 thousand bucks to do so.
sure,raising the license fee wont keep me from going there and I doubt I would pay for a second line,I can do that here with my Iowa license for a lot less.
I dont fish Iowa much as the quality of the fish is no where as good,and you have to work harder to catch as many of any species in my area.

I have never taken a limit of all of the species in any one week there,I have come close though,and I use it for food during the winter so my trip is three fold,relaxation,putting meat in the freezer,and fishing all wrapped up in one week.

if the limits were to be lowered as discussed I can see one thing happening,larger fish would be kept more often than not,no more keeping the small ones to equal things out as I would be making up the difference in weight versus numbers unless a slot across the board is imposed,and yes,I would follow the rules as always.

there is a lot to consider here,and I agree with more boots on the ground as far as enforcement goes and you have to find the funds to pay for them.
IMO,I think if a lot of certain programs were to be managed better than they are now,there would be plenty of money to fund more officers,I will leave it at that.

Iowaboy1 wrote:

I will throw in my three cents here,inflation ya know!!
I get one week a year to go on a fishing vacation and for the last thirty five plus years now I have chosen the Bemidji area as my go to place.

in the those many years,I have spent north of 40 thousand bucks to do so.
sure,raising the license fee wont keep me from going there and I doubt I would pay for a second line,I can do that here with my Iowa license for a lot less.
I dont fish Iowa much as the quality of the fish is no where as good,and you have to work harder to catch as many of any species in my area.

I have never taken a limit of all of the species in any one week there,I have come close though,and I use it for food during the winter so my trip is three fold,relaxation,putting meat in the freezer,and fishing all wrapped up in one week.

if the limits were to be lowered as discussed I can see one thing happening,larger fish would be kept more often than not,no more keeping the small ones to equal things out as I would be making up the difference in weight versus numbers unless a slot across the board is imposed,and yes,I would follow the rules as always.

there is a lot to consider here,and I agree with more boots on the ground as far as enforcement goes and you have to find the funds to pay for them.
IMO,I think if a lot of certain programs were to be managed better than they are now,there would be plenty of money to fund more officers,I will leave it at that.

^^^ Ding, ding, ding I think we have a winner!!! ^^^

Mocha wrote:

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

Don’t you think the rising costs of boats and gear has already done this? If you can’t afford a boat and are stuck to shore fishing I think its much more difficult to catch your limit than someone cruising around the lake in a $50K boat with an additional $10K in gear.