Two bills have been rolled into the MN House Omnibus Bill 4492. There are many other bills in 4492. Two that you might be interested in are A required Water Craft Operators Permit and a Lead Sinker ban on Swan resting areas.
Also in HF 4492
Watercraft Operators Permit:
Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Office.
Subd. 1. Establishment. Establishes the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Office
and requires the governor to appoint a director for the office.
Minnesota House Research Department Page 3
Section
Description – Article 2: Statutory Changes
Subd. 2. Office; administration. Requires the Department of Administration to provide office space for the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Office and requires the office to have locations in Ely and Winona.
Subd. 3. Purpose; goals. Establishes the purpose of the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Office.
Subd. 4. Duties. Establishes duties of the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Office. Subd. 5. Powers. Gives certain powers to the director of the Minnesota Outdoor
Recreation Office.
Subd. 6. Report. Requires the director of the Minnesota Outdoor Recreation Office to submit an annual report to the legislature on the office’s performance and expenditure of funds.
Definitions.
Defines “accompanying operator,” “adult operator,” “exempt operator,” “motorboat rental business,” and “young operator” for purposes of new watercraft operator permit and motorboat rental business requirements.
Watercraft operator’s permit.
Requires a watercraft safety operator’s permit. The requirements are phased as follows:
effective July 1, 2024, for those born on or after July 1, 2003;
effective July 1, 2025, for those born on or after July 1, 1999;
effective July 1, 2026, for those born on or after July 1, 1995; and effective July 1, 2027, for those born on or after July 1, 1987.
Subd. 1. Generally. Requires the commissioner to issue a watercraft operator’s permit to those 12 years of age or older who complete a water safety course and written test. Under current law, youth 12 to 17 years of age are required to obtain the permit.
Subd. 2. Issuing permit to certain young operators. Allows the commissioner to issue a permit to an 11-year-old but the permit would not be valid until the person is 12.
Subd. 3. Personal possession required. Requires a person required to have a watercraft operator’s permit to have the permit or a driver’s license/identification card with a valid watercraft operator’s permit indicator in
H.F. 4492 As amended by H4492DE4
Minnesota House Research Department Page 4
Section
H.F. 4492 As amended by H4492DE4
Description – Article 2: Statutory Changes
their possession. Requires a person to display one of these to a conservation
officer or peace officer upon request.
Subd. 4. Using electronic device to display proof of permit. States that if a person uses an electronic device to display the watercraft operator’s permit, the conservation officer or police officer is immune from liability for any damage to the device unless the officer does not exercise due care. Also states that this does not constitute consent for the officer to access other content on the device.
States that the section is effective July 1, 2024.
Operating personal watercraft and other motorboats.
Subd. 1. Adult operator. Requires an adult operator of a motorboat, including a personal watercraft, to have a valid watercraft operator’s permit, be exempt from permit requirements, or have an accompanying operator in the watercraft.
Subd. 2. Young operators. Prohibits a young operator from operating a personal watercraft or motorboat of more than 75 horsepower. Allows a young operator to operate a motorboat with up to 75 horsepower if an accompanying operator is in the motorboat. Under an existing law (repealed under this bill), similar restrictions apply, however, there is an exemption for motorboats with less than 25 horsepower which would no longer apply under this bill.
Subd. 3. Accompanying operators. States that for the purposes of this section and existing driving while impaired provisions, the accompanying operator and the actual operator are operating and in physical control of the motorboat.
Subd. 4. Owners may not allow unlawful use. Prohibits the owner or other person in control of a motorboat from allowing the motorboat from being operated in violation of this section.
States that the section is effective July 1, 2024.
Watercraft safety program.
Requires the commissioner to establish a watercraft safety course and testing program for personal watercraft and watercraft operators, including a written test. Similar requirements exist under current law. Requires the course to be approved by the National Association of State Boating Law Administrators and be available online. Allows the commissioner to designate courses administered by third parties and enter into reciprocity agreements or certify programs from other states that are similar to in-state programs. Requires the commissioner to establish a work group to assist with developing and implementing the program. Requires a short boater safety examination to be administered by rental businesses electronically or on paper.
Lead sinker ban contained in House file 4492 for Swan Resting areas. Not passed yet but could be.
Designated swan resting areas.
Subd. 1. Swan resting areas. Allows the commissioner of natural resources to
designate swan resting areas within Minnesota’s swan migration corridor.
Subd. 2. Public notice and meeting. Requires a public meeting to be held prior to designating or removing a designation of a swan resting area. The meeting must be held in the county where the largest portion of the water is located. Requires notices of the meeting, including requiring notice to be posted at public access sites for the water.
Subd. 3. Using lead tackle. Prohibits a person from using lead sinkers on waters designated as swan resting areas. Requires the commissioner to maintain a list of
H.F. 4492 As amended by H4492DE4
Minnesota House Research Department Page 18
Section
H.F. 4492 As amended by H4492DE4
Description – Article 2: Statutory Changes
the waters and prohibitions on sinkers on the DNR’s website and in the summary
of fishing regulations.
Subd. 4. Report. Requires the DNR to submit a report the legislature on the implementation of this section
Subd. 3. Accompanying operators. States that for the purposes of this section and existing driving while impaired provisions, the accompanying operator and the actual operator are operating and in physical control of the motorboat.
Can you explain what this means to you? Does this mean the guy sitting in the seat next to you cannot be drunk because he is also responsible for the operation of the boat even though his hand is not on the controls?
One question i would have is if older experienced boaters will be grandfathered in or be required to take a boaters course and become certified. Similar to the whole firearm safety thing where if you were born before 1979 i believe it is you are not required to get hunters safety certified
Overall ive been saying for years i think that more should be required of people to operate a boat. The fact is there are a crap ton of idiots out there behind a boat and they can, and do, very real damage every year. Just ask the jackwad who slammed into my beached boat with us in it going 30 MPG and could have easily killed my wife and I. Im not sure if any training would have helped that idiot but if the lack of a certificate would add onto his punishment than that would be good. Aside from that example though there are also people in boats that make much more innocent mistakes that often result in tragedy or physical damage. I think a lot of that could be prevented with a course. Could also introduce boat launch etiquette to millions of ignorant people
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Buzz wrote:</div>
Subd. 3. Accompanying operators. States that for the purposes of this section and existing driving while impaired provisions, the accompanying operator and the actual operator are operating and in physical control of the motorboat.Can you explain what this means to you? Does this mean the guy sitting in the seat next to you cannot be drunk because he is also responsible for the operation of the boat even though his hand is not on the controls?
One question i would have is if older experienced boaters will be grandfathered in or be required to take a boaters course and become certified. Similar to the whole firearm safety thing where if you were born before 1979 i believe it is you are not required to get hunters safety certified
Overall ive been saying for years i think that more should be required of people to operate a boat. The fact is there are a crap ton of idiots out there behind a boat and they can, and do, very real damage every year. Just ask the jackwad who slammed into my beached boat with us in it going 30 MPG and could have easily killed my wife and I. Im not sure if any training would have helped that idiot but if the lack of a certificate would add onto his punishment than that would be good. Aside from that example though there are also people in boats that make much more innocent mistakes that often result in tragedy or physical damage. I think a lot of that could be prevented with a course. Could also introduce boat launch etiquette to millions of ignorant people
Requires a watercraft safety operator’s permit. The requirements are phased as follows:
effective July 1, 2024, for those born on or after July 1, 2003;
effective July 1, 2025, for those born on or after July 1, 1999;
effective July 1, 2026, for those born on or after July 1, 1995; and effective July 1, 2027, for those born on or after July 1, 1987.
Haven’t heard any discussion of a grandfathering clause. It’s not in the Senate bill yet. Usually bills take 5-7 years to work their way to passage.
It’s right here
“July 1, 2027, for those born on or after July 1, 1987”.
If you’re born before 1987. They require a certificate for youngsters to operate boats and ATV’s. I don’t see a problem with requiring the Gen Xers on down. I have yet to encounter a kid operating while intoxicated. The greatest menace on the water and the trail are those knowitall a$$clowns ramming their way around with a total disregard for the safety of others. I’ve started using my cell phone to video these idiots and phone it in to the DNR and Sheriff’s offices.
Do I support some kinda license or endorsement for watercraft operation? Yeah. Do I think we need to create an entire new state agency to pull this off? Nope.
This is kinda scary to me. Seems like it could be a broad brush to the commissioner to ban lead tackle on any lake that a swan lands in….or has landed in before…or has been seen flying over with the potential to land…
If you haven’t noticed, those things are thriving and fricken everywhere now. I just saw a flock of 75 today. 20 years ago they were much more rare to see.
Why fix it if it ain’t broke?
I hate leaving laws up to one person’s opinion.
Designated swan resting areas.
Subd. 1. Swan resting areas. Allows the commissioner of natural resources to
designate swan resting areas within Minnesota’s swan migration corridor.
I hate leaving laws up to one person’s opinion.
Designated swan resting areas.
Subd. 1. Swan resting areas. Allows the commissioner of natural resources to
designate swan resting areas within Minnesota’s swan migration corridor.
Pretty much all the statutes are written like that. It just means it’s the DNRs job because the commissioner of natural resources is in charge of it.
I agree B-man. Likely a tactic by the anti-lead people to get a better chance to ban lead, rather than doing a straight up ban altogether which would be much more difficult to pass. It would also make it very confusing, having to always check to see if the waterbody that you’re fishing is a swan resting area.
Don’t swans rest wherever they damn well please. How do you know if it a resting area.
Ripjiggen, I found a map designating resting areas.
Thankfully only the areas highlighted in purple are of concern.
Screenshot_20220406-1841353.png
Are the two tips to the north open game then.. 
Are the two tips to the north open game then..
Ummmm yeah???
It’s not a state-wide ban (duh), only designated areas that nobody knows about until AFTER ITS A LAW 
Ripjiggen, I found a map designating resting areas.
Thankfully only the areas highlighted in purple are of concern.
Hahaha 
I did a little more research into the bill and who wrote it.
It’s the same guy as last year, Peter Fischer.
Here’s a link to the topic here last year when it was to “save the loons”
It failed….now this year it’s to “save the swans”
I emailed him last year asking for DATA to prove to me lead was a major contributing factor for excess loon mortality recently in Minnesota.
“Surprisingly” I didn’t hear a thing back.
I also sent him an email calling him out for publicly announcing non-toxic replacement jigs were even cheaper than lead, as low as $0.07 each lol
He DID reply to me on that one…and said he “I am sorry if I misspoke.”
If it doesn’t pass this year, next year it will be a ban on lead bullets to save the eagles…
The F-ing guy won’t give up
http://www.in-depthoutdoors.com/community/forums/topic/lead-tackle-ban-hearing-tuesday-2-23/page/2/
Screenshot_20220406-202619.png
If anyone would like to contact him with any questions he can be reached here:
He should have stuck to loons. They are a cooler animal IMO. Swans are just a white goose. 
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Buzz wrote:</div>
Subd. 3. Accompanying operators. States that for the purposes of this section and existing driving while impaired provisions, the accompanying operator and the actual operator are operating and in physical control of the motorboat.Can you explain what this means to you? Does this mean the guy sitting in the seat next to you cannot be drunk because he is also responsible for the operation of the boat even though his hand is not on the controls?
One question i would have is if older experienced boaters will be grandfathered in or be required to take a boaters course and become certified. Similar to the whole firearm safety thing where if you were born before 1979 i believe it is you are not required to get hunters safety certified
Overall ive been saying for years i think that more should be required of people to operate a boat. The fact is there are a crap ton of idiots out there behind a boat and they can, and do, very real damage every year. Just ask the jackwad who slammed into my beached boat with us in it going 30 MPG and could have easily killed my wife and I. Im not sure if any training would have helped that idiot but if the lack of a certificate would add onto his punishment than that would be good. Aside from that example though there are also people in boats that make much more innocent mistakes that often result in tragedy or physical damage. I think a lot of that could be prevented with a course. Could also introduce boat launch etiquette to millions of ignorant people
I thinks it’s pertaining to the “young operator” portion. Basically stating you can’t have the kid dd for you while you’re tipping them back in the passenger seat. Don’t think it would apply to 2 adults.
B-Man is right on target. IF the ban on lead in swan resting area makes it, you can bet your last 1/4 oz jig it will then become law for loon resting/breeding areas, duck resting/breeding areas, and goose resting/breeding areas.
Wasn’t [email protected] representing the National Loon Center area?
Might as well ban lead in fish resting areas too.
This is kinda scary to me. Seems like it could be a broad brush to the commissioner to ban lead tackle on any lake that a swan lands in….or has landed in before…or has been seen flying over with the potential to land…
If you haven’t noticed, those things are thriving and fricken everywhere now. I just saw a flock of 75 today. 20 years ago they were much more rare to see.
Why fix it if it ain’t broke?
I hate leaving laws up to one person’s opinion.
Designated swan resting areas.
Subd. 1. Swan resting areas. Allows the commissioner of natural resources to
designate swan resting areas within Minnesota’s swan migration corridor.
Maybe they want to protect and pump up the swan numbers so they can sell special licenses to shoot them?
Maybe they want to protect and pump up the swan numbers so they can sell special licenses to shoot them?
Phooey, they taste like eagle.
Give it 5 years we will have a lead ban in minnesota. They are pushing hard, so just start preparing.
Like it or not the train is come-in, lead tackle will only be found as collectors items. 10-20 years is my guess (including lead bullets and shot). The sky won’t fall and tying yourself to the tracks might not be recommended; but what the heck some will try it lol.
Give it 5 years we will have a lead ban in minnesota. They are pushing hard, so just start preparing.
We have a Woke Commissioner, I’m sure this is just the start unless we can send Walz back to Nebraska, and his appointees to the real world.
You can ban all the lead you want. It’d be nearly impossible to enforce considering it’d be a state law only. Sure you can attempt stop the selling/production of it in state…but that’s a fraction at most of purchased tackle.
We struggle to enforce many things that are far more simplistic than lead terminal tackle components. Our COs are already stretched extremely thin with a huge rule book. Can you imagine them having you empty an entire tackle box in every boat on Pool 4 on a Saturday afternoon in the Spring? 
This is a feel good move that even if it somehow passed would change absolutely nothing for me personally.
My only concern of a train is if I am tied to the tracks.
There a a few that will push this to no end and I ‘spose they might make it stick at some point. In the meantime…
“Different Cases: Lead Shot vs. Fishing Sinkers
Although the shotgun pellet and fishing sinker issues may appear similar,
the quality and scope of the scientific data make these cases remarkably
different. In determining the impact of spent shotgun shells on waterfowl, a
nationwide effort covering several years and samples from millions of waterfowl was conducted. Evidence from the research was scrutinized closely by hunters and the general public and ultimately proved, under close scientific review, that lead toxicosis from spent shotgun pellets shot over shallow water was a significant mortality factor affecting waterfowl populations.
Meanwhile, the most commonly cited evidence for sinker bans remains
Pokras’ 19 year-old paper dealing with loon mortality from lead fishing sinkers.
Despite data for this paper being limited in sample and geographic scope, its
sweeping conclusion is that lead sinkers have the same potential to cause lead
poisoning in aquatic species as shotgun pellets spent over water.
To fully understand the inherent difference between the two cases, one
must contrast the number of lead sinkers introduced to a body of water versus
the number of spent shotgun pellets. One single shell shot over water expends
approximately 225 to 430 small lead pellets into the water, depending on the
load, gun gauge and shot size chosen by the hunter. Over the course of a
waterfowl season, millions of lead pellets may be introduced to a body of water.
This in turn leads to an increased chance of dabbling ducks, and other
waterbirds, mistakenly ingesting the lead pellets as they select small rocks or grit to assist with their digestive process.
In contrast, it is not predetermined that any lead fishing sinkers will be left in the water, although it is likely that some will be lost over the course of a season. Fishing sinkers are reusable and unless the line snags on an obstruction or is broken by a fish, the lead is typically not left in the body of water. As a result, the opportunity for the ingestion of lead sinkers by waterbirds is greatly lessened by virtue of there being far fewer lead sinkers introduced to the body of water. Studies indicate that sinker loss is variable but they do show that sinkers have a considerable use-life. For example, a 2006 study in Minnesota found that
“[m]ean rates of tackle loss were low: 0.0127/h[our] for lures, 0.0081/h for large sinkers, 0.0057/h for small sinkers, 0.0247/h for jigs, and 0.0257/h for hooks.
Many anglers lost no fishing tackle on a fishing trip.”
In addition, as part of the research conducted during the shotgun pellet
debate, thousands of birds were examined and, except for a very few “hot spots” where a concentrated fishing effort occurred in waters frequented by bottom feeding birds, the incidence of ingested lead sinkers by waterfowl was incidental to non-existent.2
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Charles wrote:</div>
Give it 5 years we will have a lead ban in minnesota. They are pushing hard, so just start preparing.We have a Woke Commissioner, I’m sure this is just the start unless we can send Walz back to Nebraska, and his appointees to the real world.
Amen to THAT!!! 
“Many anglers lost no fishing tackle on a fishing trip.”
I lose about a half dozen cranks per trip to the river. Hopefully they don’t ban plastic and balsa.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
