Minnesota open water 2 lines proposed

With all this talk about regs I have a question. Why is there such a small limit on fish such as crappie and sunnies ? I know the DNR says its to protect the fisheries, but other states have larger limits and no problems with numbers of fish. I have noticed that where the limits are lower the fish are alot smaller than where limits are higher. Seems to me that the might be a conection there. More fish in the lake means less food per fish resulting in smaller fish. I have fished quite a few lakes here in Minnesota in the 3 years that I have lived here and it seems all the sunnies and crappies are smaller than they should be. Anyone else noticed this or am I just catching only the little fish ?

In my opinion, the stunted and smaller panfish are a direct result of over fishing and the practice of keeping only the bigger panfish. You get an over abundance of smaller fish that have to compete against other smaller fish. Fish who have bad genes where they are smaller than a normal adult at their age keep getting returned into the population. All the while sunnies that reach a size that is exceptional or even just “keeper”, usually at an accelerated rate, get plucked from the breeding population. The result is crappy genes for small fish more susceptible to stunting remaining in the breeding population for years, while the good genes are plucked early in adulthood. Couple that with what you say about a lot of competition for small fish that are constantly returned to the water and you get a small stunted population of fish. That in turn makes for smaller populations of big game, because more of them are eaten before reaching a size where they are no longer preyed upon by these smaller fish. However if they can make it, the bigger games usually grow bigger and faster because of over abundance of prey and lack of competition.

In my theory the limit has less to do with the size of panfish, however I would think increasing the limit would help a lake.

My 2cents, I am inclined to say yes to 2 lines. Anyone who has fished with me, would tell you I can hardly keep one line straight let alone two. (Ha Ha) However I could Imagine being anchored up to a rock pile on the pond. Bobber fishing for eyes, and casting for bass, pike. I fished in Hayward WI were you could/can use 3 lines. We had one for Crappie one for Eyes and one rod for pike. Lots of action.

I here everyone complain about meat fishermen and limits.
I think we need to have more closed seasons on Spawing areas. Seasons for Crappies and Sunnies.

Gary.. I really dont think lower limits would be neccessary because of another line allowed. I personally dont think the actual increased harvest would increase more than 10% overall. You are right, its not often people hit the *jackpot* and are in a situation where a limit harvestable would be achievable with the exception of prime season on prime bodies of water. On the other side of the coin.. there are days in august I would love a walleye dinner and feel its an accomplishment for an evening of fishing just to catch 1 fair size fish for the pan.. even on the lakes in my back yard that I know like the back of my hand.. my success rate can be comparable to fishing a mud-puddle in my driveway! Maybe the extra line would help catch one, maybe not… but I know I am not going to catch a limit becuase I am allowed to use another line.

I dont really like the way the wording is always laid out to allowed lines to direct relations to limit. Its too easily overlooked that a persons goal is simply to catch and harvest a *limit*, but that is not the case. The word *limit* has to fall into play some, ad remain in the focus of those readng on and remember that the *limit* is the maximum amount of allowable kept fish within the size restrictions… but it doesnt emphasize that many of us wont keep a limit 99% of the time… and often have catches 5 times the daily limit in a single outing in *prime seasons* which all the fish are released. The facts are, *limits* are now strictly set in this state to protect. maintain, and improve the fish population. There is lots of hard data and regulations that have set the limits the way they are… With that being said, does it really make a difference if a person is going to HARVEST a *limit* if they are using one line or 3? I want another line to be more EFFICIENT on the catching of fish for my time on the water when the fishing condition allows the use of another line.

The reality of an extra line making such a huge difference in the success rate of fishermen is naive… I see plenty of anglers nearly every day having a really hard time catching one decent fish, let alone a limit on 2 lines ice fishing

As for the others speaking on the panfish limits and population.. keep in mind that panfish are by far the most targeted species overall, and the harvest rate is phenominal. The limits were lowered for some lakes to try to recover and sustain a decent size quality panfish population, and to further protect other lakes from initial over harvest. Panfish are not only important to fishermen, but they are also important forage fish in all lakes. The limits have to be set on an average for the resource to be able to sustain itself.

Great Topic and Debate boys!

I guess I would be in Favor of 2 lines, but Gary has a point. Limits are established using 1 line with the average fisherman. I for one know I would be more efficient with 2 lines and probably end up catching more fish. I would still keep the same amount I do now (not many). However I feel the average fisherman would keep as many as they could, because of the frequency they fish and catch fish. I feel that there are too many people that still keep everything they can. I know us as a group here that is not the case, but there are still to many people that do. I’m also not saying that they are wrong to do so, as long as they are not breaking the law and they have purchased a license, it is there right to take a limit home. So I agree with Gary, I think harvest would increase and COULD impact the fisheries of SOME of the lakes.

The whole idea makes me uneasy, at first I approved now I don’t. Keep it the same. I don’t like to see my waters put up for experiment. Maybe there is a quick and easy formula for the switch,…either way,..leave it alone. Its just one of those things thats better off unchanged. Its been fine for like 15,000 years,…so let it be.

On the off topic of fish population and size that a few are talking about,…I know its easy to criticize our DNR, based on occurences or situations you’ve seen with your own eyes. Its just not as simple as theres too many fish we need larger limits or similar comments with symetric thoughts. Its always set up in a manner for good reason. The classifications and studies pertaining to fish and environment biology are much more complex than many believe. Just need to have a bit of faith in an institution that constantly receives negative criticism, only to reply with the correct diagnosis of very controversial situations. Those DNR boys know whats up, if they say its alright, I’m behind them.

This one has always caused me to scratch my head and wonder what kind of logic the DNR has in mind. They already let us use two lines through the ice and on border waters. Unless there is something different about these two situations that makes two lines no more harmful to the fishery, what could possibly be wrong with taking this idea to its logical conclusion and allowing two lines all the time everywhere? Besides, several of you have already made the very valid point that limits are in place specifically for the purpose of pulling in the reigns on harvestation. I can understand that an extra line might get you to a limit a little faster sometimes, and that may be the DNR’s best argument against it, but even they are the first to admit that the vast majority of anglers don’t take a limit on any given outing. Is one more line in the water going to make that much difference. I think any of us who have any experience on the water would say a definite “no” to that one. So again, where’s the logic? As long as I’m on a semi-rant, this seems to me another pointless rule, along with unattended lines and how to define what is a line based on treble hooks, stingers, etc. The COs have plenty to do since they are so understaffed. Why not concentrate on people breaking laws that actually have an impact? I’m all for two lines…heck, why not three or four if it increases your fishing enjoyment. Although we all know the law of diminshing returns kicks in rather soon in this case.

This is my observation as to why I’m against it. Because I use to be fully for it…….

Jigging, rigging, even slip-bobbering is “ok” in my book. 95% of the people I see “trying to jig or rig with 2 rods do worse than those with just one pole, because they “loose focus”.

However, I look at trolling.
When you troll open water for walleyes or muskies, or trolling Lake Pepin for walleyes, lure choice is “critical” to putting fish in the boat.

When I troll the Miss or Pepin, my buddy and I will run 4 different colored Shad Raps, until the fish tell me what they want. Then, all four lines have that color and it becomes a busy, successful day of catching fish.

If we were restricted to 1 line each, or if I was out by myself, only running 1 line, my odds have been shot in the toilet. I may spend 2 hours changing up lures, trying to maintain confidence in the area I’m fishing.

Another point in view is if the 4 lines are not producing, we eliminated that water very, very fast. Much faster than running 2 lines…….

Muskie fishing. I LOVE packing 4 guys in the boat to troll Mille Lacs. It turns a potential day, into a fish catching day. No doubt about it. 2 guys running 1 line each slows it down.
But if I have 4 guys in the boat, pulling muskie cranks, I got every basic pattern covered.

Trolling with 1 or 2 lines can be a critical difference of catching a limit or 1-2 fish for walleyes.

In this weeks ODN Joe Fellegy and Gary Roach have seperate articles in regard to the 2 lines debate. Joe is DEAD against it and Roach is all for it. They both make good points for and against. Maybe someone can link them, I don’t know how to do that yet. Adam

My response is an emphatic YES!

Almost every state in the midwest allows the use of two or more lines, so why in typical backwoods Minnesota fashion do we only allow one line? I’ve read no credible reports that support logical reasons for this, or show any emperical evidence that mutliple lines would adversely affect the fisheries. How many of you invite wives or extra friends along that really don’t even fish, just to get four lines in the water legally while trolling Mille Lacs? I always make sure I have at least four licenses in the boat when I troll on the pond. The important thing is that we keep almost no fish. They all go back in to be caught again, except for the occaisional unlucky slot fish who gets to hit the frying pan. When the bite is on in any given water even the average Joe is going to get his limit and then some. There’s a little more to trolling than just dumping as many lines in the water as possible to fish effectively. Two lines does not double the chance for the average angler from my experience.

My take is the DNR set Limits for an angler based on what the fisheries can support – and they have evolved these specifically for certain lakes. I don’t think one or two lines really make a difference. Limits are in place and have been providing better fishing each year. If they dropped the statewide walleye limit to four or five would that be an issue? Doesn’t seem to be for all our surrounding states. My fishing career hinges on determining a pattern quickly and then refining it – additional lines will greatly assist this effort.

I annually catch 1000 walleyes – give or take a few depending on the year. Last year I had fish 3 times and provided 4 additional meals to folks that cannot get out and enjoy the sport the way they used to.

The poll results show a lot on what the majority would prefer.

Its breaks down to 6/1 in favor of 2 lines vs 1, and 1/10 dont really care either way.

That is a significant margin, significant enough if it were in a large scale, it might have an effect on DNR decision making. 80% of anglers is a whole lot of people in minnesota.

i am still on the fence, but i would have to say i if they do go to 2 lines, i would like to see it run like colorado. there with your regular licesence, you are allowed one line. it is an option to purchase a licensence to fish with 2 lines if you pay an additional $10 (i am not sure about the cost but you get the idea). i know peole would be opposed to this, and they hate paying more fees, but lets face it, nature has not evolved to grow money on trees, and it does not pay for us to replace the resorces we use, so we have to! So i dont think complaining about more fees holds water becsue without them, our states fish would be the carp, becsue that is all that would be left. i dont think that extra line would catch alot more fish. i only use one in winter becasue like it was said before, your focus is better on one, and my catch rate is minimal running a second line (if the fish are finiky). so if you want the privlage, pay for it.

Your right, more fees kind of suck.

Having said that, I would gladly pay another $10 for a bonus pole.

Hell, I just paid $10 for a trout stamp that I will never use again this year, so I paid for one day.

I think it would be a win win situation. We get to use two lines and the state gets more money.

Not only that but we all would have to double the amount of gear we have so the retail guys will win.
Not to mention double the bait so the baitshops can get there piece of the pie too.

Bring it on!

I would endorse doubling the license fee or a stamp equivalent to the license fee for the second line ONLY IF the dollars were spent directly to benefit the fishery!

It’s still a bargain the cost of a license to have the opportunity to enjoy the fisheries in Minnesota.

my $.02

ted merdan

Great discussion!

I would say just look at our neighbors in WI. They are allowed more than one rod and they dont seem to have any problems with over-fishing. WI has less lakes than we do here in MN and probably almost as many fishermen.

I think this change to two lines is long overdue. I would be willing to pay a little extra for a bonus rod if that were the case. I hope they just pass it across the board.

Does anyone know if it will be 3 rods in winter or 3 on designated boarder waters?

I’m pretty certain there are no plans to up the Winter or boarder water lines you are allowed to use.
I don’t think we need 3 lines in the Winter.

I am trying to remember which state it was. I believe it was Pennsylvania.. We were allowed to use 10 tip ups.

Could you only imagine lake Millacs if 10 tip ups per angler were allowed? I have little doubt a new map could be made from an airial photograph with every structure on the lake *glowing orange* from the reflection of tip ups.

On inland waters with special regulations already in place i wouldnt mind being able to use two lines. As Pool 2 is all catch and release their are times being able to troll an extra line would be cool, without any adverse effect on the fishery.

It’s getting closer to reality.

http://www.grandrapids-mn.com/heraldreview/index.php?sect_rank=1&story_id=227824

oh boy!

Thanks Pier

Dave Dill and Tom Bakk are both from my old haunts and our paths have crossed a few times. My petition will be zapped to them shortly.

If you find the time, send your thoughts:

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

Sounds like most of the posters here are not keeping many fish. I wonder how many of you are targeting trophies and as such are you trolling? I wonder if this bill would get more momentum and actually have a chance of passing if it were revised to allow trolling with two lines, not live bait fishing with two lines. IMHO trollers are often catch and release fisherman primarily but I could be wrong.

We will catch more fish with 2 lines, we will damage more fish with two lines. 2 lines will contribute to the degradation of the fishery!
We don’t need two lines for inland fishing.
If your looking for change then BAN LEAD!!

Quote:

---

We will catch more fish with 2 lines, we will damage more fish with two lines. 2 lines will contribute to the degradation of the fishery!

---

So let me see if I got this straight. 2 lines degrade the fishery, 1 line does not? We have limits. If you are catching a limit of fish, it probably doesn’t matter if you have one line or 2.

It’s been said time and time again, two lines are just going to make a bad fisherman twice as bad. I don’t think it’s going to double your chances it’s just going to double your investment. I’m really surprised they haven’t tried to add another licence fee, like a 2nd rod stamp. If that were the case it would have passed years ago. Even if they did I’d gladly buy it. I don’t fish any less in MN, but I really enjoy Wis and the border water because I can.

Spug a lot of people that fish with 2 lines do not pay attention to that 2nd line as much, so I think that the fish might have more time to swallow the bait therein sustaining a life threatening injury, when the hook is removed. So I am concerned that more fish will get their guts ripped out as to the numbers of fish caught or limits taken with 2 lines.
Never waste a good fish.

That’s why you make a rule that says only one line can use bait and the other has to be a lure. Or you kill a fish and it becomes part of your limit. Require barbless hooks when fishing two lines. If the action ever gets crazy and you keep getting doubles, 2 lines becomes more of a hassle than anything else. Make it only legal for certain species and/or certain types of fishing.

Other states do it and their fisheries seem to be just fine.

And it’s MPLSpug…

I am simply amazed this is still being debated. Then to read the comments of a former conservation officer to say the fisheries will suffer from two lines. Please, someone with some common sense please run for election!! Wipe out the whole bunch of tree hugging liberals this state has running/managing our resources.

ND, SD and WI all allow more than 1 line, yet their fisheries are as strong as ever. We know more today about managing a fishery than we ever have. How do fisheries in these states survive over-harvest with two and three lines per angler?? It’s called management, god forbid they attempted it here in the land of the liberal.

Kooty, I like the way you think.