Two Lines Back at the Capital in St Paul

Short Description:
Two lines for angling to take fish with second-line endorsement authorization ($5.00)
With half of the fee to go to walleye stocking.

Senate Bill SF 2010 Authors: Ingebrigtsen ; Gazelka ; Bakk ; Tomassoni ; Lang

House Bill HF 2275 Author: Nornes

If you’re against the use of a two line endorsement in MN, contact the above.

If you are for the two line endorsement contact all the rest of the senate and house members.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/bill.php?f=SF2010&y=2017&ssn=0&b=senate

All for that one

I’m sure I will regret this but why so cheap? I think most would pay $10-15 easily, for a second line lic. in MN.

mark-bruzek wrote:

I’m sure I will regret this but why so cheap? I think most would pay $10-15 easily, for a second line lic. in MN.

They don’t need it because of the license increase? LOL!

I’m all for keeping the prices down but adding a line isn’t like a person can’t go fishing at all. I was surprised to. Guess I can always pay in an extra $5 since I have it.

Personally Id pay atleast dbl the license, $23 for an extra line. More money to manage fish.

The authors seem relatively Bi-partisan. Should be interesting how the response is from the rest…I am for it. I wonder what Tony Cornish thinks about it. Wish I would have seen this sooner, I would have asked him when I ran into him at the gas station this morning!

From what I gather the loudest anti noise makers were the Walleye people (some guides) that felt the people that fished Mille Lac with leech and bobber would gut hook too many fish “because they don’t watch close enough”. This would lead to fish mortality. Wish I had the means to record that meeting.

The part about using the funds for walleye stocking is brilliant.

TWO LINES BACK AT THE CAPITAL IN ST PAUL

Has there been a bill for allowing two lines before?

Oh gee, every other state in the union allows multiple lines..you can only keep so many fish..I’m sure once the price gets right they’ll pass it..bunch a crooks.

mark-bruzek wrote:

I’m sure I will regret this but why so cheap? I think most would pay $10-15 easily, for a second line lic. in MN.

my guess would be to keep in line with the spearing licence, walleye stamp etc.

personally i think its bs to pay more for that endorsement so to speak. not sure i’d use 2 lines in the summer.

fishmantim wrote:

I’m sure once the price gets right they’ll pass it..bunch a crooks.

I think I can put words in the DNR’s mouth. They are against 2 lines extra fees or not.

I thought we were arguing about cell phones in cars.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

From what I gather the loudest anti noise makers were the <strong class=”ido-tag-strong”>Walleye people (some guides) that felt the people that fished Mille Lac with leech and bobber would gut hook too many fish “because they don’t watch close enough”. This would lead to fish mortality. Wish I had the means to record that meeting.

Hypothetically, couldn’t they put special regualations in place to allow only one line on Mille Lacs?

I’m all for it!!

The only thing that scares me about this is that it’s intention could be a “poison pill” to nix anything else attached to it in an omnibus bill (increased fees) and by default the whole thing gets scrapped. Just like the last time we had 2 lines passed….

Francis K wrote:

Hypothetically, couldn’t they put special regualations in place to allow only one line on Mille Lacs?

Im guessing that is what this would turn into, more regulations to follow for different body of water.

dtro wrote:

I’m all for it!!

The only thing that scares me about this is that it’s intention could be a “poison pill” to nix anything else attached to it in an omnibus bill (increased fees) and by default the whole thing gets scrapped. Just like the last time we had 2 lines passed….

there should be a law passed other subject matters should not be attached to other bills…….. pass things on each owns merits!!!!!!

Since the DNR appears to have a very good handle on their hooking mortality estimates, what’s stopping them from estimating what the additional hooking mortality on a lake such as Mille Lacs would be from an additional line?

From there they could determine the survival rate of Walleye fry to reproductive age, then use those two numbers to determine how many fry are needed to replenish the lake from said additional hooking mortality and charge accordingly?

Seems to me there are some special interest groups with VERY DEEP pockets that will keep this from going through. Much like why we will probably never see the gill netting season change until after the walleye spawn…

Why don’t they just require barbless hooks on mille lacs if there worried about hook mortality?

mark-bruzek wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Francis K wrote:</div>

Hypothetically, couldn’t they put special regualations in place to allow only one line on Mille Lacs?

Im guessing that is what this would turn into, more regulations to follow for different body of water.

I agree. That could make the regs book even more of a cluster eff.

Justin Schneider (Woods & Water Insurance) wrote:

Since the DNR appears to have a very good handle on their hooking mortality estimates, what’s stopping them from estimating what the additional hooking mortality on a lake such as Mille Lacs would be from an additional line?

From there they could determine the survival rate of Walleye fry to reproductive age, then use those two numbers to determine how many fry are needed to replenish the lake from said additional hooking mortality and charge accordingly?

Seems to me there are some special interest groups with VERY DEEP pockets that will keep this from going through. Much like why we will probably never see the gill netting season change until after the walleye spawn…

The DNR should know down to the fish!

I think it is only $5 so they can make up the difference on poaching fines.

glenn57 wrote:

there should be a law passed other subject matters should not be attached to other bills…….. pass things on each owns merits!!!!!!

I wish they would. “Clean Water Act”

I wonder, if you are under 16 and don’t need a license to fish. Would you have to pay $5 for an extra line or would it not be allowed? Talk about the mortality rate going up with young kids.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

…the people that fished Mille Lac with leech and bobber would gut hook too many fish “because they don’t watch close enough”.

If they aren’t watching very close, then they probably aren’t fishing hard anyway. The ability to use multiple lines manages itself. If the action is fast and hot, they’ll be putting the second line away.

If they offer the second line fee at a cheaper rate, why not skip buying the first and just get the second?

I guess I’d have to buy another pole…

mplspug wrote:

If they offer the second line fee at a cheaper rate, why not skip buying the first and just get the second?

You and Costello have a lot in common.

Greg Krull wrote:

I guess I’d have to buy another pole…

Don’t be in too big of a hurry.

If I can buy a second line, I wonder if that will buy my 3rd line on the MN side of the border waters.

biggill wrote:

You and Costello have a lot in common.

Man I loved watching them when I was a kid (reruns/syndication). I’ll take them over the Stooges, The Marx and Laurel and Hardy.

mark-bruzek wrote:

I’m sure I will regret this but why so cheap? I think most would pay $10-15 easily, for a second line lic. in MN.

I don’t think you’re going far enough, actually. Why not 2X the license cost?

Oh, and non-residents should be limited to one line.

Grouse

I can only afford one rod due to the 300 cent license fee increase.

I love co-mingleing threads, like a hybrid.